America—25 Years of Abortion
Billie R. Hill

Our country recently celebrated the 25th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. Recent statistics show America participated in more than 36,000,000 abortions since that fateful day, January 22, 1973. The annual number of abortions has nearly doubled since Roe v. Wade, from 744,000 to between 1.35 and 1.4 million for 1995. There are almost 3,700 abortions per day. That is at least one every 24 seconds. For every 1,000 live births, there are 311 abortions. There are more than 145,000 second and third trimester abortions each year. Recent statistics show America participated in at least 40,000 to 50,000 partial-birth abortions per year. However, we will never really know, because physicians do not have to report them.

The partial-birth abortion procedure is used after 20 weeks (4 1/2 months) of pregnancy--often to six months, seven months and even later. The difference between partial-birth abortion and homicide is a mere three inches. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist gropes the baby's leg with forceps. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole. A suction tube is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

The anesthesia given to the mother has little or no effect on the baby, according to congressional testimony by the nation's leading anesthesiologists, including the president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. Medical experts testified that babies at this age can experience great pain.

Dr. Martin Haskell, who has performed over 1000 partial-birth abortions, said that he performs them "routinely" for non-medical reasons, and that 80% are "purely elective." Over 300 leading physicians, including former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, have stated that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health. Congress passed an act to end partial-birth abortions except to save the life of the mother. President Clinton vetoed the act, thereby allowing this brutal procedure to continue with no restrictions. The Bible clearly defies abortion, considering it to be a sin (Gen. 1:27; Ps. 139:13-16; Jer. 1:5; Prov. 6:16-17; Luke 1:41). The word abortion is not mentioned specifically by name in either Old or New Testament but there are numerous divine principles that speak to the issue. Let us look at some of them.

Life is a gift from God: "He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things" (Acts 17:25). As Creator and sustainer of life, God alone has the right to take man's life (Gen. 50:15-19). Only human life is made "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:26). Thus human life is elevated to a place above all forms of earthly life. This declares that man shares kinship with God. Man has always been forbidden to kill his fellow humans because of the "image of God." The penalty for killing an innocent neighbor was death (Gen. 9:6).

Some say that this thing growing in the mother's womb is not human life, that it is just a blob of tissue and that it is not a human until it is born. Is it alive and if so at what point of time? It is alive when the sperm and ovum unite! Is it a human life? It is the product of two human lives. Is this life merely an appendage of the mother's body? Absolutely not! It is altogether a new life totally different from the mother. Is this human life innocent? Without a doubt! Is this innocent human life willfully killed in abortion? Yes, for that is the purpose of the abortion.

Christ taught the value of human life. He taught that God so loved all the inhabitants of the earth, that He gave His only Son to save them (John 3:16). He commanded that every creature in the world should have opportunity to hear the gospel and be saved (Mark 16:15-16). Little children were precious to Jesus and he rebuked those who tried to turn them away (Matt. 19:14).

No distinction is made in the Scriptures between babies in the womb and those born. The word brephos, used to describe the baby in Elizabeth's womb, is used for both prenatal and postnatal babies (Luke 14). It means "an unborn child, embryo, fetus; a newborn child, an infant, a babe." This is from Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, p. 105. Christians who question this should ask themselves, "Was it the Christ child in Mary's womb or a lifeless blob of fetal tissue?"

God's Word still teaches "thou shalt not kill" (Exod. 20;13; Rom. 13:9). The Hebrew literally reads "thou shalt do no murder." The deliberate taking of human life without provocation or a just cause is murder. Abortion intentionally kills a human life. The abortion victim is totally innocent, having done no wrong toward the mother, her doctor, or society. There is often a selfish motive in abortion; the interests of others are placed above the interests of the baby. We are taught "not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others" (Phil. 2:4). Unmarried couples selfishly indulge in sexual pleasure and then when pregnancy occurs they kill the life that would embarrass them. The same attitude is seen when the married professional woman chooses to abort rather than accept the responsibility of motherhood, which would hinder her personal ambitions.

God condemns people who are "without natural affection" (Rom. 1:31). Without doubt, a mother who can deliberately kill the innocent child in her womb lacks that normal, motherly affection which God expects from mankind.

Who Have Been the Promoters of Abortion in America?

