His Love; His Gift; His Son (C H Spurgeon)

His Love; His Gift; His Son

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Of all the stars in the sky, the polestar is the most useful to the mariner. This text is a polestar, for it has guided more souls to salvation than any other Scripture. It is among promises what the Great Bear is among constellations.

Several words in it shine with peculiar brilliance. Here we have God’s love with a “so” to it, which marks its measureless greatness. Then we have God’s gift in all its freeness and greatness. This also is God’s Son, that unique and priceless gift of a love which could never fully show itself till heaven’s Only-begotten had been sent to live and die for men. These three points are full of light.

Then there is the simple requirement of believing, which graciously points to a way of salvation suitable for guilty men. This is backed by a wide description—”whosoever believeth in him.” Many have found room in “whosoever” who would have felt themselves shut out by a narrower word. Then comes the great promise, that believers in Jesus shall not perish but have everlasting life. This is cheering to every man who feels that he is ready to perish and that he cannot save himself. We believe in the Lord Jesus, and we have eternal life.

Do You Realize How Valuable You Are? (Derek Prince)

Dear Friend
For more than fifty years, I have tried to help people with innumerable different problems
in their lives. Eventually, I have come to a surprising conclusion: our basic problem as
human beings is that we do not realise how valuable we are.
Consequently, we make the most tragic mistakes. We are like a person who is legally
heir to a vast fortune, but we sell off our entire inheritance for something incomparably
less valuable: a night of sex, a joint of marijuana, a drunken party, a crooked financial
scheme.

Or we may value ourselves a little higher, perhaps seeking some prestigious position
in politics or the entertainment world, or even some high ecclesiastical office. Yet for all
its prestige, it does not compare with the value of our inheritance – which we give in
exchange for it.

If we are to appreciate our real value as human beings, we must consider the unique
and wonderful way in which Adam – the ancestor of our race – was created.
The Miracle of Adam’s Creation

In John 1:1-2 we discover that the actual agent in creation was not God the Father, but
the divine Word, who was with God from eternity – the Person who was later manifested
in human history as Jesus of Nazareth: “All things were made through Him [the Word],
and without Him nothing was made that was made.”

Creation, as a whole, was brought about by the spoken word of God: “By faith we
understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.” 1 “For He spoke and it was
done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” 2 But the creation of Adam, as described in
Genesis 2:7, was uniquely different: “And the Lord God formed [moulded] man of the
dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living being [literally, a living soul].”

Picture the scene! The Lord kneeled down, took dust in His hands, mixed it with water
and moulded it into the body of a man. So there it was – the most perfect piece of sculpture
ever fashioned – more perfect than any masterpiece of Michelangelo. But it was lifeless!

Then something marvellous happened. The Creator leaned forward, put His divine lips
against the lips of clay, His divine nostrils against the nostrils of clay and breathed into
them. His breath penetrated the form of clay, and transformed it into a living human
being with every organ of its body functioning perfectly, and with all the marvellous

spiritual, intellectual and emotional responses of which a human being is capable. No
other being has ever been created in such a way.

The words used to describe this miracle are particularly vivid. Hebrew is one of those
languages in which the sound of certain words is directly related to the action which
they describe. The sound of the Hebrew word translated breathed can be rendered
yipakh. It consists of a tiny internal “explosion,” followed by a forceful, on-going release
of air from the throat. Thus it vividly represents the action which it describes. As the
Lord stooped down over those lips and nostrils of clay, He did not let out a languid sigh
– He forcefully breathed Himself into that body of clay, which thus received a miraculous
impartation of the very life of God!

Immediately, man became a triune being, composed of spirit, soul and body. The spirit
came from the inbreathed breath of God; his body was clay, transformed into living,
pulsating flesh; his soul, produced by the uniting of spirit and body, became a unique,
individual personality, capable of making decisions – I will or I will not.

Together with his God-given mate, Adam was appointed to rule the earth as God’s
representative. The triunity of his inner nature represented the likeness of the triune
God. His outward form mirrored the image of the Lord who created him. 3 Both in his
inward nature and his outward form, he uniquely represented God to the rest of earth’s
creatures.

Furthermore, Adam and Eve enjoyed regular personal fellowship with the Lord. At the
close of each day He came to spend time with them. 4 Who knows what revelations of
Himself He shared with them? We do know, however, that God granted Adam the privilege
of choosing names for all the other living creatures. 5

The greatest tragedy of human history followed. Tricked by Satan, Adam and Eve traded
their God-given inheritance for a piece of fruit! This disobedience affected every part
of Adam’s triune nature. His spirit – cut off from God – died. In his soul he became a
rebel henceforth at war with his Creator. His body became subject to sickness, ageing
and, ultimately, death.

God had warned Adam concerning the tree of knowledge, “In the day that you eat of it
you shall surely die.” 6 It was Adam’s spirit that died instantly; his body did not die for
more than 900 years.

The Miracle of Christ’s Redemption

Adam’s disobedience was terrible in its consequences, yet it brought to light an aspect
of God’s nature that would otherwise never have been fully revealed: the unfathomable
depth of His love. God has never given up on Adam and his descendants. He longs to
bring us back to Himself.

This is beautifully expressed in James 4:5 (NAS): “He jealously desires the Spirit which
He has made to dwell in us” – the spirit that was breathed into Adam at his creation.
Incredible though it may seem, God continues to long for the personal fellowship which
He once enjoyed with Adam, but which was broken by Adam’s rebellion – a rebellion

that has been perpetuated in every one of Adam’s descendants.

Furthermore, at infinite cost, God has made a way for us to be restored to Himself. He
sent Jesus “to seek and to save that which was lost.” 7 By His substitutionary sacrifice on
the cross, Jesus has made it possible for each of us to be forgiven and cleansed from sin
and to become members of God’s own family.

