Link to other
Evidences by John Lankford
Why do people not accept the Old Testament world view as truth?
Those who do accept the message of the Old Testament as truth, it is
the very foundation for life and understanding the New Testament
writings (Rom 15:4, Hebrews). But for others it is the foundation for
nothing.
WHY DO SOME NOT BELIEVE?
First, many believe that the idea of God is just a human concoction.
That is, God is just inferred in order to explain "mysteries." These
people point out that all religions have this one thing in common.
Hence, writings, sacred books, etc., are all based on human
imagination or ideas.
The above is not totally false. The idea that a God exists comes from
the human mind. How else could it come about? Man sees nature,
man infers, man concludes . . . that is the way man learns about the
surety of God's existence (Rom 1:19ff).
It is also true that many, like Shirley MacLaine, have written books
that tell about having contact with a Someone "out there." Plus the
cults have their sacred books. The Greeks had their whole team of
gods and wrote about them. So, it is also true that men have created
writings to go along with their "religious" claims. Often it is not the
idea that God exists that is disputed but the factuality of the Old
Testament that is disputed. It is simply lumped together with all other
"sacred books" and labeled "myth."
Second, there is this thing of personal autonomy. That is, the desire
to rule one's self. In general, everyone wants to have his/her own way
on a matter. It is hard to submit to authority, admit mistakes, and "line
up" with how someone else sees it. Everyone has a natural desire to
do things that are right in one's own eyes. To believe in the Old
Testament world view would put one into a dilemma because, in the
Bible, it is an act of rebellion against God to follow one's own self
instead of submitting to God (Jer 17:15, Prov 3:7, Deut 12:8; and the
case of Nadab and Abihu, Lev 10:1-3). So, to keep one's
independence, the Bible is simply rejected as are all other types of
religions that are authority-based.
Third, there is this tension between the wrath of God and the love of
God that affects people. On a recent program of "48-Hours," George
Carlin, the cynic comic, explained to the audience the "absurdity" of
God. He tells them that there is this invisible man up there that
watches everything you do. And that He has 10 things you ought not
do . . . because if you do them He will send you to a screaming,
burning Hell forever . . . (Carlin pauses) . . . and then this God tells
you He loves you!! Of course, there were rounds of laughter and
applause. To believers, Carlin is a fool, but to the audience he is
wise. How can Carlin's view of God be changed? What about his
audience? If they see good works being done by the church would
that prove that the God of the Bible is real and that the Old Testament
is factual? No. What if they hear a sermon on self-esteem? Of course
not. Will seeing "vibrant worship" do it? Hardly. What about preaching
about the God revealed in the Old Testament? No. Nothing will
change until Carlin and others believe in the factuality of the Old
Testament . . . only then can you "talk content."
Fourth, some sincerely ask why doesn't God just speak to us directly
as He did in the Old Testament. Why does He hide Himself if He
really wants us to believe? So, this "hide-and seek" stuff really
frustrates people and makes them just say, "Forget it!" We
understand their frustration.
Fifth, there is this thing of not being able to find the truth on a religious
matter. Since everyone thinks differently, because of his/her
environment it is argued, that prevents them from ever agreeing on
anything. That is, one's outlook can never be changed by facts.
Hence, one world view, religion, or expression of Christianity is just as
valid as another. So, the "search is off" as far as looking into the
world view of the Old Testament and finding out what it really says.
Islam, Samaritanism, Mormonism, Deism, Animism, etc., are all
equally valid expressions of man's search for God-based outlooks
pre-determined by culture. (This whole issue is called Post-modernism, and religious Pluralism is its fruit.)
MORE REASONS TO DOUBT
Some have heard either shaky evidences to prove the truth of
the Old Testament or some laughable teachings that are supposedly
what the Old Testament says that have caused doubt to prevail.
example 1) Isaiah 40:22 says that God sits above the circle of the
earth. Many of us have heard this quoted as "proof of inspiration"
because it foretold the ball shape of the earth before its discovery.
But plates are round . . . and flat. If the earth had this shape, God
could still sit above the "circle of the earth" and look down. The point
is that we are dealing again with picture-language and it is stretching
it to make it say something about the shape of the earth. Remember,
the Old Testament is to make us wise unto salvation and not wise as
to how the universe goes (2 Tim 3:15).
example 2) One of the more recent and sincerely taught ideas is that
before Adam sinned there was no death of any living thing on this
planet. This means that in the garden nothing died. Think about this.
