Truth Magazine

By Paul K. Williams

I am sure that all of us have noticed, sometimes with alarm, an erosion of the old, accepted moral values in America. Things which once were taboo have now become accepted. Sex before marriage, uttering profanity in movies and television, and even homosexuality are outstanding examples. Things just are not the same anymore.

It is curious to me how American religion has reacted to this. In fact, I have been greatly disappointed. Leaders in the largest denominations, instead of speaking out in opposition to this loosening of moral standards, have brought forth a new concept which condones, even encourages, much behavior which is both against the old accepted standards and, more serious, is against the teachings of the New Testament. They have dressed their doctrines tip tinder the names of “The New Morality” and “Situation Ethics.” I am sure that you have encountered both terms.

A Religious Leader Explains

Recently while watching television I heard one of these religious leaders explaining “Situation Ethics.” It was his contention that the only unbreakable law given by God is the law of love. He said that all other laws of Christ are relative and are to be interpreted according to the circumstances. This is why the doctrine is called situation ethics — each situation calls for a different response. The thing which governs is love. Under certain circumstances it may be “right,” in the view of the situation ethics proponent to commit fornication, to lie, to steal, even to rape. Just as long as the person is operating according to the Bible principle of love, he can violate any of the laws given in the Bible.

I flatly charge that this doctrine insults God, deifies man, and perverts the Bible concept of love. Let me explain.

Insults God

First, this doctrine insults God. It says that Gods word does not furnish us everything we need in morality. It says that going by the Bible is not always the best thing-that we must be willing to violate Gods word in the name of love.

What kind of God do you worship? Do you worship a God who makes mistakes? Do you believe in a God who cannot give perfect rules tinder which man must live? Well, I dont! I worship the God of the Bible-the maker of Heaven and earth, the creator of man, the One who knows everything about man and who has o the power to make perfect rules. I worship the God whose word is described in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

The word of God can be depended upon in every situation, because the One who wrote it knows everything. He does not make mistakes. And when He wrote that “all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone” (Rev. 21:8), I understand that He does not want me to lie — even in the name of love. When He writes, “Flee fornication” (I Cor. 6:18), I understand that no matter how much I may love that girl, I must not take her to bed until we are married.

God is not a God of mistakes — but the doctrine of Situation Ethics makes Him a God of mistakes. Gods law is perfect. We had better not question it. We just need to obey it!

Deifies Man

Second, the doctrine of situation ethics deifies an. While it downgrades God, it elevates man to the level where lie is supposed to be able to see the final results of his actions. He would have to be able to see all the results of his actions, or else how could lie be capable of judging, even on the basis of love, what action is best tinder the circumstances?

Let me illustrate. In the television lecture the story was told of a German bishop who told a lie in order to save a criminal from being executed. After the lecture a panel discussed this incident and were agreed that the bishop did right, even though lying is against Gods law. Now I want to know: On what basis could the bishop, or the people on the panel, judge? They could only judge on the basis of the final result. If everyone began to lie in order to protect people who might be executed, what would be the result? And is it always best for a person who is a criminal to escape execution? Unless all these possibilities are taken into consideration, and the final result of ones actions are thoroughly known, one cannot take the law into his own hands and decide – whether on the basis of love or not!

Man has a bad tendency to think too highly of himself. The doctrine of situation ethics is a perfect example of it. God has made the rules, but man thinks be has the intelligence and knowledge and judgment to break them and do a better job than God can! That is real arrogance! It makes God fallible-and man infallible. Certainly this doctrine must stink in the nostrils of God.

Perverts the Bible Concept of Love

Third, the doctrine of situation ethics perverts the Bible concept of love. It assumes that you can love God while breaking His commands. But that is impossible! Jesus said in John 14:15, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” In John 15:14 He said, “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” Bible love is fulfilled when we have a spirit of obedience-not rebellion; when we desire to do everything that Gods word commands. You cannot separate Bible love from obedience. A person can obey some commands without loving God, but you cannot love God without trying to keep all of His commands. Love without obedience is not from God.

God takes a different view of sin from what we do. What harm did Eve do when she ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? The only harm was that she disobeyed God. She thought that good would come of it-she would increase in knowledge and taste something that was good for food. But God had told her, “No.” The result was her punishment. No amount of reasoning will excuse us today when we break Gods laws. Sin is still the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4)

The situation ethics proponent says, in effect “Let us do evil that good may come.” He says: “Lie to protect the guilty man so he will not be executed.” But Paul took care of that argument in Romans 3:8. He says that the man who says, “Let us do evil that good may come” has a just damnation!

The Truth

What then is the truth? It is the opposite of what the situation ethics proponent says. God is infallible. He knows everything and has given us a perfect law which will guide us perfectly under every situation. Man is fallible. He cannot know as much as God knows and cannot know enough to decide matters of right and wrong. He must depend upon Gods law to teach him what is right. And the love of God means keeping His commands. I John 5:3 says, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”

We need to cultivate a spirit of humility, submission and obedience to God. We must not allow ourselves to think too highly of ourselves. We must just obey God and trust that the results will be pleasing to Him.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 45, pp. 8-9
September 21, 1972

By Mike Willis

Examples of Specific Corroboration in the Gospels

After showing places where archaeology has helped general information of a background nature for New Testament 9tudies and where archaeology has helped in dating the books of the New Testament, there remains the citation of instances in which specific points recorded in the New Testament have been confirmed.