In Matthew 13:45-46 Jesus told a parable which – for me, personally – most beautifully
describes the wonder of our redemption: “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant
seeking beautiful pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold
all that he had and bought it.”

For me this depicts the redemption of a human soul. Jesus is the merchant – not a tourist
or a sightseer – but a man who has dealt in pearls all his life, and knows the exact value
of every pearl. The pearl that He has purchased is just one human soul – yours or mine.
It cost Him all He had – everything He owned.

Updated to our contemporary culture, I picture to myself the scene when that merchant
broke the news to his wife.
“Honey, I’ve sold our car.”
“You sold our car! Well, at least we still have a roof over our heads.”
“No, I sold our house, too!”
“Whatever made you do all that?”
“I found the most beautiful pearl I’ve ever seen. I’ve been looking all my life for
such a pearl. It cost me everything I had – wait till you see it!”

So what does this mean to you and me? Each of us may picture ourselves as that one
priceless pearl.

Remember, it cost Jesus everything He had to buy you back to Himself. Though He was
Lord of the entire universe, He laid it all aside and died in absolute poverty. He owned
nothing. The robe and the tomb in which He was buried were both borrowed. “Though
He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become
rich.” 8

Perhaps you have never seen yourself as important. You have a poor self-image. You
may look back on a life of pain and disappointment: a deprived and unhappy childhood,
a marriage that ended in divorce, or a career that never materialised, or years wasted
on drugs and alcohol. Your past and your future both convey the same message: FAILURE!
Not to Jesus! He loved you so much that He gave up everything to redeem you for Himself.
Repeat the beautiful words of the Apostle Paul, make them your own: “He loved me and
gave Himself for me.” Say it again, “He loved me and gave Himself for me.” And again, “He
loved me and gave Himself for me.” 9

Now see yourself as that pearl held in the nail-scarred hand of Jesus. Hear Him saying to
you, “You’re so beautiful! You cost Me everything I had, but I don’t regret it. Now you’re
Mine forever!”

You cannot do anything to earn this. You can never change yourself or make yourself
good. All that you can do is to accept what Jesus has done for you and thank Him!
You belong to Him forever!

Yours in the Master’s service

Derek Prince

1 Hebrews 11:3
2 Psalm 33:9
3 Genesis 1:26-27
4 Genesis 3:8
5 Genesis 2:19
6 Genesis 2:17
7 Luke 19:10
8 2 Corinthians 8:9
9 Galatians 2:20

Getting Along with People (Andrew Wommack)

Did you know that the greatest commandments of all are not part of the Ten Commandments? In fact, all of the commandments and laws are an outgrowth of just two. Jesus said this in answer to the lawyer’s question in Matthew 22:36-40.

“Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Many of us are praying for healing, deliverance, and prosperity. We want joy, peace, and happiness in our homes. We want better relationships with family and friends, especially during the Christmas season. However, the answer to seeing these needs and desires met is all wrapped up in receiving God’s love and then walking in that love toward others.

In September I wrote to you about God’s love toward you in the article, “Look Who Jesus Loves.” Once you understand just how much He loves you, it’s not hard to love Him with all your heart, soul, and mind and to love others as yourself. Yet, many claim to love God and still don’t walk in love toward others.

1 John 4:19-21 says,

“We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.”

That is a strong, strong passage of Scripture. Most of us want to interpret that some other way to take the bite out of it, but I just can’t see any way around this. If someone says they love God but harbor hate and resentment toward others, they are lying. We need to understand that this is the truth and begin to allow God’s love to flow through us to others, including those we don’t like and those who have hurt us.

In James 2:8 it is called the Royal Law:

“If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well.”

This means that it is the highest of all the laws, which is the same point that Jesus made in Matthew 22. The greatest thing any of us can do is to love God and to love people. That is the number one thing that God has given us to do. Until this becomes the focus of our lives, we are not going to benefit from His love working in us, and we will give Satan a tremendous inroad.

The Bible says that offenses will come. If you live on this earth among people, someone is going to rub you the wrong way sooner or later. And, according to 2 Timothy 3:12, just because you are a Christian and identify with Jesus, some are going to hate you:

“Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”

Most of the problems we have with people are the result of envy and strife. It might be our fault, their fault, or both, but strife is still the result. James 3:16 states:

“For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.”

People often think of jealousy and envy as the same thing, but they are not. Jealousy desires what someone else has. But envy, according to the dictionary, is not just jealousy. It is jealousy with malice, with intent to hurt or bring another person down. Envy means you are bitter and angry; strife is when you vent that bitterness and anger.

James continues by saying that with those two things come confusion and every evil work. If God is not the author of confusion that means Satan is. So you could say that where envy and strife are found, you will also find Satan and all his evil works. Not some, but every evil work.

So, how do you deal with strife or other problems in relationships? First, evaluate the source. It is always one of four: It could be your fault, the other person’s fault, or both of you may be at fault. The fourth source occurs less often and is not the result of strife: God may want you to end a relationship that is hindering your future.

Most people do not want to accept personal responsibility. It’s much easier just to point a finger at someone else. The danger with this is that you can develop a victim mentality. You begin to believe that the reason you act the way you do is because of what other people have done to you. You don’t believe it is ever your fault. Always begin by looking at yourself first.

Often the problem is only in your mind and doesn’t actually exist. It is the result of judging the motives behind the actions of others. You jump to conclusions and take offense based on speculations. One of the qualifications of a minister is that he is sober minded. That means he is void of speculative imaginations. By assuming people’s motives are good, most offenses will never develop.

There is a time and place to discern and judge the motives of others, but it must be done properly. I don’t have the space in this letter to teach on this, so I recommend you get my new series, God’s Kind of Love Through You, which discusses speculative imaginations and godly judgment.

But, what if it’s the other person’s fault? No matter what they have done, you have a choice in your response. You have 100 percent authority over yourself. You can start walking in love toward another person anytime you decide to. Paul said, “I die daily.” And, in 2 Corinthians 4:17, he stated:

“For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.”

