Faith

Faith is a matter of hearing testimony, examining the evidence accompanying that testimony, and then deciding “I believe it; it is true!” Contrary to what many seem to think, this is true whether one is dealing with scientific or biblical principles. The evolu-tionist believes that life came from non-life, not because he has observed this event taking place, but because he believes that the evidence demands such as faith on his part. Similarly, the theist be-lieves in God, not because he has ever observed Him, but because he believes that the evidence demands such a faith. Specifically, in the context of one's relationship to God, faith is arrived at by hearing God's Word, examining the confirming evidence, and then deciding if one believes it: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).

The Value Of True Faith

Of course, in order to be classified as genuine faith, it must lead us to obedience. In other words, genuine faith—the conviction that God is right and His Word is true—will always lead to action on our part (cf. James 2:26). Therefore, when one's faith is activated by obeying the gospel and, as a result, one lives a daily life of obedience to Christ, there is the remission of sins, as well as all the good things that accompany salvation (cf. Romans 5:1-5). By faith, one has the power to resist temptation. We know this is true because the Word of God tells us that we can take up the shield of faith and “quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one” (Ephesians 6:16). By faith, one has the powerful avenue of prayer (James 1:6; I John 3:22 and 5:14,15). By faith, one has moral courage and stability (II Corinthians 1:24; James 1:3). By faith, one has a foundation upon which character is built (II Peter 1:5-11). By faith, one has an understanding that others do not have, because by faith one understands the universe was “framed by the word of God” (Hebrews 11:3). By faith, one understands that man was created by God, is uniquely loved by Him, and is a candidate for eternal fellowship with Him in heaven. Thank God for the convicting power of His Word!

It is true then, and there must be no mistake about it, there is real power in faith. When we hear, believe, and obey the gospel of Christ; when we “walk by faith, not by sight,” there is power available “in Christ” (Ephesians 1:3). Of course, it must be remembered that the source of this power rests in God and not man.

The Faith In Faith Bunch

Unfortunately, some these days are having a lot to say about faith, but the faith they are talking about is not the faith spoken of in the Bible. Some today are deluded by “deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons (I Timothy 4:1)—and I am not just talking about denomina-tionalists—, and are teaching that the power of faith is located in the human mind and not in God. Faith is seen by these people as a power (i.e., force) of the human mind that compels God to act on their behalf. The correct biblical concept of ”asking in faith, with no doubting" (James 1:6) is wrested from the immediate context (viz., asking God for wisdom) and is used to undergird the ungodly teaching that says one can get from God any thing one prays for if possessed of a “positive mental attitude” or “belief.” This is not what James was teaching. Instead, James was teaching that when one who relies, trusts, and has complete confidence in God asks Him for wisdom, he receives it. This is true because such a prayer meets all the conditions stipulated in God's Word, including the most important one: “If it be Thy will, Lord.”

The Lust Of The Flesh And Eyes And The Pride Of Life

Turned-off by what they perceive to be a pie-in-the-sky,-bye-and-bye Christianity, many have succumbed to the you-can-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too philosophy of the modern day prosperity preachers. Subscribing to what is called the “magic power of belief,” many have come to believe the blatantly false concept that says, “Anything the human mind can believe, the human mind can achieve.” This idea is similar, if not identical, to the “you will be like God” promise of satan to Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:5). With this in mind, it is interesting to notice just how far men will go to defend this erroneous doctrine.

In his book You Can If You Think You Can, Dr. Norman Vincent Peale tells the story of a poor Chinese refugee who became a successful business man after reading Philippians 4:13, which says, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” According to Peale:

That struck him like a bolt of lightning. “All things” seemed incredible, but in that flashing moment he actually became a believer. He could—he knew he could—move up to better things.