No point in New Testament archaeology has been so closely studied as has been Lukes mention of the enrollment taken while Quirinius, was governor of Syria. Here is Lukes mention of it:

“Now it came to pass in these days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city.”1

“In the past generation it was believed that I-mke bad made almost as many mistakes as could possibly he made in these few lines, for it was thought that he was in error with regards to (1) the existence of such an imperial census; (2) Cyrenius (Quirinius-MW) being governor at that time (Lk. 2:2); (3) everyone having to go to his ancestral home.” 2 Although all the points have not been specifically corroborated, the existing evidence is certainly in Lukes favor.

“The point may be raised as to whether there is evidence that Augustus did in fact have an arrangement for such a system of enrollment. Here we have a good deal of material on hand. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-220) spoke as though he knew of such a system and said that it began with the census at the time of the birth of Christ. It is established that in the later empire there was a cycle of fourteen years between enrollments; and in Egypt, at any rate, there is documentary evidence in the form of actual census papers, for enrollments in A.D. 90, 104, 118, 132, and on till 230.” 3

Earlier scholars objected that a census held by Quirinius could not have occurred in the time of Herod, since Quirinius had not become governor of Syria. However, it is clear from contemporary inscriptions that Quirinius exercised some kind of executive power on two distinct occasions in Syria. One of these sources, found at Antioch in Pisidia, spoke of P. Sulpicius Quirinius duumvir waging a campaign in Syria about 10 B.C. in his capacity of chief magistrate, while a second inscription attested to his prominence in the Imperial army c. 6 B.C. It should be noted that Luke does not say that Quirinius held the census himself, but only that it was conducted at the time he was legate . . . On the basis of the evidence at hand, the Classical scholar W. M. Calder concluded that Quirinius had held two governships in Syria . . . The census may well have begun about 8 B.C., during the legateship of Quirinius and completed within the next two years, which would bring it within the lifetime of Herod the Great . . .” 4

“Supporting also the now widely admitted possibility that Lukes census may have involved the return of everyone to his ancestral home is the evidence from periodic enrollments in Egypt which were conducted on a fourteen year cycle and were by households. The edict in question is that of G. Vibius Maximus, prefect of Egypt and dated 104 A.D. Since the enrollment by households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their own district to return to their own home in order to perform the usual business of taxation”5

“It should in all candor be noticed just what archaeology has proved concerning this matter, and what points are still, from the archaeological side, outstanding. It has proved that the census was a periodic occurrence once in fourteen years, that this system was in operation as early as 20 A.D., and that it was customary for people to go to their ancestral abodes for enrollment. It has made probable that the census system was established by Augustus, and that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, although the last two points are not yet fully established by archaeological evidence. So far as the new material goes, however, it confirms the narrative of Luke.” 6

Moving now to other things mentioned in the gospels and confirmed by archaeology, we find Luke mentioning the time when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene. 7 “An inscription at Abila, dating from the reign of Tiberius, mentions Lysanias as tetrarch at that time, thus confirming Lukes statement. Lukes accuracy in distinguishing Abilene from Philips tetrarchy is also confirmed extra biblically. Some years later the tetrarchies were still separate, for the Emperor Caligula (47-41 A.D.) gave the tetrarchy of Philip, by that time deceased, and the tetrarchy of Lysanias to Herod Agrippa, and Emperor Claudius confirmed to him Abila of Lysanias.8

On another occasion, Jesus was misunderstood by those listening to him when lie foretold the resurrection of his body and they thought lie was discussing the building of the Jerusalem temple. They replied, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 9 “Herods greatest accomplishment was; the Hellenistic rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple, which had been constructed by Solomon and restored after the exile by Zerubbabel, but was now beginning to deteriorate. Work on the third temple was begun in 20 B.C. After nine and a half years, the structure of the temple proper was finished; the rest of the temple precinct took longer (more than forty-six years mentioned in John 2:20).”10 Thus, Jesus statement must have occurred around 26 A.D. while work was still being done on the temple.

Archaeological research has worked on the reference in John 19:13 to the “Pavement” where Jesus was tried before Pilate. Two suggestions have been forwarded as to the specific location of the “Pavement.” One suggests that the reference is to the paved floor in the Tower of Antonia adjacent to the temple. Others, feeling that Pilate would not likely have stayed with common soldiers while visiting Jerusalem, place the location of the “Pavement” in Herods palace. “Josephus tells us of a later occasion when the procurator Florus sat in judgment before Herods palace. There was evidently a judgment seat (bema) set up there for Herod to carry out his own ordinary judicial functions. Hence the entrance to the palace could well have been the Praetorium on that occasion.” 11

Thus, archaeology has confirmed several facts in the gospels and will confirm many more as new evidence becomes available.

Footnotes

1. Lk. 2:1-3.

2. Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History, (Wheaton, Van Kampen Press, 1952), p. 285.

