Truth Magazine

“Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes will He really find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8).

Do you have problems accepting the biblical account of the birth of Jesus? Are you persuaded that relevant facts or information would lead to doubt of the biblical account? If so, I say as the Apostle Paul said, “Therefore I beg you to hear me patiently” (Acts 26:3).

In thinking about whether information is factual or evidence relevant, we should ask, does anyone deny, oppose, or reject the validity of such evidence or information and upon what basis? We should also conclude that it would be irrational to doubt evidence when there isn’t a trace of objective opposition to it. Upon such evidence, then we are able to draw conclusions from this undisputed evidence.

The question for us in considering the Bible’s account of the birth of Christ is, “Is there such undisputed evidence?” To answer this, we must determine if Luke (writer of biblical books Luke and Acts) is a credible source. Luke makes reference to 32 countries, 54 cities, and nine islands without any mistakes. Without encyclopedias, he has given accurately titles of officials that often changed over time and has recorded event after event that has been confirmed by inscriptional data or other findings. Even where he was thought to have made mistakes (reference to Lysanias, Luke 3:1, and Quirinius as governor of Syria, Luke 2:1), he has been proven accurate by forthcoming discoveries. (See F.F. Bruce New Testament Documents for more information.)

It has been said that Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. Concerning Luke he says, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.” Can any deny these facts?

Having considered Luke’s trustworthiness and confirmation, we should ask, “How much confirmation does a writer have to have before he is considered a historian?” If a writer such as Luke is judged to be a historian, then would not his writing of an event be historical evidence that this event did occur as recorded? If we say that the writings of such a person are not historical, then why do we accept other writings (History of Herodotus 488-428 BC) as historical when they don’t have as much confirmation? If we consider Herodotus to be a historian but not Luke, the only conclusion we can make of this is that we have a bias against one. Then it would not be our scholarship that causes us to arrive at this non-historical conclusion, but our prejudice against any writings that attribute anything to the supernatural.

Some “scholars” have even suggested that Luke was wrong about the “worldwide” census. Did the census take place or not? “The first three Gospels were written at a time when many were alive who could remember the things that Jesus said and did” (F.F. Bruce, New Testament Documents 13). And hardly no critic, atheist, agnostic, or  otherwise would deny that Luke did write shortly after the events he describes. Luke states his purpose for writing the book of Luke, “that you may know the certainty of those things . . .” If this census did not happen, Luke (so accurate at all other points), writing in hope that people would believe that Jesus is the Christ, tries to accomplish his objective by reporting an event that all the world would know did not take place. What could make a person believe that Luke was guilty of such a blunder?

A census was taken every fourteen years and in A.D. 104 a census as Luke described took place which shows these censuses were not uncommon (Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History 284-287). Who can deny these facts? During Augustus’ reign, “The loss of citizenship was the punishment of the man who failed to have his name enrolled” (Num De nis Fustel De Coulonges, The Ancient City 162). We know a census did take place around 8 B.C. and there have been other censuses taking several years to complete. So it would be easy to see how the census of 8 B.C. may be the census that Luke described (When Critics Ask 383-385).

It is also noteworthy that the birth of Christ is less significant in lower age groups according to a national survey by Barna Research Group Ltd. Obviously people today believe less in the birth of Christ because they believe less in the documents that reveal that birth.

Could the reason for this be that many people especially our young are being exposed to only one negative view of Christ’s birth? Could Josh McDowell be right when he says that much of the research and many of the writings quoted in his book (Evidence that Demands a Verdict) are not available at most secular universities? Therefore students and faculty are often limited in their examination of the subjects covered in the classroom and in his book according him.

Wouldn’t it be a shame if the real reason for this unavailability is simply that on philosophical grounds, credible alternative positions were excluded? Would this be education or indoctrination?

A student wrote to Billy Graham, “I have been taking a course in religion at college. My professor claims that the Bible is full of contradictions and factual errors, and that it is a book like any other human book. If this is so, why should I rely on it for a knowledge of spiritual truth?” She and others should know that “following the modern Historical approach I would never come to believe in the resurrection of Jesus as Savior and Lord” (Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict 2 ) and I might add to that no acceptance of the birth of Christ by such a philosophical approach. The reason is that the average “modern” historian rules out any reference to the supernatural as being unhistorical, or they would say a “myth.” They have already determined the limits of their results beforehand!