But a believer in what? A believer in himself, of course; a believer in his own abilities and mind powers. Such faith in faith, you can be sure, was not what the apostle Paul had in mind in penning those words. The faith Paul was writing about was faith in Christ: the kind of faith that allowed him to understand that he could overcome all obstacles to his apostolic mission as a result of the strength he received from above. That is all Paul was saying—nothing more, nothing less! He was not saying, “Your unconscious mind... [has a] power that turns wishes into realities when the wishes are strong enough.” He was not saying, “You don't know what power you have within you... You make the world into anything you choose. Yes, you can make your world into whatever you want it to be.” He was not saying that all one needed to do was have a “positive mental attitude” and “think he could,” and he could then do any thing he wanted to do. Such thinking is carnal and promotes a materialism that is completely contrary to the life of faith exhibited by Paul, namely:

Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Anyone, especially a Christian, who would attempt to accommodate these verses to the if-you-can-believe-it,-you-can-achieve-it gospel ought to be quite ashamed of himself. Such is nothing less than the devil's doctrine and is a disgraceful attempt to justify the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (cf. I John 2:16).

More About Faith

Phil Hayes had a dream. He wanted to earn a lot of money, buy a schooner, and sail around the world. Phil was no idle dreamer. He was the kind of guy who could seemingly do anything he set his mind to. His wife described him as the only man in the world who could walk on water.

Faith in himself was one thing Phil had an abundance of. And Phil's faith got results too! He was a great success in business and was soon on his way to fulfilling his dream.

It wasn't long before Phil was able to purchase the 52-foot schooner “Astrea.” With a crew of four he set sail on a “shakedown” or trial run cruise to Mexico. But things began to go sour. There were mechanical problems with the schooner and Phil did not conduct himself in a way that inspired confidence on the part of his crew. They eventually deserted him and his wife, also, lost confidence in her husband's ability to sail around the world.

But Phil had faith! A four-year, round-the-world cruise was in his grasp, and he was not going to let it slip away. He recruited a new crew and sailed for Tahiti. Phil and his crew were never heard of again, even after a long and intensive search by the Coast Guard. Seven years later Phil Hayes was declared to be legally dead. Those of you who like a mystery might toy with the idea that Phil is still alive and living comfortably somewhere far away from the humdrum of modern life. Chances are you are wrong! More than likely, the remains of Phil Hayes and his dream lie at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

Of this one thing you can be sure: We will never hear about Phil Hayes from the cheerleaders of Positive Thinking and the modern-day pied-pipers of Faith in Faith. All the positive thinkers, faith healers, super salesman-types, politicians, pop-psychologists, and preachers can't “juice” people up with a Phil Hayes story. Phil's story is negative and these charlatans aren't selling negativism. They're selling The Power Of Positive Thinking, which, according to them, is right up there with apple pie, motherhood, and the flag! To these swindlers, The Power Of Positive Thinking is the greatest consumer product since pop corn.

Now don't get us wrong. We are not against positive thinking. We know there is an advantage to having the right frame of mind. If we think we can do something, there is a better chance we will actually do it than if we think we can't. We are not ignorant of the advantages of positive thinking. But neither are we ignorant of stories similar to that of Phil Hayes. In Luke 12:16-21, we read the following: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully. And he thought within himself, saying, `What shall I do since I have no room to store my crops?' So he said, `I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.' But God said to him, `You fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?' So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” Here was a positive thinker who believed in himself. Notice how many times he uses “I” and “my.” He visualized what he wanted to do; nevertheless, things didn't work out exactly like he intended. Of course, this is another story you will never hear at a Faith in Faith seminar.

What Is Biblical Faith?

Biblical faith (i.e., saving faith) is not belief in self or some vague faith in faith. Biblical faith is belief, trust, and reliance in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Faith in God is more than just believing that He exists, it is a willingness to exercise confidence and trust in His promises (Hebrews 11:6). The pied-pipers of Faith in Faith tell us that the object of our faith is, for the most part, irrelevant. On the other hand, the Bible tells us the object of our faith, in order to be pleasing to God, must be God Himself. The Bible tells us that Biblical faith is a conviction of and confidence in the absolute authority of the Sovereign of the universe (cf. Hebrews 11:1,2).