3. James A. Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, Win. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 376.

4. R. K. Harrison, Archaeology of the New Testament, (New York: Association Press, 1964), p. 25.

Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 64.

6. George A. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible (Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, 1946), p. 558.

7. Lk. 3: 1.

8. Op. Cit., Unger, p. 73.

9. John 2:20.

10. Bo Reicke, The New Testament Era (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968) p. 98.

11. Op. Cit., Thompson, p. 346.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 45, pp. 6-7
September 21, 1972

By Roy E. Cogdill

In todays society there are any number of things that are tolerated and excused and which some even seek to justify that have always been recognized by decent and honorable people as productive of evil and no good at all. This is evident in the language that is commonly used everywhere.

You can read filthy, vulgar, vile language in the magazines and newspapers. The picture shows, television shows, and even some of the literature that is required reading in our schools is full of it. There seems to be nowhere you can avoid it today. We are living in a “four letter society” and the righteous are raising mighty little protest but seem to take the attitude that there is nothing that can be done about it. Gods name is profaned upon many lips with almost every breath and in every place. You cannot go into a public gathering of any kind, listen to the news, or read the paper without your senses being violated with vulgarity, profanity, and filthy communications. Why?

Have all our laws against such indecent language been repealed? No! Many of them are still on the statute books but they are not being respected or enforced. Does the principle of free speech guarantee the right to say anything, anywhere, any time in the presence of anybody? Does not a man have the right to take his wife and children out into the public places today without their having to be subjected to a lot of profanity and vulgar filth in what they are forced to see and hear? Does not the hearer have some rights as well as the speaker?

Is this change brought about by our being better enlightened and becoming better educated and more cultured? There are those who so contend. This is just not so. Profanity and vulgarity along with all crudeness in speech is the result of a lack of education and refinement. It shows a lack of real culture and wisdom. When one can adequately express himself, he needs no filthy words or vulgarity to do so (Pro. 8:1-8).

1. We have witnessed a breaking down of law and order. We have seen the greatest increase in crime this country has ever known. Respect for authority in general and government in particular is at the lowest ebb. All over the world there seems to be general rebellion against the established order of things.

2. Respect for others and their rights is almost non-existent. Men are selfishly concerned with their own rights regardless of the rights of others. The whole basis of “civil disobedience” is a lack of regard for either God or man.

3. Atheism is a basic factor. The increase of unbelief has been tremendous. It has infiltrated our literature, education, politics, and even religion until it threatens the very existence of this nation. Unless it can be halted and the righteous people of this nation become militant in their opposition to it, Communism will take this country without firing a shot. They will do it through atheism. Atheism is the religion of Communism. Our Supreme Court supports it when they rule that to teach the Bible account of creation is religion and in violation of the constitution, but to teach creation by chance, through the theory of evolution, is not religion. If one is religions the other must be. Yet, they say the Bible account of creation cannot be taught in our schools at all and the theory of evolution can be taught as fact and not violate the constitution. There is not a scientist on earth that can establish or prove evolution to be fact.

Atheism is not wisdom. It has never done anything constructive or worthwhile for mankind. It offers no incentive and gives no hope. It does not even have a plausible explanation for the existence of life. It is pagan and heathen. When people are taught that they are mere animals instead of created in the image and likeness of God, they will live and eat like animals and that is the kind of society we are becoming. The vulgarity and profanity to which we are being subjected is but a symptom of the real disease.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 45, p. 5
September 21, 1972

By Cecil Willis

Many special privileges belong to us because we are Christians. No greater opportunity is ours than the opportunity to talk with the Creator of heaven and earth. Men cherish the few times in their fives when they are permitted to talk with great men. But through Christ Jesus, we can have conversation with God as often as we wish. His ear is always open to the supplications of His children.

Christ is our perfect example in all things. He is a most wonderful example in prayer. About fifteen separate prayers of Christ are recorded in [fie New Testament. If the Son of God felt the need of communing with His Father, bow much greater must be the need of those of us who are fallible sons and daughters.

The apostle Paul was one who practiced the habit of prayer. In Romans 1:8 he said “I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all.” Paul was thankful for his brethren. Let us try praying one for another. When we are concerned enough to pray about one another we will certainly seek not to do harm either in word or deed to those for whom we are praying. Prayer for one another will bind us together with that blessed tie that ought to bind brethren in the Lord.

Paul commands that we pray without ceasing (1 Thess. 5: 1-4). This does not mean that every moment of my life must be spent in prayer. However, it does mean that Christians should talk with God often. No day should be spent in the Lords service without prayer. Most of us pause to thank God for His blessings before each meal, but we should devote other portions of the day to fervent prayer.

James says the “effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (Jas. 5:171. There is power in prayer! By the privilege of prayer I can ask God to perform things that I cannot do by myself. Alone man is very weak, but in prayer man becomes as strong as God Himself. Man does not become God, but he can have the power of God working in his behalf.

Man also becomes stronger as a result of prayer. The lusts of the flesh will be less attractive. Gods power exerted in answer to Prayers will keep us from sin. Pray without ceasing!

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 45, p. 3
September 21, 1972