I won’t list them here, but Paul’s light afflictions weren’t exactly light. They were just light in comparison to the glory he would experience in eternity. If we compared all the hurtful things people have done to us to what Jesus suffered for our sake, our suffering becomes insignificant. It’s all a matter of perspective; Paul understood that.

Most of the time broken relationships are the fault of both the people involved. That is especially true in marriage. No man has ever loved his wife the way Christ loves the church, and no woman has ever honored her husband the way the church is to honor God. The key to resolving problems in all relationships begins with forgiveness.

“Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.” (Matt. 18:21-22)

“Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.” (Luke 17:3-4)

No one is going to sin against you 490 times in one day! What Jesus is saying is that if a person humbles himself and asks for forgiveness, then forgive him. Forgiveness is the most powerful weapon of all in ending strife and restoring relationships.

If this does not resolve the problem, God has a plan in His Word to help you. Again, I do not have space here to teach on this subject, but it is very important that you know what to do next. In my series, God’s Kind of Love Through You, one of the messages is titled, “Dealing with Offenses When All Else Fails.” In it, I talk about confronting the person with two or three witnesses present, taking the issue before the church, and turning someone over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh and the salvation of their soul.

In some instances, it might actually be God causing a relationship to break up. There are some relationships that God just doesn’t want you to have. For example, He doesn’t want you to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. He also doesn’t want you to have relationships that might keep you from your destiny. However, this should not be misused as an excuse to end a relationship because you’re unhappy.

Does Sickness Glorify God? (Troy J. Edwards)

Does Sickness Glorify God?

By Troy J. Edwards

Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. -John 11:3, 4

Taken out of it’s contextual setting, this Scripture would appear to teach that God gets glory out of the sickness of others. So many have used this passage irresponsibly. However, a careful study of this passage proves that it is not so much the sickness that brought Jesus the glory, but it was what Jesus did concerning the sickness that glorified Him.

Of course someone may believe that I am incorrect in my assumption. They may say, “But Troy, the passage plainly says that this sickness is for the glory of God that He may be glorified. It does not say anything about the end result.” It also says (if we keep it in context), “This sickness is not unto death…” Yet, several passages later, Jesus tells His disciples, ” Lazarus is dead.” (John 11:14). If He had done this in our day, the Lord would be accused of being a liar and a false prophet. He would be denounced on many of the present day “apologists'” radio shows and internet webpages.

What did Jesus mean here? He simply meant that Lazarus was saved and was not dead as in eternally separate from God. Jesus said that Lazarus was asleep (John 11:11). This is the same description given of every believer whose spirit has left their physical body to be with Jesus (1 Cor. 11:30; 15:6; 1 Thess. 4:13, 14). Therefore, we know that He did not lie. Yet, today’s critics would not bother to take the time to see exactly what Jesus is saying. On the contrary they would have attempted to destroy His public ministry.

Even in Jesus’ day, He had His fair share of critics, “And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?” (John 11:37) Aaaah the critics. Jesus had to deal with them even in His day. Should not His present day followers expect the same treatment? Surely the servant is not above His master.

Therefore, I believe that I am quite justified in saying that the context of this passage proves that the end result of the sickness, or how Jesus demonstrated His authority even over death, is what brought God the glory. The fact that Lazarus was sick is not what brought God glory. It was what Jesus had done about it the sickness that glorified Him as we read the context of this passage.

In case anyone thinks otherwise please read John 11:37 again and see that the dead Lazarus was bringing Jesus criticism rather than glory. Those who insist that Jesus taught that the sickness was to the glory of God must also keep it in context by saying that the sickness was not unto death. Using this method of interpretation then a person would be accused of calling Christ a liar since Lazarus actually died. Yet, we know that if we read the whole chapter and other Bible passages, our Lord is vindicated from this horrendous accusation.

The fact that Lazarus was raised from the dead is what gave glory to God and not the sickness itself can be confirmed as we read further:

Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. – John 11:40-45

Jesus asked, “Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?” Believe what? Believe what He said about Himself being the resurrection and the life? Jesus did not want them to see this as just some future event but He wanted them to take note that resurrection and life was available NOW!!! By placing their faith in this they would see the glory of God.

In verse 45 we are told that the Jews believed on Jesus. What caused the Jews to believe on Jesus? Was it the sickness and/or the death itself? No. The the fact that the sickness was not healed caused some to criticize the Lord (John 11:37). It caused Martha to limit the power of God when she said, “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died” (John 11:32). It caused the Jews to weep and cry instead of rejoicing that their Savior was there in the midst of them. This caused the Lord Himself to groan (John 11:33). I do not believe that the sickness and subsequent death brought Jesus any glory.

Nevertheless, the sickness was for the glory of God in this manner: it was an opportunity to demonstrate the power of God over sickness, disease and death itself. The sickness and death brought doubt, sadness, criticism, and grieving. Yet, when Jesus demonstrated resurrection power, this in turn caused many of the Jews to believe on Him. The demonstration of the power of God brought Jesus glory. This same resurrection power is still available to give life to your mortal body:

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. – Rom. 8:11

Your healing is what brings glory to God. Resurrection power is available to you by faith to give life to your mortal body. What Jesus asked the sisters of Lazarus, He asks every sick person today, “Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?” His resurrection power, that same power that raise Lazarus from the dead, that same power the raised our Lord from His grave, is available to those who will simply believe.

Martha did have enough faith to know that the Lord always received that which He prayed for, “But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.” (John 11:22). It was the answer to Jesus prayer for Lazarus resurrection that gave God the glory due to Him. Answered prayer glorifies God:

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. -John 14:13-14

If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. – John 15:7-8

The New Testament: An Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest translates John 15:7-8 this way: “If you maintain a living communion with me and my words are at home in you, I command you to ask, at once, something for yourself, whatever your heart desires, and it will become yours. In this my Father is glorified, namely that you are bearing much fruit.”