There are anumber of people who have promoted abortion in America. Some of them are spineless politicians, misled judges, radical feminists, Hollywood stars, and the arrogant members of the national news media. Nothing is more frustrating than the shameful and irresponsible manner in which our side of the abortion issue is dealt with by the national news media and the American television industry.

Every abortion is a death in the family. Twenty-five years after Roe v. Wade we have only begun to feel the pain of 36 million deaths. How much longer will it have to be before our nation confronts the truth, accepts our common responsibility and grieves our dead?

The challenge to us as Christians on this 25th anniversary is that we make sure we will do something to stop this terrible tragedy that is going on every day in America. We can work with a group of people or work alone to help get this stopped. Christians of all people should be out in front leading the way to put a stop to abortion. Some Christians are so uninformed about this and some have been so brainwashed by the liberal news media and spineless politicians that they refuse to speak out. I have have known some professed Christians to say that this should not be talked about or preached on at church because it is a political issue. How sad! This is a moral issue and politicians should have stayed away from moral issues. A number of years ago political issues were not moral issues, but with the Supreme Court passing laws such as Roe v. Wade this has completely changed things in America.

Whether we march together, pray together, or spend time quietly remembering the greatest tragedy of our time, let us remember that we are the only voices of some 36,000,000 innocent lives. What an awesome responsibility for which we have been chosen.

All statistics quoted are from the current material of the National Right to Life.

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

A Review of "Calming the Seas"

The Gospel Advocate (August 1998) published an article by Wayne Jackson entitled "Calming the Seas." Captioned before this article there is this statement: "We need voices of seasoned moderation who will address issues with calmness and compassion." After having read this article and other articles that brother Jackson has written, the word "compassion" grabs me. Webster says that compassion is: "Sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it" (Webster, p. 227). Now let us see if brother Jackson's article is true to this. Jackson says that there are some that are "professional heretic hunters"—this is compassion? He says that some are looking for a "name and a following." How would he know this? Does he know the hearts of everyone? Is this a sympathetic and a compassionate spirit? He talks about "reactionaries" but he thinks that we should be calm and use moderation. He talks about a "tooth-and-claw" attitude. Is this calmness and using moderation and compassion? In his article I am afraid he uses the word "radicals" to describe some of the most faithful men we have in our brotherhood. Brother Jackson has a very serious problem. He believes that faithful brethren should lay off of him and others like him when they fellowship liberals on lectureships. He is quick to call others "professional heretic hunters," "reactionaries," "radicals," "stupid," etc. Let brother jackson tell us if a person is radical who believes that women should have a covering or doily on their heads when they pray, teach, and worship God. He believes this so let him tell us. He says that he does not press this issue. Well, go where he preaches and see if the women wear some sort of covering on their heads. Brother Jackson is ready to call those who disagree with him "radicals," "stupid," and the like. But he is not a radical teaching and believing that a woman must wear a covering on her head when praying, teaching, and worshipping God.

Why is brother Jackson so upset in this and other articles? He is upset because he wants brethren to think of him as a scholar and faithful to Christ while appearing with liberals on lectureship programs. Would Wayne Jackson appear on programs with Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado, Joe Beam, Randy Harris, Lynn Anderson, Mike Cope, Jeff Walling, and others like them? I dare say he would not. But I will tell you what he will do. He will fellowship those who have fellowshipped brethren Shelly, Lucado, Beam, Harris, Anderson, Cope, Walling and others like them. No wonder he is upset. He is not logical but inconsistent in this. He knows this but refuses to accept the consequences of his practice. Let brother Jackson tell us when we should break fellowship with the liberals and church wreckers. Let brother Jackson give an exegesis of II John 9-11; Romans 16:17-18; Ephesians 5:11; I John 1:6-7; II Cor. 6:14-18.

Brother Wayne said in this article, "With radicals there is no room for individual judgment. Everyone must march to their drummer, or he is out of favor." If the drummer is faithful to God and the Bible, we need to march with him. What brother Jackson does not like and others like him is that they want to appear on university programs and fellowship the liberal drummers but they do not want anyone to show where they are and how inconsistent they are.