Biblical faith, then, is belief in an objective authority. Jesus Christ is that objective authority! In Matthew 8:5-13, this point is made quite clear. A Roman Army officer approached Jesus to plead for his paralyzed servant. The Lord says, “I will come and heal him” (verse 7), but the servant replies: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, `Go,' and he goes; and to another, `Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, `Do this,' and he does it” (verses 8 & 9). This Roman soldier believed Jesus had authority to heal his servant. He believed Jesus could just say the words and his servant would be healed. The Bible tells us that the Lord marvelled at this Gentile's “great faith” (verse 10). This, friend and neighbor, is the faith we should all learn to emulate. This, the Bible says, is the kind of faith that will allow us to be saved (Romans 5:1,2 & Ephesians 2:8,9). Why? Because, Biblical faith trusts in God's absolute authority and acts upon His words (Hebrews 11:1-40). The faith that saves is not taught in Self-Esteem seminars and Faith in Faith lectures; the faith that saves comes from hearing God's Word (Romans 10:17). Save your money and your soul by avoiding those who would make merchandise of you, and by faith give yourself over to the one who loves you, and proved it by dying for you on Calvary's cruel cross.

Remember, Bible lessons on faith do not teach us to have faith in faith or faith in ourselves; on the contrary, they teach us to, “Have faith in God” (Mark 11:22).

Cafeteria Style Religion And Bumper Sticker Theology

We have a tendency to look for a passage that will substantiate our preconceived ideas. This tendency toward proof-texting might best be described as Smorgasbord or Cafeteria Style Religion. Invariably, this kind of attitude leads us to make serious mistakes concerning what the Bible actually teaches on any given subject. For example, those who believe “faith only” to be a very “wholesome doctrine,” look to John 3:16 as a proof-text. While discussing this subject with a “faith only” advocate, we heard him remark something to this effect: “John 3:16 is the only passage a person needs to know in order to be saved. If a person knew of no other scripture, he would still know enough to be saved.” Of course, when you pin these “faith only” people down, even they don't believe that John 3:16 is all one needs to know in order to be saved. All the “faith only” people we have spoken with believe that repentance is also necessary in order for one to be saved. Repentance, of course, is not mentioned in John 3:16. When we pointed this out to the aforementioned individual, he wanted to change the subject.

The man-made doctrine of “faith only” may make good “bumper sticker theology,” but is so superficial that when taken at face value it will cause those who believe it to reject every other condition God has placed on salvation. This must be seen as the absolute folly it really is. Without the rest of Scripture, it is impossible to know the real nature of the faith taught in John 3:16 and elsewhere. True saving faith is not just “faith only,” but is a faith made perfect by works (James 2:14-26). Far from being the contradiction Cafeteria Style religionists believe these two passages to be, James has simply given us greater insight into the faith John wrote about.

The “saving faith” of John 3:16 is not mere belief, but must be defined in light of repentance (Acts 17:30), confession (Romans 10:10), and baptism (I Peter 3:21). Add to this the concept of being “faithful until death” (Revelation 2:10) and one begins to understand what genuine saving faith is all about.

Culture And Its Influence

In Paul's letter to Titus, we learn that Cretan culture was very bad. In Titus 1:12, Paul wrote: “One of them, a prophet of their own, said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” We can be sure that Paul was not just being uncouth. Neither was he addressing the integrity of every single Cretan. He was, instead, reminding Titus of the persuasive influence of culture. In Cretan society, there was a general lack of integrity among the people. By and large, they were a cruel and savage people who would selfishly push everyone out of their way in order to gain an advantage for themselves. In addition, they were pleasure-loving (viz., they loved to eat) and lazy. “Cretinism” or “Cretan behavior,” in the ancient world meant “lying.” According to the ancient writers, the Cretans were experts at lying, cheating, and stealing. To them, “no profit is ever disgraceful” (The Histories VI, 46). Their forte, according to Titus 1:11, was “dishonest gain.” Consequently, it should not surprise us that the Philistines, who are still listed in our modern dictionaries as a rude, crude, vulgar, and barbaric people, were, according to Amos 9:7, descendants of “Caphtor” or Crete.

This is why Paul cautions Titus to warn the Cretan brethren of the terrible influence of their culture (Titus 1:13). If they were going to be “sound in the faith,” they were going to have to be “rebuked sharply.” We can almost be certain that some were more than willing to misunderstand Titus' “sharpness” (cf. II Corinthians 13:10). Nevertheless, we are sure Paul did not prescribe this remedy for the destruction of the Cretan brethren. Instead, he imposed it for their edification. For the Christians at Crete, as it is for Christians everywhere, the New Testament, not their culture, was to be the benchmark of their behavior.