You see, if we are having communion with God and His words are in us we will not ask for something that does not bring God any glory. Certain prayer requests for ourselves are not considered by God to be selfish and self centered. On the contrary, answered prayer brings glory to God. The Word of God has enough promises that gives us the surety that it is always God’s will to heal our bodies as well as our spirit and soul. To ask for healing and receive it brings glory to the Lord.

God gets glory as we pray in line with His Word and His promises. Not once has God ever denied a request that was presented to Him in conjunction with His revealed will. He says, “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.” (2 Cor. 1:20). It would not bring God glory to deny a request when there is a clear promise for it in His Word.

Do not let unbelieving critics and Christian skeptics cheat you out of the blessings that God has clearly promised you. Healing is a promise from God. The Bible tells us “And the prayer offered in faith shall make the sick person well, and the Lord shall raise him up.” (James 5:15; The New Testament: An Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest). There is no spiritualizing this passage. It is a clear cut promise of healing when conditions are met.

The Blind Man In John 9

John 9:1-3 is also used by some to teach that God gets glory out of our sicknesses. They also use this to teach that sickness is not necessarily the cause of sin. I agree with them wholeheartedly on the latter while disagreeing with them strongly on the former. Thank God for passages such as this one and the book of Job which teaches us that the rotten things in life that may come upon a Christian does not necessarily mean that he or she has sinned.

Yet, I cannot agree with my brethren that this passage teaches us that God sovereignly chooses some to suffer sickness for His glory. Let us read this passage:

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. -John 9:1-4

It is unfortunate but true that so many stop reading right there. This along with John 11:3-4 are the proof texts used by some to teach that God gets glory from the person’s sickness. Just as we have shown the reader that John 11 does not teach this false doctrine, but in fact, teaches that God received the glory from Lazarus’s resurrection, the same truth applies here.

God did not sovereignly choose this man to be sick. So many have interpreted this passage to teach that the man was born blind as a result of “divine providence.” Due to the “period” placed after verse three in John chapter 9, this passage may seem to make a wonderful proof text to those who advocate sickness as a blessing from God.

However, every Bible student knows that the New Testament was not originally written in the English language. The English language was not in existence during the period that the New Testament was being written as the Spirit of God inspired the men who wrote it.

The controversial Open View Theologian, Pastor Gregory Boyd gives some wonderful insights into this passage:

the verse should not be interpreted as suggesting that God’s will is behind this man’s blindness in the first place, and this is my third point. The original verse does not say that “he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed.” The Greek simply has hina with the aorist subjunctive passive of phaneroo (“to manifest”) and can readily be translated as, “But let the works of God be manifested.” As is certainly the case in Mark 5:23, Ephesians 5:33,2 Corinthians 8:7; as is likely the case in Mark 2:10, 5:12, 10:51 and a host of other passages; and as is frequently the case in the Septuagint and later postapostolic writings, the hina here should be taken as forming an imperative, not a purposive, clause.

In this light, Jesus is simply saying that, in contrast to the misguided moralistic speculations of the disciples, the only thing that matters concerning this man’s blindness is that God can overcome it and thus be glorified through it. In the satanically ruled world in which he and his disciples ministered, and in which we ourselves still live, there is no discernible particular reason why this man was born blind. The disciples’ questions, like the many assertions of Job’s “friends,” were based on the false assumption that God is behind all things, and thus that there must be a good reason for such things as blindness and the demonic torturing of a little girl-punishing sin, building character or glorifying God, for example.

In this reading, however, Jesus is simply refuting (not modifying) this assumption. He is, in effect, saying that the only response to this man’s sorry condition is, “Let the works of God be manifested!” This obviously has monumental theological implications. [1]

To further drive his point home, Dr. Boyd references another scholar of the Greek languages named Nigel Turner. Turner’s remarks are well worth quoting here:

The hypothesis of the imperatival hina … releases the text from the fatalism which had obsessed it, and dissolves the picture which had become familiar through all our English versions, a man destined from birth to suffer for the sole purpose of glorifying God when he was healed.[2]

We can further add to the scholarship previously referenced that the Greek texts contain no punctuation so translators had to place them where they felt would be the proper place in the sentences. George Ricker Berry, in his introduction in the The Interlinear KJV Bible says this:

There is no authority anywhere for the punctuation. There are few or no points in the ancient copies, and editors naturally differ in their system of pointing. We have been obliged to punctuate for ourselves as we judged best.[3]

A.S. Worrell makes a similar observation in his translation of the New Testament:

It should be understood by the reader that the division of the different books of the New Testament into chapters and verses was the work of men; and it must be confessed, with deep regret, that the work, as a whole, was very poorly done; a chapter sometimes ending where perhaps a semicolon or even a comma should have been used; and a verse often ending where the slightest division was required. Such errors tend to obscure the sense.[4]

Though, I personally appreciate the division of the Bible into chapters and verse for the fact that it is easier to reference, Dr. Worrell has made an interesting observation that can be applied to John 9:3 and 4. If we removed the period from the end of verse three, and replaced it with a comma or semicolon, and if we had not divided these two verses, we would have a better understanding of this text that is consistent with the rest of Scripture.