Brother Wayne talks about a preacher that has a list of "several hundred" preachers who are worthy of disfellowship. I do not know who he is talking about but if the preachers on that list are false teachers, they do need to be withdrawn from. Would Jackson contend that we should fellowship them? Brother Jackson tries to make a significant argument by saying if we followed this kind of reasoning the list would have to be changed over and over again. This may be so but what does it prove? God adds people to His list and He takes away from this list (Rev. 20:15; 22:19). I would suppose that the congregation where brother Wayne Jackson has been for many years keeps a list of the membership. Do they ever have to add to it? Do they ever have to take away from it? According to this kind of reasonsing a man should never go into business because he must keep up with the stock, adding to and taking from it. Such lopsided thinking surprises me when it comes to Wayne Jackson. But if he believes and teaches that a woman should have a hat, handkerchief, doily or some kind of covering on her head whey prayiing, teaching or worshipping then maybe I should not be so surprised.

I now want to notice some of the examples brother Jackson used. He states in this article: "A brother conducts a gospel meeting for a church. He faithfully preaches the truth. (Does he? All the truth and on the subjects needed?-MLH) The host church, however, is known to have used other men of questionable soundness in the past. Hereafter, the brother will be labeled as an associate of the liberals." Brother Jackson, do you uphold fellowshipping the Nashville Jubilee with speakers like Gary Bradley, Rubel Shelly, Joe Beam, Randy Harris, Jeff Walling, Buddy Bell, Mike Cope and their kind? Brother Jackson, what about a church that believes and supports Promise Keepers? What about a congregation whose members fellowship denominational people? I wish brother Jackson would have been more specific in his criticism. I somethimes think I know who he is talking about but I am not sure. He might as well come clear with it because there is a host of faithful brethren that are not going to let him dictate to them by ridicule, certain kinds of slurs, and innuendos.

Brother Jackson says in this article: "There are those on the radical fringe whom I would not recommend, or invite for a lecture program; that does not mean, though, that I am ready to disfellowship every soul who may associate with them in some manner." I would like to know who he is talking about along with others. Would brother Jackson recommend a speaker for a lectureship who believes that a woman should have a covering on her head when worshipping, praying and teaching? Would this kind of preacher or teacher be a part of "the radical fringe" he talks about? Let him tell us. We are not ready to disfellowship anyone who loves the truth and when he learnes it will follow it.

I take no joy in writing material like this. But there is something far above my feelings and of much greater importance than my likes and dislikes. We are to love God supremely (Matt. 22:37-39). Brother Jackson has written some very good material but he is off on fellowshipping the liberals. He is about to get side-tracked on personalities instead of staying with important issues and consistency. He has a very good friend that fellowshipped the liberals and we called his friend's hand for doing so. Jackson's friend tried to smear our reputation because we rebuked him for his unscriptural practice. We pray that issues will be the subject and not personalities. However, if personalities must get involved, then so be it. We intend to stay after issues if at all possible.

Who is a Pharisee?
Ronald D. Gilbert

Most people know enough about this group from the New Testament to conclude that they should not be like them. Just saying the word "Pharisee" causes many negative thoughts to go through our minds. The name "Pharisee" no doubt like other terms is misused by many individuals. The term "missionary society" is a good example of often misused terms. Sometimes if a person is against a work he will liken it to a "missionary society" and immediately others will join in and oppose this work. Today some who do not like a person or where he stands may refer to that person as a "Pharisee." That is all it takes for some uninformed brethren and they too are opposed to that man.

Who were these people we read about in the New Testament called "Pharisees?" There were three prominent sects among the Jews. The first group we will mention was the Essenes. Concerning freedom of will this group believed that fate ruled all things. The second group was the Pharisees. The name comes from a Greek word meaning "to separate." They were separated by special practices. They believed they were "more holy" than others. Concerning freedom of will the Phraisees believed some things were ruled by fate but not all things. The third group was the Sadducees. This group believed there was no such thing as fate. They also denied the existence of angels, spirits and the resurrection of the dead.

In McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature (Vol. VIII, p. 69), under the word "Pharisee" they list two requirements for a Jew becoming a Pharisee. "Each candidate was required to promise in the presence of three members that (1) He would set apart all the sacred tithes on the produce of the land, and refrain from eating anything which had not been tithed, or about the tithing of which there was any doubt; and (2) He would scrupulously observe the most essential laws of purity which so materially affected the eating of food and all family affairs."