The college professor said that “the Bible is full of contradictions and factual errors.” Is the Bible “full” of such? “In addition to illuminating the Bible, Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts” (Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History). If a pas- sage of Scripture is contradictory to a “known fact,” they both can’t be truth. Acceptance of one is the denial of the other. If a passage is confirmed as true by archaeological discoveries, then the contradictory “known fact” could not really be a fact. Just how many times do you suppose these critics used these errroneous “known facts” to destroy the faith of some in the Scriptures in the name of education? How many other “known facts” contradictory to various passages are just waiting to be removed into a nonfactual category by future discoveries? But until this happens, these little “known facts” will be used to destroy the faith of our young. And these critics are just as sure of these “known facts” as they were the others before these “facts” were disproven by evidence.

Can any deny what Joseph Free said? If not, then the past is full of illustrations of discoveries establishing Scripture and disproving interpretations called “known facts” by some. Do you ever wonder what do these critics use to come up with these “known facts”? Perhaps it was their philosophy that the Bible evolved from men and did not come from God! If this philosophy brought us errors in the past, shall we continue to trust it today to guide us? God has given us a guide, “your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Ps. 119:105).

The Bible is never wrong! It is God’s word. If any evidence seems to conflict with Scriptures, we either have a false interpretation of the evidence or a false interpretation of the Scriptures. God made the world and gave us the Bible through error-free guided men. How can they disagree? So a man may rationally believe that Jesus on earth healed, walked on water, and arose from the dead to ascend to the right hand of the Father and will one day return. But before he did any of that, he was born of a virgin, in a manger, during a census just like the Bible says.

Had the Greek word baptisma — “baptisms” never been associated with a disputed religious practice, there never would have been any question concerning its meaning and proper English translation. However, by the time the first English translations of the Bible were made in the sixteenth century, ecclesiastical practice had already established “baptism” as a mystical, sacred religious sacrament, administered by pouring, sprinkling, or immersion. Obviously, no Bible could be allowed to translate baptisma as “immersion.” Such would undermine the doctrine of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and centuries of tradition. In fact, the Catholic Church and Church of England (among others) required that certain “ecclesiastical terms” be retained (such as “baptism” and “church”) in order to conform to church doctrine. In other words, church doctrine was to determine what the Bible taught, not vice-versa. In this article (and others to follow), which is dedicated to the special theme of baptism, we demonstrate that there are four clear ways by which anybody can see for themselves what this family of words really means. These proofs are to be seen in how the Greeks themselves used the word (1) in classical Greek, (2) in the Septuagint (i.e., the Greek Old Testament), (3) in contemporary Greek literature, and (4) the Greek New Testament itself. Most of these writings are unrelated to “Christian baptism” and therefore offer objective evidence as to the true meaning of the term.

In every case and without exception, the meaning of baptisma is a “dipping,” “plunging under,” “immersion,” “submersion,” “soaking,” etc. Never is any other action, such as sprinkling or pouring, included in the definition of the word. Of course, sometimes the word is used figuratively, that is, not of physical immersion in some physical substance. But even then, the concept is that of immersion, such as “immersed in grief,” “overwhelmed with anxiety,” or “in over your head.”

It should be very clear that baptisma means “immersion” and should be translated as such — indeed it would have been, had prevailing doctrinal practices not been invented by men. If one would substitute “immersion” (the proper translation) for “baptism,” he would see how foolish denominational practice is — “Sprinkling is just one way of immersing!” By definition, it is a contradiction!

Nowhere in the New Testament do we find anything except immersion practiced. The New Testament nowhere teaches sprinkling, pouring, or anything else as a suitable or alternate mode of “baptism.” But we are often told that sprinkling, pouring, and immersing are just different, equally acceptable ways of baptizing. The question is — how do we know sprinkling and pouring are acceptable? It would have to be upon some other basis besides what the word means (because no one ever defined or used the word baptisma in this way) or what the Bible teaches (because it nowhere mentions sprinkling or pouring), so how do I know?

What if I started teaching people that in order for them to be saved, they could just hop on one foot and cluck like a chicken? And if someone objects that baptism has to do with water, we’ll just make that a wet chicken. I could tell folks that it’s just another, perfectly acceptable means of “baptizing.” If not, why not? Would you say that that’s not what the word means? or that no one ever used the word in that way? or that the Bible teaches no such thing?

Do these objections sound familiar? Let’s stick to what the word simply means and to what the Word simply says: “Repent and be immersed . . . for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38).