Gordon Lindsay, founder of the Christ For The Nations Bible Institute made this statement in volume 3 of his series of books, The Life And Teachings of Christ:

There is no punctuation in the original Greek and the sentence could be punctuated as follows: “Neither did this man sin, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him, I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh when no man can work.”[5]

Further in his book, Gordon Lindsay makes it clear that he does not claim to have the correct punctuation. Nevertheless, he does present another alternative that the majority of English translations do not provide. One of the few that do offer this alternative is Robert Young’s Literal translation of the Bible:

Jesus answered, `Neither did this one sin nor his parents, but that the works of God may be manifested in him; it behoveth me to be working the works of Him who sent me while it is day; night doth come, when no one is able to work: — when I am in the world, I am a light of the world.’ -John 9:3-5; Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible

Notice that Young places a semicolon where most other translations use a period. According to the Webster’s dictionary, a semicolon is used to indicate, “a degree of separation greater than that marked by the comma and less than that marked by the period.” It is also used “…to separate closely related clauses.”[6]

It seems to me that Dr. Young did not not see the man’s blindness as the “providence of God” or “for the Glory of God.” We should not read this man’s blindness as “divine providence” but rather as DIVINE OPPORTUNITY!!! If we read the passage carefully in the KJV, we will see that Jesus was not saying that God ensured that this man was born blind so that God could later heal him. What he was saying was that because this man was born blind, this provides a great opportunity to work the works of God. The Contemporary English version makes this distinction clearer:

As Jesus walked along, he saw a man who had been born blind since birth. Jesus’ disciples asked, “Teacher, why was this man born blind? Was it because he or his parents sinned?” “No, it wasn’t!” Jesus answered. “But because of his blindness, you will see God work a miracle for him. As long as it is day, we must do what the one who sent me wants me to do. When night comes, no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” (John 9:1-5; Contemporary English Version)

A controversial paraphrase of the New Testament by Eugene Peterson called “The Message” also brings the thought of divine opportunity rather than divine providence in this case:

Walking down the street, Jesus saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked, “Rabbi, who sinned: this man or his parents, causing him to be born blind?” Jesus said, “You’re asking the wrong question. You’re looking for someone to blame. There is no such cause-effect here. Look instead for what God can do. We need to be energetically at work for the One who sent me here, working while the sun shines. When night falls, the workday is over. For as long as I am in the world, there is plenty of light. I am the world’s Light.” (John 9:1-5; The Message by Eugene Peterson)

Lawrence O. Richards in his Bible Background Commentary illustrates this point well in differentiating between “divine providence” and “divine opportunity:”

What is important here is not the answer Jesus gave – that the blindness was not a punishment for sin at all, but would serve as an occasion to glorify God. What is important is that when the disciples saw suffering – their curiosity rather than their compassion was aroused.

The light that Jesus brings, and in which we are to walk, must radically change our priorities. Solving theological puzzles, and even being “right” in our interpretations of Scripture, should be less important to us than displaying the compassion and concern for others that Jesus’ own actions constantly reveal.[7]

It is tempting to quote more scholarship on this but I believe that this will suffice in making our point. Nevertheless, there are several other teachers and commentators who convey the same thought that I am presenting, which we have placed in our footnotes for further study[8].

As we read further along in the chapter we will see again that it was the healing that brought glory to God, not this man’s sickness. The sickness was an opportunity for the power of God to be demonstrated. Verse 4 in most translations outside of the King James uses the personal pronoun “we” instead of “I” showing us that Jesus wants us to cooperate with Him in this work.

We must do the works of Jesus and even greater than these (John 14:11-13; Mark 16:15-20). We are not to look at others with disdain, concerning ourselves with the cause of their sin. If sin be the cause of their predicament, let us minister God’s forgiveness as well as healing (James 5:14-16). However, let’s not condemn them. If we truly want God to be glorified, we must do the same works that Jesus did and healing the sick is one of them (Matt. 10:1-8; Luke 9:1-3).

However, in our ministering, it is equally wrong to say that God is punishing someone for their sins by sickness as well as to tell someone that God has placed sickness on them to glorify His name. This has a tendency to cause some to become bitter with God. We must simply proclaim the promises of God concerning restoration and deliverance from sin and sickness.

Scriptural Proof That Healing Glorifies God

I want to present to the reader several Scriptures that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is divine healing, not sickness itself, that brings glory to God. I will not expound very much on these passages since I have already done so in my book, Divine Healing Guaranteed[9]

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house. And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God. And they were all amazed, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things to day. -Luke 5:24-26

And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him. -Luke 13:12-17

And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging: And hearing the multitude pass by, he asked what it meant. And they told him, that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by. And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me. And they which went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried so much the more, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me. And Jesus stood, and commanded him to be brought unto him: and when he was come near, he asked him, Saying, What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee? And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight. And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee. And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God. -Luke 18:35-43

So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done. For the man was above forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was shewed. -Acts 4:21-22

So far we have seen that the passages used by some to teach that God derives glory from our sicknesses can be refuted when we read the passages within their context and see what they are truly teaching. We have seen that the above passages are clear that the healings wrought in the ministry of Jesus caused the people to glorify God. Finis Dakes made this statement in his study Bible:

Miracles will always bring glory to God; but failure, sickness, and disease will not. It is held today that sickness glorifies God because one has opportunity to witness to souls, but why not look at it in this light – could not the same witnessing be carried on better in a well body? Is it not better, therefore, to think this – that God gets glory in spite of our sicknesses, not because of it? Would God have received the glory for all the healings recorded in the blind, the sick, and the lame had not been healed and the demons cast out? Would He have received glory if Lazarus had remained dead? Definitely not, so what is the source of God’s glory – to remain sick or be healed?[10]

In conclusion, I do not want to seem insensitive to those who are suffering a physical handicap or a sickness of any kind. It is not my intention to hurt anyone or to make them feel that they are any less of a child of God or that they are in sin. The purpose of this essay is to refute and destroy traditional ideas concerning sickness and God’s glory. It is my desire that God’s children always seek the provision that Christ has purchased for the healing of their bodies. Nevertheless, I do not think any less of anyone who, for one reason or another, has not received this provision or do not sense the necessity to do so.

My main objective is to teach the plain truth of God’s Word in these areas, not to belittle others who do not have the same understanding of the Scriptures that I have in these areas. Nevertheless, if one believes that sickness originates from God and is used to glorify Him, one must have something other than out of context Scripture passages and traditional interpretations. Our beliefs must have a solid grounding in the plain truth of Scripture.