The Work In Kenya As An Example

When Paul Ayres and I first came to Kenya to preach the gospel in July of 1992, we knew very little of the Kenyan people and their culture. Our first impression was influenced by over forty people who “obeyed the gospel.” during the six weeks we were here. Eight of these were denominational preachers of various ilk. Although we had some suspicions about so many denominational preachers obeying the gospel in mass, we were resigned to the fact that time would tell which ones were genuine converts and which ones were not. At that time we did not know just how corrupt Kenyan culture really is. Upon leaving in August, we were concerned about the immaturity of the forty-plus “babes” we were leaving behind.

By December, 1992, Paul and I were convinced that the denominational backgrounds of the Christians in Kenya were causing enough problems that another trip was necessary to shore-up the work. We had originally planned to return in July, 1993, but it seemed clear to us that we needed to get back over as soon as possible. In February, 1993, Paul and I returned for another five and a half weeks. We spent most of our time teaching those who had already been taught how “to observe all things” (Matthew 28:20). We were amazed at how little men who had been denominational preachers for many years actually knew about the Bible. We had really underestimated their basic knowledge of God's word. Before we left at the end of March, Paul and I knew that someone needed to spend an extended period of time in Kenya teaching these brethren.

In July, 1993, my wife and I moved to Kenya for at least a six months stay. We actually hoped to be able to stay for a whole year. The Taylorsville Road church, a church that has supported me to do the work of an evangelist for the last thirteen years, agreed to continue my support during this time. Upon our arrival in Kenya, we learned that we had arrived not a moment too soon. The “leaders” of the churches in Kenya were trying to exercise ungodly control over all the churches. They were holding monthly meetings, originally designed for mutual personal edification, to formulate creedal papers for all to sign. Furthermore, it was learned that Lawrence Gitonga, our original contact, was a liar and thief (while being fully supported by the Taylorsville Rd. church, he begged money and support from Kenyan brethren, pretending he was receiving no support), and that he was the writer of the creedal statements, as well as the primary instigator of discord among Kenyan and American brethren. On the latter, his point was simple: Let us keep all our faults and secrets from our American teachers because if they find out, then no one is going to receive any support from America. If you tell on me, you are only hurting yourself, because if my support is discontinued, I will not be able to help you get support. Furthermore, I have worked with white men for along time, and you just can't trust them. If this current “chapter” (viz., support from churches of Christ) doesn't work in getting us all supported, then I have “several other chapters” in the works. A few were actively resisting such thinking, most were being silent because they were afraid that if they were not, they would not be getting any support, others bought into Lawrence's ungodly philosophy “lock, stock, and barrel.” One of these extorted money from me under the pretext of having been arrested for preaching the gospel publicly in his village. The money was to help him defend himself. It was all a lie! A man who had claimed to be converted by this liar and thief moved in our midst for awhile pretending to be a genuine convert. He later was instrumental in “baptizing” two men in a distant village. These two men, who seem to be genuine seekers, later learned that this man was still in league with the first liar and thief, and that he, himself, had never been baptized. Before Anita and I left Kenya in December, 1993, I heard from the liberals in Nyeri that they had received a letter from these two charlatans, requesting that they come to their village to preach the gospel. To this, we could add many more shocking and disgusting stories of deceit and chicanery, but I am sure that by now you have gotten the point—something must be terribly wrong with Kenyan culture!

Yes, Kenyan culture is appalling. Corruption is everywhere! Almost everyone wants kitu kidogo (“a little something”) for doing what they do, from the common clerk to the government official. The most mundane transaction needs kitu kidogo. If there is no kitu kidogo, then there is no service, no license, no nothing! On the other hand, if you are willing to pay, the sky seems to be the limit!