The best insights concerning the Pharisees come to us from the pages of the New Testament. They were righteous but only to a small degree. "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20). They were often offended by the truth. "Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?" (Matt. 15:12). They were not honest with the truth. "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (Matt. 19:3). "Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk" (Matt. 22:15). Many of them rejected Jesus and prevented others from coming to the truth. "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in" (Matt. 23:13). "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue" (John 12:42). They sought to bind their opinions as law. "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). They felt that they were better than other people. "But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?" (Luke 5:30). "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess" (Luke 18:11-12). They were covetous. "And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him" (Luke 16:14). They made many false accusations against Christ. "Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner" (Luke 7:39). "But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils" (Matt. 9:34). "But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils" (Matt. 12:24). They accused the disciples of Christ of doing unlawful things on the sabbath. "But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day" (Matt. 12:2). They were instrumental in bringing about the death of Christ. "Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons" (John 18:3).

Jesus gave several warnings about the Pharisees. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation" (Matt. 23:14). "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Matt. 23:23). "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess" (Matt. 23:25). "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness" (Matt. 23:27). "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous" (Matt. 23:39). "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Matt. 3:7). "And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter, but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness" (Luke 11:39).

One should not be likened unto the Pharisees today just because he keeps laws and wants to do Bible things in Bible ways. One is not a Pharisee just because he is zealous or knows that he knows the truth.

Who then today is likened unto the Pharisees of old? There are those today who might be called "educated idiots." These are the ones who feel they alone are qualified to explain the Bible. Some of these men are so educated they no longer believe in many of the stories of the Old Testament. They are not sure that the Bible is to be taken literally. These are Pharisees. Another group that reminds us a great deal of the Pharisees today is the group that condemns the condemners. That's right, they are quick to condemn the faithful brethren who speak out against error. Many times those in this group will call the names of gospel preachers and condemn them for calling the names of preachers who teach error. Hypocrites! Just like the Pharisees of old these men say and do not. Just like the Pharisees of old, modern-day Pharisees are offended by the truth. They do not want to hear what the Bible teaches on the subject of fellowship, church discipline and a host of other topics. Modern Pharisees preach the truth on many subjects but they have some topics they will not teach on because they would condemn themselves. Pharisees of today like to have the chief seats on brotherhood lectureships. They often appear on the same programs with known false teachers and say nothing about these men. Modern Pharisees, like their ancestors, omit the weightier matters. One of the most important issues facing the Lord's Church today is the subject of fellowship. Modern Pharisees do not want to talk about passages dealing with fellowship. When was the last time you heard one of them deal with these passages? "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple" (Rom. 16:17-18). "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11). "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (II John 9-11). Modern Pharisees seek to destroy the righteous just as in the days of Jesus. They are very kind and loving until you cross them and then you see their true colors. The early church had to face the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. They were great enemies of the truth then as they are today. We should look closely at those with whom we come in contact. Pharisees are not always easy to identify. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them" (Luke 11:44).

What it Costs to be a Christian
Glenn B. Ramsey

Anything of value costs. In Luke 14:28 the Lord asked, "For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?" The precious church of Christ cost the Lord His precious blood. Acts 20:28 directs elders to "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Imagining that membership in this blood-purchased institution would be without some cost by its members would be hard. Jesus said, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matt. 6:33). When we "seek first" something, then something else must be left to second place. This is a cost.

A Christian must pay the "cost" of sacrifice. Paul said in Romans 12:1-2, "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." There is an obvious cost in this personal sacrifice of service and worship to God. However, to do so (make this sacrifice) approves one of the perfect will of God.

The Christian, placing first the Kingdom of God, will find that it may cost him as far as his family is concerned. Our Lord said, "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth sone or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:37). This does not mean that one is not to love his earthly relatives, but it does mean that one is to love the Lord more than he loves them. Often the earthly relatives do not like taking second place to the Lord. This may cost the faithful Christian the friendship of his own blood kin.

The faithful preacher of the Gospel will pay the costs involved in his calling. He serves God. He devotes himself to the proclamation of the Gospel of God. This proclamation of the Gospel must be made without partiality. It must be made fearlessly. Many, especially today in the Lord's church, do not like that kind of preaching. Many will turn away from the faithful preacher and turn to those who will tickle their itching ears. It may cost a faithful man to continue faithfully preaching the Word.

The faithful elder of the church must warn people of sin. He must teach people to leave sinful things and follow righteousness. This must be done without partiality. The elder cannot love his own family, his closest friends, his favorite preacher, or anyone else to the point of compromising the calling of God that he is following. This often costs the faithful leader his popularity among people.