As Andrew Murray once said, “Although many sick people may have glorified God by their patience in suffering. He can still be glorified by a health which He has sanctified.”[11]

Notes

  1. Boyd, Gregory A. God At War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997), p. 233

  2. Turner, Nigel Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1965), p. 145. As quoted in Boyd, God At War, pp. 233, 234

  3. Berry, George Ricker The Interlinear KJV: Parallel New Testament In Greek And English (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) p. ii

  4. Worrell, A.S. The Worrell New Testament (Springfield, MS: Gospel Publishing House, 1980), p. v

  5. Lindsay, Gordon The Life & Teachings Of Christ Vol. 3 (Dallas, TX: Christ For The Nations, 1987), p. 46

  6. Webster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary (Macmillan, U.S.A., 1999)

  7. Richards, Lawrence O. The Victor Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1994), p. 241

  8. I did not want to put all of the quotes in the body of this essay nor did I not want to exclude them altogether. I believe that the below quotes will benfit those who desire further research and insight into how others see John 9:1-3:

    1. Simpson, A.B. The Christ In The Bible Commentary Vol. 4 (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1993), On page 454 Simpson says, “What a blessing it would be if we would ever feel that our troubles have been permitted, not that we should sink under them, but that God might have an occasion to show what He can do in our deliverance. He definitely implies that his blindness was not the work of God, but of another hand. The works of God were to be manifested in his healing.”

    2. Dake, Finis Jennings Dakes Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, Inc.), p. 105, note n: “This was not the cause of his blindness but a simple declaration that the works of God were to be manifest regardless of the cause. Jesus answered their question as to whether the man or his parents had sinned. He did not state the cause, but it is certain that God was not the cause. God was the healer and Satan was back of the cause (Mt. 12:22; Acts 10:38; Jn. 10:10; 1 Jn 3:8).”

    3. Guthrie, D.; Motyer, J.A.; Stibbs, A.M.; Wisemen, D.J. The New Bible Commentary: Revised (Carmel, NY: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), p. 949, “But that the works of God might be made manifest in him. This was a possibility which was given little consideration in our Lord’s day. That suffering could be used for God’s glory was a difficult to believe, although it is inherent in the Christian approach to the problem. This miracle, however, is not concerned with the problem. It is aimed to show the illuminating power of Christ, not only in the physical but in the spiritual sphere. Restored sight led to a developing faith.”

    4. May, Herbert G and Metzger, Bruce M. The Oxford Annotated Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 1298, notes on 9.1-41, “Suffering was attributed to sin, either of the parents or of the man prenatally. Jesus denies this and shifts attention from cause to purpose; this is an opportunity for God to act.”

    5. Meeks, Wayne A. The Harper Collins Study Bible (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993), p. 2031, “He was born blind. These words are not actually in the Greek text of Jesus reply. The point seems to be not to find a cause or a purpose for the man’s blindness but to present it as an occasion for doing God’s works of healing (see 4.34; 5.17-21, 36; 10.32-38; 14. 10-12; 17.4)”

    6. Brown, Raymond E. The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), p. 443. Although the commentators believe that the sickness was the divine providence of God, they further state that Jesus, “…does not say that this is the entire explanation, but he does deny that human sinfulness is that explanation.

  1. Edwards, Troy J. Divine Healing: Guaranteed (Providence, RI: Victory Through The Word Ministries). In chapter 7, I expound more on the practical principles found in the Scriptures that show that God is glorified as His healing power is displayed in sick bodies. This book is now free and can be downloaded from the internet.

  2. Dakes, p. 82, note i

  3. Murray, Andrew Divine Healing (Springdale, PA: Whitaker House, 1982), p. 74

Does God Have Faith? (Joe McIntyre)

Does God Have Faith?

Joe McIntyre

One controversial aspect of the modern Faith movement is the idea that we can exercise the “God-kind of faith.” This phrase is taken from Mark 11:22 in which Jesus says, “have faith in God.” Many scholars tell us that it literally means, “have the faith of God.” Many Faith Teachers have said that we are to have, therefore, the “God-kind of faith.” This would be the kind of faith that Jesus exercised when He commanded the fig tree to wither up from the roots and it did. (See Mk. 11:12-14; 20-23).

In the parallel passage in Matthew’s gospel, Jesus says, “Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea’ it will be done”(Mt. 21:21). In the context, Jesus is discussing the cursing of the fig tree and the disciple’s ability to duplicate Jesus’ behavior. He assures them that they can even command a mountain to be removed and cast into the sea. He describes this ability as “faith in God” or “the faith of God’ depending on which reading of the original Greek we deem correct.

In a respected commentary on Mark’s gospel, Joseph Addison Alexander mentions that in Jesus’ teaching the disciples about faith, He found it necessary to address their failures. “For such deficiency of faith, i.e., of confidence in the divine power to effect such changes, or at least in the divine grant to themselves of a derivative authority to do the same. Have (more emphatic than in English, and denoting rather to retain or hold fast) faith in God, literally, of God, a Greek idiom, in which the genitive denotes the object, and which has sometimes been retained in the translation as it is here in the margin of the English Bible.” (The Gospel According to Mark, Thornapple Commentaries, Joseph Addison Alexander, p. 310).

Many who have been critical of this idea of ‘having the faith of God’ rightly point out that God is the object of our faith and the primary meaning of the Greek word for faith is trust in something or someone. “So,” they reason, “faith isn’t something God has, it’s something we have in God.”

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon gives as its first meaning for pistis (the Greek word for faith) “conviction of the truth of anything, belief; In the N. T. of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust… when it relates to God, pistis is the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ.”

Thayer’s definition expresses what most people mean when they say that faith is something that we have toward God, not something that God has or exercises. Most Christians would be in agreement that this is the primary meaning of the concept of faith and the Greek word pistis.