Now, before you get down on Kenyans, let me tell you something you may not realize: Living in such a society is extremely difficult. Corruption is a way of life. If you are not willing to pay kitu kidogo, your are going to find out that your “row is going to be very hard to hoe.” Just about every time I asked for a receipt in Kenya, I was asked how much money I wanted it made out for. In other words, anything, including one's integrity, is for sale in Kenya. Let's personalize it: How many days will you stand in line to pay a bill before you begin to rationalize a little kitu kidogo? How many times will you take the test for a driver's license and fail because you didn't pay “a little something” before you decide to “pass”? How often are you willing to let your utilities be shut off because you refuse to pay the clerk to make a correction of a mistake the utility company made on your bill before you decide that the clerk is surely overworked and needs “a little something” for her effort? Now, with all this firmly entrenched in our minds, maybe we all have a little better appreciation of Paul's admonition to “rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). Did he not go on to say: “To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled” (verse 15)? How long would any of us live in such a culture before we became defiled in mind and conscience?

Are we trying to excuse the Kenyans for their general lack of integrity? God forbid! What we are trying to do is enlighten you as to the problems we have encountered among the Kenyans and what we are trying to do about it. If we remain ignorant of Kenyan culture, I am convinced we will do them and the gospel a great dis-service. Therefore, it will help to learn how Kenyan culture got to be the way it is.

How Did They Get This Way?

Before they were colonized by the British, Kenyans' culture varied according to the tribe of which they were apart. Although all Africans had a belief in the existence of a supreme being who is the creator of all, he usually had neither temples nor priests. He was regarded as a transcendent being too exalted to be concerned with the affairs of men. For example, the Kikuyus, the predominate tribe in Kenya, acknowledged a supreme creator-god who resided on the snow peaked tips of Mount Kenya. In addition, they had a whole pantheon of lesser gods, or “nature spirits,” who were associated with their tribe. These lesser divinities were much more important that the supreme god, who was simply too aloof. These lesser divinities were perceived to be related to some particular aspect of nature, or some area of life over which they ruled, and could be manipulated by some form of ritual or magic. In this world view, rocks and trees had supernatural powers, and spirits, good or bad, often took on human form. Incidentally, a good tribalist would never think of evangelizing someone from another tribe, because his “nature spirits” were associated and concerned only with his own tribe—other tribes had their own divinities. Furthermore, what was morally right or wrong was not prescribed by some supreme deity, or even by the lesser divinities, but was decided by tribal elders and, ultimately, the chief of the tribe.

Although modern Kenyans come from many different tribes, their traditional religions were all animistic, with no dividing line between what we in Western society would call the “natural” and the “supernatural.” In this world view, which the Africans themselves dub “traditional beliefs,” sorcery and witchcraft occupy a prominent position. The diviner, or shaman, is important in that he prescribes “medicines” and charms to cure or ward off sickness, spells, and evil spirits. And then there is the witch doctor. Although most Westerners still think the African witch doctor is the chief of witches, in the “traditional religions,” the witch doctor is the chief enemy of the witches. The witch doctor is in fact the specialist doctor to whom one goes when he is suffering harm from witches. He is a respected and feared member of the community. Witch doctors are still active in Kenya and frequently people are still being accused of being witches. Some of those accused of witchcraft are “lynched,” which means they are stoned, hacked, or burned to death. Shockingly, there were over five hundred lynchings in 1993, of which more than a few were suspected witches.

Now, add to this the “traditional beliefs” concept of sin, in which sin was essentially regarded as ceremonial error, or the violation of the honor of the tribal community, and one gains some insight into the Kenyan's propensity for lying to the muzungu,or “white man,” in order to get gain. For a thirteen-year-old boy to show any signs of discomfort during his public circumcision would be a terrible sin; but, to steal cattle from another tribe would not be considered wrong. Factor into this colonial rule, which was the forced subjugation of all the Kenyan tribes by the powerful white man's “tribe,” and you have a nation of people who did not think they were doing anything wrong when they lied to the British for their own personal gain. Add to this the perverted warrior mentality of many of the African tribes that said, “What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine,” and you had all the ingredients for the development of a society bent on “dishonest gain” (Titus 1:11). Finally, include in this equation the “Christianity,” of the colonials, who mistakenly equated Western Civilization with true Christianity, and we understand that colonialism, from the very beginning, was bent on changing Africans socially, politically, and religiously.