By Connie W. Adams

Help Needed in Bergen, Norway

After 21 years of work in Norway, Tom and Shirley Bunting will be coming back to the States at the end of this year. They have worked long, hard, and faithfully. While progress has been slow, progress has been made. Shirley’s health has not been good the last few years. Tom still plans to return each year for brief periods of work. He is appealing for someone to replace him in the work. If you are mature in the faith and are ready for a great challenge, please write to:

Thomas Bunting

Adolf Bergvei 52-D

5030 Landaus

Norway

Terrell Bunting along with his wife, Karen, and their three children plan to continue in the work in Bergen where they have already spent several years. They have adapted to the language and culture well. Terrell has worked tirelessly in writing and printing tracts, Bible correspondence courses (they use several), and other materials for use in the work. For the last few months they have been in the States for a much needed break while Terrell has preached by appointments, in meetings, and has made numerous reports on the work in Norway. One of the elders at Cahaba Heights in Birmingham, Alabama has provided a home for them during this time. They are anxious to get back to their home and work in Norway in the summer. Terrell has learned recently that he is losing $1800 a month support. That is really bad news. The cost of living is very high in Norway (it is one of the most expensive countries in which we have traveled) and it is absolutely necessary for that to be replaced. With Tom and Shirley coming home, it is all the more urgent that Terrell and Karen be provided what they need to carry on the work. They plan to spend their lives there in the Lord’s work. They have already made a great difference.

The last time we were there I came away feeling better about the work than at any time since it all began in 1957. How about helping to spread the word around and support a good man in a needy place. Who else do you know that brethren could support in the work there with years of experience already in the field, who is fluent in the language and at ease in the culture? If you can help, or know of those who can help, please write or call:

Terrell Bunting c/o Clark Maxson

3433 Country Brook Lane Birmingham, AL 35243 (205) 967-4588

Elsie Shull — A Modern Dorcas

Elsie Shull passed away one month short of her 90th birthday. She was Bobby’s mother, my mother-in-law. She left us on January 17 while we were somewhere over west Africa trying to get back from work in South Africa. Her life was long and faithfully lived in service to the Lord and many other people. Since her death many have told us of kind deeds she did for them, even to the last week of her life. She was at Bible study on Wednesday night before her death on Saturday night. She had planned to visit folks in a nursing home on Thursday and had to be dissuaded be- cause she was not feeling well. She continually baked and cooked for the sick and needy. She wrote countless notes to encourage the sick, the discouraged, and the weak. She taught classes for children for many years. She took young couples out to eat just to encourage them. Visiting the sick and those in nursing homes was a regular practice.

At the funeral service at which her son Jerry spoke, along with Harold Byers and Greg Littmer, I spoke about her as a friend to preachers. In looking for some phone numbers for people we needed to call, I looked through her little alphabetized address book and was struck by how many preachers she had listed. There were 36 in five countries. She sent help time and again to worthy men and sometimes to their widows who were left in need. The church at Expressway misses her. So do a host of friends and family members. Bobby and I miss her terribly. She is at rest from her labors and her works follow her.

A Real Preacher

If children can’t keep you humble, nobody can. Since last August, when Phillip Mullins moved to California, the church at Manslick Road has been without a full-time preacher until March 1 when Frank and Sandy Himmel came to work with us. Between August and March, Richard Peterson and I did the preaching. I mainly filled in while home between meetings. In one of the children’s classes a little boy wrote a note to Frank and Sandy to welcome them to Manslick Road. He said, “Richard and Connie did OK, but we are ready for a real preacher.” We are glad to have that “real preacher” among us. In the meantime, Richard and I will just forge ahead and do the best we can.

A Letter from Taiwan

A Filipino sister who is working in Taiwan wrote me asking for back issues of Truth Magazine. She has tried in vain to find a faithful congregation where she lives. Her father in the Philippines had sent her some back issues of Searching the Scriptures and Guardian of Truth. Someone had sent him a gift subscription to these but that had stopped in 1991. She had been reading and rereading these old is- sues and looking up Scripture references to help her in her study. Those of us who write never know into whose hands our work will fall and the amount of good it may do. It also is sobering to think that what we write may be used years later by a lonely Christian far from home and away from brethren, as a means of spiritual help. I sent her some more recent back issues of the paper.