If Adam stepped on a roly-poly bug or ant or grub or worm, it would
not die. There would be no food chains where big fish eat smaller fish
etc. In fact, there would be no "humus" in the garden because it is
decaying organic matter! The people that teach this are those
involved in the Institute for Creation Science. Dr. Henry Morris is one
of the leading expositors of this view. This is another case of
"stretching it" too far as per the language of Genesis.
example 3) Sincere people say that they have found Noah's ark.
Maybe. But according to Dr. Harvey Porter, a respected archeologist
and Christian, no archeologist of repute is an "arkeologist" or gives
credence to their claims. The fact of the flood is not being disputed . .
. it is the finding of the ark that is being questioned. In fact, the recent
television program "In Search of Noah's Ark" was found out to be
filled with fraud. This made national news. "Bogus facts" do not help
the cause.
example 4) The local newspaper here ran a section asking local
ministers to give reasons why they believe in God. Some were good
but others were dreadfully shallow. One preacher used most of his
space to talk of his trip to Scotland and then told us that he believed
in God because he saw a rainbow and that only God could make a
rainbow. Actually kids in the backyard with a water-hose can make a
rainbow. And that is probably what most people came up with. So the
"evidence" fell flat as a flitter. When presenting evidences to the
public, we need to spend time on the topic and get to the point.
example 5) Most of us who were in college about 25 years ago
probably heard about N.A.S.A. computer experts finding the "missing
day of Joshua." This writer remembers trying to locate more
information on the subject. It seems like every church bulletin and
preacher mentioned it. It turned out to be a hoax (probably made by
the same people that cooked up the "Search Noah's Ark" T.V.
special). We've got to make sure that what we say can be
documented and is backed by competent research.
THE CHURCH NEEDS TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN LAYING
DOWN REASONS TO BELIEVE
First, the problem today is UNBELIEF. So preaching God to the lost,
letting them see our good works, being a good neighbor to the
community, having lectureships on the family and marriage, etc.,
PROVE NOTHING and DO NOTHING to lay a solid foundation for
having a faith based on fact. True, the church is to be full of "good
works" (Eph 2:10), but a cornerstone of the edifice has been left out . .
. and that is preaching the FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE BIBLE!!
Second, people will believe something. Everyone has a world view. It
is an act of faith. But some world views are not EVENT-BASED as
the Old Testament is. In fact, the Judeo-Christian religion is unique by
having a historical base. Our God acted in real-life and things were
recorded and can be looked into. Being event-based, it is an umbrella
for people, places, and things. We CAN assemble facts and establish
reasons for faith.
Third, the church around here has focused on " being a good
neighbor" and providing a "place where visitors see how warm we
are." We also want to preach "hope." People need "hope." But "hope
must have its reasons." We are hitting all these important areas to the
virtual . . . abject neglect of providing REASONS TO BELIEVE! Sure,
someone may "join our club" by getting wet in the water but is it
BLIND FAITH that motivates them? Is it responding to "warm
fuzziness" or FACTS? (Please do not misunderstand . . .
congregations need to be warm and have a sense of community, but
if this is the hook to get them in, then our hook is just "warmer" than
the cult down the street. The issue is DO WE HAVE A FACTUAL
BASIS FOR EXISTING?? People need to know!)
Fourth, someone has said that a faith unexamined is not worth
having. That is true. But the current movement of the church today is
to dish out to the public a teaching that they are expected to swallow
without giving them any solid evidence that it is the truth. Hence, if
they respond, they have an unexamined faith. And what if the "warm-fuzziness" of the congregation fizzles? Then those people are gone.
They had no roots. They never were shown that what they believed is
backed up by evidence as is no other religion. Church leaders need
to get their head out of the "warm-fuzzy" sand and act on the reality of
the present situation.
CONCLUSION
This article has tried to show why some refuse to believe in the Old
Testament world view and that some still doubt because they have
heard very inadequate reasons for believing. Finally, it is advised that
the church here (and elsewhere) get to the task of challenging
unbelief and providing reasons to believe to those who are lost.
Link to other
Evidences by John Lankford