As soon as African and Western culture met, a synthesis began to take place that would ultimately culminated in a syncretism, or Christo-paganism, which still contaminates Kenya. The religion of the white colonial masters—we'll call it Western Civilization Christianity—was, and will always be, an imported religion in East Africa. Cut off from his past, but unable to imbibe completely the religion of his colonial masters, the African memorized an imported set of legalistic rules, sang and played a bunch of rhythmless hymns, and practiced a religion consisting mostly of meaningless outward ritual in a church building constructed along Western design, all of which penetrate only one day of his week, and then only for a few hours. Consequently, the religion of many East Africans is a superficial religion practiced by hypocrites.

Today, thirty years after independence, Kenya calls itself a “Christian nation.” Their national anthem even mentions God, the Creator of the universe. But, for the most part, their's is a nation of two faiths. The “traditional religions” are still very much a part of Kenyan society. When faced with difficulties and conflicts, the Kenyan consistently opts for non-Christian solutions. It is clear that they have never understood the all-encompassing nature of the lordship of Jesus Christ.They have simply been playing church!

Having never been exposed to true Christianity, it is interesting to note that spiritually shallow Kenyans recognize members of all denominations as “Christians.” Unity is very important to the African, which is to be understood in connection with the tribal cohesiveness of his past. As “Christians,” they believe that all the various denominations now belong to one Christian tribe—Christianity. Therefore, many Kenyans greet people they have met for the first time with expressions about their common “salvation.” The person being greeted in this fashion is expected to “amen” the greeter's testimony and then give his own, which the first person is then obligated to “amen.” Of course, this concept is not uniquely African. Ecumenism everywhere teaches that the church or body of Christ consists of all th e various denominations.

The Gospel As Judge And Redeemer

When the gospel entered Kenyan culture in July of 1992, it came as both judge and redeemer. Paul and I had absolutely no desire to Westernize the Kenyans. We wanted to serve the life-giving message of the gospel in an African cup so as to plant indigenous African churches. After obeying the gospel, Kenyans would still be Kenyans. They would only need to reject those things in their culture that were inconsistent with, or forbidden by, the Scriptures. Of course, in their case, quite a bit of their culture would need to be rejected. This caused some problems. As the gospel judged them and their culture, some thought we were trying to Americanize them. This was intensified by the fact that their cultural standards and Bible standards were in such stark contrast to each other. They started to realize that they were going to have to change a lot. As they began to realize that the gospel relates to every aspect of human society, they learned that they had to examine all those things they had absorbed from their culture in view of what God had to say.

Some began to change; others did not. Some had truly been converted; others had not. Some truly wanted to worship the Lord Jesus Christ; others simply wanted to bow down to the almighty American dollar. There were some whose mouths needed to be stopped, who could subvert whole households (Titus 1:11). In attempting to do the work of evangelists, we preached the word, in season and out. Using the word as the objective standard, we convinced, rebuked, and exhorted with as much longsuffering as we could muster. In the circumstances and situations in which we found ourselves, we taught those who would listen what the Bible said. Some repented; others would not.

As the days turned into months, we saw men and women growing in faith and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. What joy! We also saw those who lost the battle against their culture. What sadness and disappointment! We saw those who were transformed and renewed in their minds by the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ (Romans 12:2), and we saw some who returned to the cultural vomit of their corrupt society. We saw a government decide to make itself an enemy of the Lord's church by refusing to allow autonomous churches of Christ to be registered. This means that faithful assemblies of the Lord's church are now officially illegal in Kenya. Even though this is a dangerous situation for these Christians, we saw them bravely decide to continue meeting publicly. On the other hand, one, who we had more than a little confidence in, upon hearing that the church had been refused registration, informed me that he was going back to the safety of denominationalism. This was extremely disappointing, but fear is a strong motivator, especially when one's faith in the Lord is weak. Word has since come to me that this brother, a substantial and influential member of a new congregation, has repented of his cowardice. Praise God!

As the churches continue to grow in Kenya, they will no doubt have to face many difficulties, not the least of which is dealing with the influence of their own culture. As they learn to out-think, out-live, and out-die the Christo-pagans around about them, the Christians in Kenya will learn that the church is counterculture rather than subculture. In doing so they will become lights in this “dark continent.”