A Growing Set of Commentaries

There are now seven volumes completed in the New Testament Commentaries published by Guardian of Truth Foundation. The Gospel of John by Dan King is now at the printer and The Book of Romans by Clinton Hamilton is now in the second reading before going to the printer. They are all in matching binding and not only make a handsome set, but are substantive works which will long endure as useful tools for the Bible student. Are you adding these to your library as they become available? Call toll free 1-800- 428-0121 to order your copy.

By Mike Willis

In Ezekiel’s day, shortly before the Babylonian Captivity in 587 B.C., the Jews explained their political difficulties by this proverb: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Ezek. 18:2). The adage blamed their sufferings on others, namely their fathers. To refute this concept, Ezekiel described the following situations:

1. The case of a righteous man (Ezek. 18:5-9). Ezekiel described a righteous man who conscientiously obeyed the Lord’s law. This man shall not suffer death; rather, “he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God” (Ezek. 18:9).

2. The wicked son of a righteous man (Ezek. 18:10-13). Ezekiel then described the wicked son of this righteous man who became a robber, shedder of blood, and such like things. Despite the fact that his father was a righteous man, “he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him” (Ezek. 18:13).

3. The righteous son of a wicked man (Ezek. 18:14-18). The prophet then described the righteous son of this wicked man who, seeing his father’s wickedness, turned away from it in repentance toward God. The prophet said, “When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live” (Ezek. 8:19).

4. The righteous man who turns to commit wickedness (Ezek. 18:24). When the righteous man forsakes his obedience to turn aside to sin, “all this righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.”

The principle of moral responsibility by which God judges the world is this: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezek 18:20).

Personal Responsibility For Sin

Many of our social science professionals try to excuse wicked conduct. When two young men brutally slay their parents, the lawyers’ defense is what they went through in their youth. When a young mother drives her infants into a lake that they might drown, her defense is that she was molested as a child. Almost any deviant behavior experienced during youth is sufficient to release one from moral responsibility for the most horrible crimes committed as an adult.

The newspaper tells the story of two teenagers from upper middle class homes whose fornication led to the birth of a child out of wedlock. The boyfriend “discards” (a morally neutral word to describe infanticide or baby murder) the baby, but the press portrays the parents as “victims” of the situation!

Ezekiel would remind us that every man is person- ally responsible for his own behavior. The fact that one’s father is wicked does not destroy the son’s ability to be a righteous man (see Ezek. 18:14-18). Furthermore, the son of the wicked is responsible to God for obedience to the same law as is the son born to the righteous man. Why should one judge the decision of the ungodly man’s son to live righteously to be more difficult than the decision of the righteous man’s son to live wickedly? Is the Devil easier to understand and obey than is the Lord? Nevertheless, all kinds of unrighteous behavior are being excused on the grounds that how one acts in adulthood is determined by fate based on the kind of parental upbringing that one has. Whatever became of free will?

Bad Habits Can Be Conquered

In an age that is learning that nearly every kind of sinful conduct is addictive, making the guilty sinner somehow less responsible for his sin, we need to be reminded that sinners can break out of the mold of their sin. Ezekiel wrote, “But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die” (Ezek. 18:21).The wicked obviously can turn away from all of their sins and keep God’s commandments. The merciful and forgiving God is willing to forgive their transgressions and receive them into his fellowship. Were this not true, none of us could be saved.

Sin’s Guilt Is Not Inherited

A fundamental thesis of Calvinism is refuted by Ezekiel 18:20, that is the teaching of inherited depravity. Sin’s guilt is not transferred from one person to another. Ezekiel 18:20 states this principle of divine judgment, “The soul that sin- neth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Cain and Abel did not inherit the guilt of Adam’s transgressions. They were not born morally depraved because of Adam’s sin. They were not born in a state of condemnation because their father sinned. And neither did any other of Adam’s descendants inherit the guilt of his transgression.

Past Good Works Do Not Keep One Saved

Sometimes brethren write as if the past good deeds that one did somehow keep a person from suffering the guilt of his transgressions when he sins against God. Ezekiel wrote, “But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die” (Ezek. 18:24). The good deeds that Peter had done did not keep him saved when he played the hypocrite at Antioch. His hypocrisy caused him to “stand condemned” (Gal. 2:11). He was personally responsible for his sins. They were not automatically forgiven because of his past good works, his good intentions, or his general good character.

Conclusion

We need a good dose of teaching about personal responsibility. Teaching about moral responsibility will emphasize free will and what man must do to be saved by the grace of God. Any teaching that states that one can be saved while continuing in the practice of his sin is contrary to divine revelation.