But is this the only valid usage of the word in the New Testament? Does pistis ever have another meaning in the Scripture which is related but not identical? Let’s investigate a little further.

In the exercise of faith that Jesus was teaching about in Mark 11, it was not only faith toward God that He was advocating. Based on a living faith in God, Jesus was saying to his disciples that they needed to also exercise faith in the word of command. They were to speak to an obstacle (a fig tree or a mountain) and command something to happen to that obstacle. Jesus said “if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, ‘be removed and be cast into the sea’, it will be done.”(Mt. 21:21).

In the parallel passage in Mark it says, “whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes [pisteuo– verb form of pistis] that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says.”

The exercise of faith in this passage is not only faith toward God, but the word faith is used in a secondary sense, faith in the words that are commanded. “if you believe those things you say, you will have whatever you say.”

Jesus again expresses this same idea in Luke’s gospel. “If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be pulled up by the roots and be planted in the sea’ and it would obey you”(Lk.17:6). Jesus is talking about releasing faith, not in God as the object of our faith, but in the words that we speak. Certainly this presupposes that we have faith in God and are moving in obedience to the Holy Spirit. It is our faith in God that emboldens us to exercise this faith in our words.

My point is that the word faith, though primarily used in Scripture to describe our trust toward God, is also used to describe the confidence we have in the words we speak in what is known as the “command” of faith. This is the primary way, although not the only way, that Jesus ministered to the sick and oppressed. “Arise and walk,” “Daughter, I say unto you, ‘arise,’ “etc.

Scholars refer to this usage of the word pistis or faith as the “word of power.” For example, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Vol. 1, p.600) in its article on pistis says, “The picture of faith moving mountains (Mk. 11:23) and uprooting the fig tree (Lk. 17:6) confirm the word of power that is able to transform the created order. The instructions to the disciples in Mk. 11:24 f. show the connection in the teaching between the promise that rests upon the word of power and supplication. The supplication is the prerequisite of the word of power.”

In other words, faith toward God in prayer (supplication) precedes the release of the command of faith (the word of power). But both of these concepts (supplication and the word of power) are described by the one word: faith. (pistis in Greek).

So, does God have faith? Well, we might ask does God speak words which He expects to change things? Did God create the universe by speaking words that He expected to “transform the created order”? Is it a valid usage of the word “faith” to describe the power released in words, whether human or divine, sent for to change or transform the created order? I believe it is. Is it appropriate to call this having “the God-kind of faith”? I think so.

In fact, on of the most respected Greek scholars coined this phrase to describe what Jesus was talking about in Mark 11:22. Hank Hanegraaff refers to this man, A.T. Robertson, as “almost universally accepted as the final word on Greek grammar.” (Christianity In Crisis, p. 90).

So what does A.T. Robertson say about the phrase ‘have faith in God’ in Mk. 11:22? Robertson says, “in Mark 11:22… we rightly translate ‘have faith in God, though the genitive [the Greek case] does not mean ‘in’, but only the God kind of faith.” (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 500). This most universally accepted Greek scholar tells us that the “God kind of faith” is the true meaning of Mark 11:22!

God speaks things into existence. When He declares something, He believes it will come to pass.

Psalms 33:9

9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

We are created in His image and likeness. As we submit to Him and seek to do His will, He authorizes us to speak on His behalf and with His authority.

We can have the God kind of faith.

Always Make Sure You Stop and Realize How Amazing Cool a Faith walk is!

Enjoy the Journey!
Enjoy the Journey!

Church Update for Next Sunday (12th July, 2009)

Our next service is 3-5pm on Sunday 12th July.

Our new montly theme is “How to Heal the Sick” and Pastor Ben will be teaching people what to do when someone sick is standing in front of them.  This is preparation for the healing crusade in August and the people who are there in July will be the team in August who are there ministering healing to the sick.

On the 12th we will be talking about how to receive your healing by faith in the completed work of Christ on the cross in redemption.

We do not put our address on the web for security reasons, but if you contact us we will be more than happy to give you directions and answer any questions you have.  We will be worshipping the Lord and allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to us as we do in any cell meeting.

We will be resuming meetings in the Fulwell Cross Library in August of this year, and in the summer are having a “Wonderful News” Gospel Crusade.  Watch this space for further details, or if you cannot wait, please feel free to email us: info@treeoflifechurch.org.uk

Evolutionists – Impossible to Embarass Them (Henry Morris)

“And He spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?” (Luke 6:39).

Creationists have often pointed out that evolution is unscientific because it can never be proved by science to be true. It is not happening at present and without a time machine, they can never be sure that it happened in the past. Regardless of how much an organism looks like it had been intelligently designed, evolutionists (without even sounding embarrassed) will insist that natural selection has the power to make it look like it was designed, even though it wasn’t. Furthermore, no matter what fossil they find out of its accepted place in the evolutionary “record,” the evolutionists can “explain” how it got there.

The recent discovery of the intact flesh of a Tyrannosaurus rex with its “blood vessels—still flexible and elastic after 68 million years—and apparently intact cells”1 is a case in point. It would seem impossible for such soft structures to be preserved intact even for 6800 years, but evolutionists accept it on faith.

Similarly, Silurian fossil ostracodes supposedly 425 million years old have been found recently in England virtually identical to their modern-day counterparts and containing “a jaw-dropping amount of detail,”2 but this discovery does not faze evolutionists. They still believe it was buried 425 million years ago!

On another front, one would think that geophysicists would be embarrassed by their repeated failure to find the so-called Mohorovocic Discontinuity (except by inference from seismic waves) at the boundary between the earth’s “crust” and “mantle.” Since the supposed evolutionary history of the earth is theoretically related to this “Moho,” scientists have been trying to confirm its existence, along with the assumed nature of the mantle, by drilling deep holes in the crust. This has been going on since the early sixties without success, the latest such attempt having failed earlier this year.