The faithful Bible teacher must teach God's Word without adding to it or subtracting from it. Some class members may not like this. It may cost the Bible teacher his popularity.

A faithful Christian husband and father must lead his wife and his children in the ways of righteousness. He often will not permit them to do the things that the rest of the world does. This may cost them their popularity with the world. They may react against their spiritual leader (head of the family) in a negative way. This may cost. This kind of cost hurts the heart of one who loves the Lord.

Lest any be discouraged in this matter, let it be noted again that the giving of the plan of salvation for fallen man cost the Father His only begotten Son! The love of the souls of men cost that Son His life! The Father and the Son are our examples in the business of cost assessment.

It does cost to be Christians but it costs far more if we are not faithful Christians. Matthew 16:26 says, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" For the sake of one's soul one should be willing to pay the cost. The loss of one's soul is the most tragic cost of all.

Agnosticism and the Church Today
Holger W. Neubauer

Can one know saving truth? Can one know that God does exist? Can one know that the Bible is the infallible guide for man today? Can one know what the Bible teaches and then obey those teachings and know that he is saved? Jesus simply affirmed that one must know saving truth in order to be saved (John 8:32). Implied in this simple and yet profound statement is the fact that one must answer "yes" to all the above questions if one is to know his sins are forgiven. The things of God that are revealed for the purpose of the salvation of souls from the condemnation of sin are to be held with intellectual certitude. Inspiration says "that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed" (Luke 1:4). One can hardly claim knowledge of his own salvation and at the same time suggest that one cannot know that God exists or that the Bible is indeed the word of God. These propositions are all vitally linked together.

Agnosticism is a philosophical view that promotes the idea that nothing really can be held with intellectual certitude, that nothing really can be known. Yet if nothing can be known, agnosticism claims to know at least that one thing for sure. Agnosticism simply affirms to know that nothing can be known. Surely the absurdity and contradictory basis upon which this inept philosophical system is built can be seen even among the tyros of biblical study.

First, agnosticism denies that one may know that God exists. In the early 1600s, a French mathematician and philosopher by the name of Blaise Pascal published his famous Penses which contains his wager argument for believing in God. He argued that one ought simply to believe that God does exist because of the hopeless alternative. Pascal argued his case for God upon a better-than-the-alternative platform. William James, an American pragmatist philosopher who wrote in the early years of this century, suggested that objective evidence and certitude are only fine ideals to play with. Sadly, one of our own influential brethren of a generation ago, Batsell Barrett Baxter, cited both Pascal and James as cases in point in determining whether or not we should believe in God. However, their arguments are woefully inadequate. This kind of faith is no more than a blind leap into the dark. If two men are blind-folded and pushed off a cliff, neither of the men knows which of their leaps is greater or lesser. If one believes in God only because of the hopeless alternative, then in which God should he believe? Buddha? Allah? Evidence and evidence alone forms true biblical faith. As Isaiah challenged in the long ago, "Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons saith the King of Jacob" (Isa. 41:21). Since every Christian is admonished to "prove all things" (I Thess. 5:21), the existence of God is also to be proven. Hebrews 3:4 sets forth a simple and yet profoundly irrefutable argument for God's existence. The text says, "For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God." Just as one million tornadoes whipping through one thousand lumber yards will never produce a three-bedroom home, so disorder can never bring order. Every thought requires first a thinker. Every law demands a lawgiver. God is the ultimate explanation for all things and without God nothing is even possible. Every contingent thing ultimately must be explained by something non-contingent, namely God.

Second, one must know that the Bible is indeed God's word in order to know that he is saved. The Bible itself is a book that demonstrates strong evidence of its own inspiration. The Bible writers demonstrate over and over again that the message they wrote was derived from a source beyond themselves. When the popular view of the day considered the world as flat, Isaiah wrote, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" (Isa. 40:22). The Bible demonstrates its truthfulness in citing the biological truism that "life is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11). The profound hydrological system of the earth is cited in Ecclesiastes 1:6-7. Recent studies attest to the eighth day of an infant's life as the day when blood clotting elements in the body are at their highest level which corroborates God's law to Abraham (Gen. 17:12). Though hygienic practices which prevent the spreading of disease are only recently established by modern medicine (1840), God's people in the long ago practiced the same (Num. 19:16-19).