Conclusion

But what does this all have to say to those of us who are Americans. Simply this: As our own culture becomes more and more pagan, we need to be very careful that it does not exercise an undue influence upon us. Unfortunately, many churches in America have begun to blend in. Instead of acting like strangers and pilgrims (Hebrews 11:13; I Peter 2:11) whose citizenships are in heaven (Philippians 3:20), many of us have become much too comfortable in our narcissistic, hedonistic, materialistic, and pluralistic society. Many of us are failing to live out the “in the world, but not of the world” mandate of John 17. Like the church at Laodicia, many of us, indulging ourselves in the material riches of our society (cf. Revelation 3:17), have become “neither hot nor cold” (verse 15). Consequently, if we do not repent, the Lord will eventually spew us out of His mouth.

Whether in Kenya, America, or wherever, let all of us who are Christians be determined to “let our lights shine.”

Radical Feminists: Anti-Bible, Anti-God And Anti-Christ

According to Elizabeth Gould Davis, there was a “golden age” in “prehistory” that was gynocratic (i.e., woman--ruled), and that lasted for untold millennia (Davis, The First Sex, p. 66). According to Davis, in this civilization the woman was civilizer, craftsman, industrialist, agriculturalist, engineer, inventor, and discoverer. Humans were pacific herbivores, unacquainted with warfare and violence. She further argues that during this “golden age” the earth was a semiparadise of peace and tranquility, presided over by an omnipotent goddess (Ibid., p. 65). Eventually, according to Davis' feminist surmisings, women lost their supremacy when men, who were genetic mutations of women, formed into bands and overthrew the peaceful matriarchies, inventing rape and other forms of violence.

Needless to say, Davis' book was quite controversial. Furthermore, she was unable to convince the historians that she was right, (she would, no doubt, remind us that they are just a bunch of “masculists”). Nevertheless, her theme has been incorporated into feminist ideology: “Women are different than men and women should be proud of these differences. In fact, even though we talk a lot about equality, it just may be that women are a bit more than equal to men.”

Even though Davis was unable to convince historians of what was, she certainly was successful in inspiring feminists with what could be. If the world was going to get better, patriarchy would have to be destroyed. “Any and all social reforms superimposed upon our sick civilization can be no more effective than a bandage on a gaping and putrefying wound. Only the complete and total demolition of the social body will cure the fatal sickness. Only the overthrow of the three--thousand--year--old beast of masculist materialism will save the race” (Ibid., p. 340). Echoing this theme, Barbara G. Walker wrote: “A feminist believes a world where socioreligious and legal systems are governed by women would be a more humane world than the present one, which is governed by men. There would be less greed, injustice, exploitation, and warfare” (The Skeptical Feminist: Discovering the Virgin, Mother and Crone, p. 1).

Anti--Bible

According to Rosemary Radford Ruether: “Feminist theology must create a new textual base, a new canon.... Feminist theology cannot be done from the existing base of the Christian Bible” (Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology, p. ix). In other words, before society can be thoroughly feminized, the radical feminists know they must eliminate any influence the Bible has had on our society. In doing so, the feminists refer to pre--Christian, non--Christian, and so--called post--Christian religions that affirm the image of the Divine as male and female. For instance, Ruether's book, Womanguides, is a collection of writings from the ancient Near East, Hebrew and Greek mythology, Christian Science, paganism, goddess worship, and the New Age movement. As Phyllis Trible wrote in God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality: “A feminist who loves the Bible produces, in the thinking of many, an oxymoron.... After all, if no man can serve two masters, no woman can serve two authorities, a master called scripture and a mistress called feminism” (quoted in Mary A. Kassian, The Feminist Gospel, p. 109). These feminists, of course, do not just reject the Bible, but they reject the God of the Bible as well.

Anti--God

In her book, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions, Naomi R. Goldenberg wrote: “`God is going to change,' I thought. `We women are going to bring an end to God. As we take positions in government, in medicine, in law, in business, in the arts and, finally, in religion, we will be the end of Him. We will change the world so much that He won't fit in anymore'” (p. 3). According to the feminists, “If God is male, then the male is God” (Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father, p. 9). Daly writes: “The symbol of the Father God, spawned in the human imagination and sustained as plausible by patriarchy, has in turn rendered service to [patriarchal] society by making its mechanism for the oppression of women appear right and fitting. If God in `his' heaven is a father ruling `his' people, then it is in the `nature' of things and according to divine plan and the order of the universe that society be male--dominated” (Ibid., p. 13).