The Bible long ago prophesied that it was not possible that the “heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath” (Jeremiah 31:37). Nevertheless: “Undaunted, oceanographers are ready to try again.”3

On the heavenly front, the same unembarrassed evolutionary cosmologists will evidently continue trying to “explain” the evolutionary history of the cosmos. Theories abound, and change frequently, the rising favorite being “string theory,” involving multiple dimensions of space and even multiple universes of space/time. However, as one evolutionary astrophysicist admits: “. . . the universe unveiled by the hellishly complex mathematics of super-string theory is not even remotely close to what string theorists anticipated.”4

Another cosmologist insists, however, that “string theory possesses a virtue for which many physicists are willing to accept these seeming absurdities: It can reconcile quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theory of gravity.”5 But then he admits that “the theory itself continues to grow more complicated and mysterious.”6

Its main virtue is that it can explain the cosmos without God. As Gardner insists, “. . . the fundamental credo of science is that deep mysteries like these will someday, if only in the distant future, succumb to rational explanation.”7

And what about human evolution? A recent statistical study of the genetics of human populations revealed,

the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for a randomly mating population would have lived in the very recent past. . . . In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models.8

The writer avoids mentioning the “Adam and Eve” explanation, of course. Nevertheless, he also notes that: “And a few thousand years before that, . . . the ancestors of everyone on the earth today were exactly the same.”9

One would think that analyses such as this, made by evolutionists on the real data of genetics and human populations would be embarrassing to evolutionists who commonly postulate an approximately million-year history of human existence on earth. But even if there were people living all during the past million years, how come they all kept the same genetic makeup until just a few thousand years ago? The Biblical record would seem at least relevant to the discussion!

Then there are the recent research findings by ICR scientists and others working on the RATE project that have
uncovered many new evidences that the earth is young, including the ubiquitous presence of radiocarbon in coal beds and even in diamonds. For years, of course, creationists have been pointing out that no real evolution has taken place during the several thousand years of human history and also that there are no legitimate series of transitional forms in the fossil beds of the past, plus the negative effects of mutations and the testimony of the laws of thermodynamics—all of which seem to make any macroevolution extremely unlikely, if not impossible.

Yet evolutionists continue to control the scientific and education establishments, insisting that total evolution is a scientific fact and creation is religion, so only evolution can be allowed to be taught in public schools and colleges. They gloat over the alleged fact that “an unprecedented 14 percent of Americans tell pollsters that they are atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, or simply disinterested in religion.”10 Even if this figure is assumed to be correct, it still leaves 86% of the population who believe in God.

And they express surprise that so many people have somehow come to believe in creation despite all the brainwashing in schools. The editor-in-chief of the premier magazine Science, recently moaned in a lead editorial that:

Alternatives to the teaching of biological evolution are now being debated in no fewer than 40 states. Worse, evolution is not the only science under such challenge. In several school districts, geology materials are being rewritten because their dates for Earth’s age are inconsistent with scripture (too old).11

A few evolutionists do seem to have at least a glimpse of why we object to their insistence that evolution be considered a scientifically proven fact. The following commentary on evolutionary science was in a recent issue of Geotimes.

Evolutionists have “Physics Envy.” They tell the public that the science behind evolution is the same science that sent people to the moon and cures diseases. It’s not.

The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic. Because evolution took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact—no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification, nothing at all like physics. . . . I think this is what the public discerns—that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science.12

Another evolutionist makes an interesting admission. He says: “Contrary to their public image, scientists are normal, flawed human beings.”13 They are as capable of prejudice, covetousness, pride, deceitfulness, etc., as anyone.

Evolutionists can’t seem to comprehend why most Americans still believe in God, creation, and the Bible, despite having the “fact” of evolution dogmatically taught to them throughout their school years. The fact is that there is an abundance of objective evidence that the Bible really is the Word of God. It is not just a book of religion as they argue, but a book of factual history. Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead and Jesus Christ really did confirm the truth of the Biblical account of origins. Creationists do not believe in the Bible just because they are ignorant of science.

Peter says that “we have not followed cunningly devised fables. . . . We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed . . .”
(II Peter 1:16,19). And the apostle Paul, prophesying of the humanists of “the last days” said that they would be “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (II Timothy
3:1,7) because “they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (II Timothy 4:4).

A creationist scientist justifiably might think of the Psalmist’s caustic commentary on the ancient idol-making pantheistic evolutionists:

Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: . . . They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them (Psalm 115:4,5,8).

Endnotes

  1. Erik Stokstad, “Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects,” Science (vol. 307, March 25, 2005), p. 1852.
  2. Erik Stokstad, “Gutsy Fossil Sets Record for Staying the Course,” Science (vol. 302, December 5, 2003), p. 1645.
  3. Richard A. Kerr, “Pursued for 40 Years, the Moho Evades Ocean Drillers Once Again,” Science (vol. 307, March 18, 2005), p. 1707.
  4. James N. Gardner, “Fundamental Cosmological Understanding Eludes Us,” Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 28, July/August, 2004), p. 51.
  5. Adrian Cho, “String Theory Gets Real—Sort of,” Science (vol. 306, November 26, 2004), p. 1461.
  6. Ibid., p. 1462.
  7. James N. Gardner, op. cit., p. 52.
  8. Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph T. Chang, “Modeling the Recent Common Ancestry of all Living Humans,” Nature (vol. 431, September 30, 2004), p. 562.
  9. Ibid., p. 565.
  10. Promotional brochure published by the Council for Secular Humanism.
  11. Donald Kennedy, “Twilight for the Enlightenment?” Science (vol. 308, April 8, 2005), p. 165.
  12. John Chaikowsky, “Geology v. Physics,” Geotimes (vol. 50, April 2005), p. 6.
  13. David Weatherall, “Conduct Unbecoming,” American Scientist (vol. 93, January-February 2005), p. 73.