Perhaps one of the greatest evidences of the Bible is prophecy. There are over 300 prophecies linked to the Deity of the Lord Jesus. These prophecies are given with great specificity to demonstrate that the prophets themselves wrote from a source beyond themselves. As a blindfolded archer who accurately hits a distant target over 300 times in a row would demonstrate an ability beyond human power, so too the Bible writers have demonstrated through prophetic utterances that their message has been derived from a power higher than themselves.

Strong evidence can also be produced to demonstrate that the Bible has been preserved throughout the ages. Before Guttenberg's invention of the printing press (around 1450 A.D.), the Bible was carefully copied. The Talmud, which compiled the teachings and opinions of Jewish teachers from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D., laid down very stringent laws for the scribes who copied the law. Every manuscript had lined columns and regulated the number of words allowed to be written. No letter was permitted to be written from memory and each individual letter was counted when the manuscript was completed. If one letter came up missing, they destroyed the copy and started over again. The older manuscript that began to wear was also destroyed lest the text be misread. This explains why the newest and not the oldest manuscript was the most important. This also explains why the original manuscripts are no longer in existence. However, if the originals were in existence, how would we know they had not been tampered with? The many witnesses from all over the world attest that there must have been an original document that was copied from. The majority of witnesses today corroborate the Greek text that underlies the King James Version of the Scripture. John Burgon compiled 86,489 quotes from the early church writers that span the 12th century all the way back to the 2nd century A.D. In these quotations, the text of the New Testament, which underlies the King James Version, can be duplicated.

Third, and finally, can one know what to do in order to be saved? Yes indeed; that is the overwhelming teaching of Jesus. That is the consequence of what Jesus said in John 8:31-32. When one obtains biblical faith (Rom. 10:17), believes that Jesus Christ is the Savior (John 8:24), repents of his sin (Luke 13:3), and is baptized into Christ and His church (Rom. 6:3-4; I Cor. 12:13), one can know that he is saved. And if that same individual faithfully follows our Lord, he will be saved eternally (Matt. 24:13). We must know we have passed from death to life (I John 3:14). Since all of us are amenable to the "common faith" (Titus 1:4), all of mankind must do the same thing in order to know that they are saved as well. Yet, some in the church suggest the Lord may save them outside of Christ. F. LaGard Smith says in his book Baptism: The Believer's Wedding Ceremony: "None of us can presume to know about the eternal destiny of anyone, on the basis of any question of doctrine, be it predestination, charismatic gifts, the washing of feet, or even baptism." If brother Smith is right, how then may we know that we are saved at the point of baptism? Since it is impossible for God to lie (Heb. 6:18), since God has proclaimed salvation only in Christ (Eph. 1:3, 7) and since we are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27), how is it that one can be saved without obedience to these fundamental gospel matters? The truth, of course, is simply that if we can know we are saved by obedience to the gospel, then we can know that those who have not obeyed the gospel are lost (II Thess. 1:7-9). Smith promotes agnosticism. The things revealed in Scripture are for us to know (Eph. 3:4; Deut. 29:29). Then Smith leaned out even farther on the brittle limb of agnosticism on page 207 of the same book when he said:

Are unbaptized believers destined to hell? Are those who have received only infant baptism in eternal jeopardy? Only God knows. On one level, these are questions we have no right even to ask. As seen in this study, there is an abundance of scriptural language that, on its face, regards baptism as an essential part of our turning to God. Nevertheless, I would hope that God might apply the "common law marriage" approach for those who have lived a lifetime of service in His name without having particpated in the wedding ceremony of baptism.

If as brother Smith affirms, "only God knows," then why are we required to "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (Eph. 5:11)? Why is the heretic to be rejected (Titus 3:10)? Is the church duty bound to be more restrictive than God will be? If God could possibly save someone who hasn't obeyed His gospel, why did Jesus say, "And that servant, which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes" (Luke 12:47-48). God has promised in His unalterable law that only those in Christ will be saved, which leaves no room for those outside of Christ. If God can save one person without contacting His Son's blood in water baptism, then everyone can be saved without water baptism. Do we need Jesus' blood to be saved? Obviously yes (Heb. 9:22-10:4). Do we contact Jesus' blood in the waters of baptism? Yes, obviously, yes (Acts 22:16; Rev. 7:14). Then can any accountable person be saved without water baptism unto the remission of sins? Absolutely not. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). If God can be more lenient than His law states and lie, cannot God be more stringent than his law and on the judgment punish all baptized believers because they followed His law too precisely? God will neither be more lenient than His law permits nor more stringent. It is abject agnosticism to affirm that we cannot know the eternal destiny of those who have not obeyed the gospel. One preacher in Birmingham reportedly said to a congregation of about 600 that if God wanted to save the Jews that was His business. What about the Buddhists or Muslims? Jesus affirmed He was the only way to the Father (John 14:6). Will God lie? He has promised He will not (Heb. 6:16-18). Agnosticism fails to acknowledge things that God has given to be acknowledged. God, however, reveals his truth in such a way that we can know "we have eternal life" (I John 5:13).

Interpreting—Who or What?
Kerry Duke

A religious publisher recently announced the release of a new book: Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters (Intervarsity Press). The article describing this book was entitled "Interpreting the Great Interpreters." This title aptly describes what modern hermeneutics has become: the interpretation of the views of Bible interpreters. Instead of concentrating on the interpretation of the Bible itself, trends in interpretation today focus on what someone said about what someone else said about the Scriptures.

This tendency is not new. It has been an inherent part of Jewish theology for centuries. Even before the time of Jesus, the Pharisees had claimed a divinely given oral tradition. This tradition, they argued, was given to Moses in addition to the written law as a necessary guide for understanding how that law was to apply in future generations. The right to exercise this supplemental tradition was passed from generation to generation. but in the passing of oral law revisions of it were inevitable. By the time of Christ the traditions of the rabbis had become the focal point and authority in Judaism. Eventually these oral tradiltions were compiled in the Mishnah toward the end of the second century. But oral tradition by its very nature could not stop here. The Mishnah was only temporary in authority; reinterpretations, revisions, and new applications of its views were bound to be urged. The next three centuries thus gave rise to the Jerusalem Talmud and then the Babylonian Talmud. These were enormous commentaries upon the Mishnah. Jewish theology, then, long ago left the Scriptures as a complete and authoritative guide. Oral law interpreted the Old Testament, the Mishnah interpreted previous oral traditions, and the Talmuds interpreted the Mishnah! Whatever happened to interpreting the Old Testament? No wonder the Jewish religion today bears little resemblance to the religion originally prescribed by God.

Similarly, what often passes for "scholarship" in university Bible departments and seminars is the same pattern. Students are required to know more about certain books about the Bible than they are about the books of the Bible. Courses on theology concentrate on famous theologians; classes on hermeneutics focus on theories of interpretation. All the "great" theologians - from Augustine to Calvin to Barth - are studied. After all, how can one claim to have an education in theology who is not thoroughly conversant in the "classics"? Professors in these institutions seem more intrigued with major theologians than with the Bible. They delight in historical and comparative research into their views. Even when they are assigned a specific biblical text at a lectureship, they often spend the majority of their time interpreting, comparing, and critiquing other interpretations of the text. This, we are asked to believe, is scholarship. In the end, the audience is left with a variety of views but no definite conclusion about the meaning or the application of the text. After all, scholarship avoids being dogmatic, and "scholars" are very dogmatic about that.

I would admit that most who are called "Bible scholars" have a good understanding of the history and theory of Bible interpretation. But few of them are able to show genuine insight into the biblical text, and consequently, many of them are unable to clearly explain it. Even more revealing is that some "scholars" can quote verbatim the views of a number of theologians on a given topic but have trouble quoting a passage of Scripture or remembering where it is found! Furthermore, I have come to realize that the "giants" in the history of theology so admired by "scholars" are well known precisely because they have set forth an elaborate theological system that in some distinctive way or ways is different from the Bible. Otherwise, they would simply be remembered for correctly teaching the Scriptures. In other words, the best expositors of Scripture in history have often been the least well known, and the most dangerous exegetes in history are usually elevated to a near divine status by many "scholars."

I certainly do not mean to incriminate anyone today who is called a scholar. But much that is hailed as "scholarship" today is at best biblically shallow and at worst doctrinally dangerous. And while most Bible readers consult "experts" on the text occasionally, it is arrogant to insinuate, as some have recently regarding biblical texts on the role of women, that preachers and other Bible students would be wise to let our "scholars" interpret these difficult passages for us. Let us never forget that the Bible was written for the common man as well as for the genius. The truths of salvation are available to all who desire to know them. "If any man," Jesus said (and that means anyone), "will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John 7:17). Let us get back to true Bible study, and let us recognize scholars—actual or perceived—for what they are: men.