In rejecting Jehovah, the only true and living God, feminists sought a new symbol that would affirm the legitimacy of their revolutionary movement: the goddess. According to Mary A. Kassian: “Initially, feminists reacted with scorn to the goddess and goddess worship. Why would intelligent, self--defining women want to bow down to ancient idols of stone? But feminists learned that goddess worship was not worship of an external deity; it was, in essence, worship of oneself. The goddess was merely a symbol that acknowledged the legitimacy of self--worship” (The Feminist Gospel, p. 159). In modern feminism, satan's old Edenic lie, “you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4), has come full--cycle.

Those who have tried to be feminists without giving up the Bible (something that is quite impossible) have insisted on the use of inclusive language. Rejecting masculine pronouns as limiting one's understanding of who God is, and citing His “feminine” characteristics, feminists feel justified in calling God “She” or “Mother.” And although feminists claim that using female as well as male pronouns to address God has de--sexualized Him, in effect, the opposite has occurred. When feminists switched from masculine to feminine in their description of God, they reduced God to sexuality. They actually presented an image of a deity who is bisexual or androgynous rather than one who transcends the polarity of the sexes. In addition, in renaming God as She/He, feminists have stripped God of independent, personalized existence. The Bible teaches that Jehovah is an individualized, personalized Being who has chosen to relate to His creation as “male.” He is not merely a “force,” as the pagans have traditionally identified Him. Nevertheless, in transforming Biblical feminine metaphors into a divine name for God, the feminists soon discovered that they needed to extend this practice to other metaphors as well, i.e., God ought to be understood as a “rock,” “eagle,” “door,” etc. As a result, His personality was further diffused to encompass all natural phenomena. Renaming God in a way other than He had named Himself has ultimately led the proponents of inclusive language to think of God as a force with no independent personality. This is evident by their reference to God as “He/She/It” (Virginia Mollenkott, The Divine Feminine, p. 113).

Anti--Christ

Rejecting God as Father, the feminists have rejected Jesus Christ as Son. They have argued that Jesus' maleness is inconsequential. In her book, Women & Worship, Sharon Neufer Emswiler surmised, “if the society had been reversed and Palestine had been a matriarchy instead of a patriarchy, surely God would have sent her Daughter” (p. 31). Therefore, feminists urge their followers to change their language about Christ. In doing so, they reject Son of Man, which they consider too masculine, and encourage the use of the Human One. But, of course, such theological shenanigans have serious consequences. The Son of Man is a title indicating that Jesus was divine and those who heard Him refer to Himself by this designation understood that He was really identifying Himself as the “Son of God” (Luke 22:69, 70). Whereas the designation the Human One indicates that Jesus was merely an example of ideal selfhood or humanity. In other words, through the feminist theologians' inclusive language, Christ is viewed as a model of the new humanity, the one sent by God to reveal to us what we can become, rather than God Almighty in the flesh, who took upon Himself the penalty for our sins.

Radical feminism is anti--Bible, anti--God and anti--Christ. It does not liberate, rather it enslaves all those who embrace it to the bondage of sin. It is the Bible, and the Bible alone, that contains the real hope for the liberation of women. Knowing the Truth makes one free indeed (John 8:32).

What Is Real?

A blind man lives in total visible reality but cannot see any of it and so he must grapple in darkness. A spiritually blind man lives in total reality without being aware of vast and powerful elements in it. This robs him and disarms him with respect to good and evil, but changes nothing except his own ability to deal adequately with reality. Consequently, it is important to know what is real.

According to the materialistic or atheistic world view, there is nothing beyond this physical world. Man is simply matter in motion. On the other hand, according to the pantheistic world view, the material world is really not real. He believes everything is spirit and that matter is simply an illusion. In contrast to both these world views, the Bible teaches there is both a spiritual realm and a physical realm, and that neither of these realms is more or less real than the other. In fact, both the spiritual realm and the physical realm are very real and encompass all of reality. What this all means is that unless one knows the word of God, one does not really know what is real.

Four Levels Of Reality

The Bible student needs to realize that uncreated and created reality includes four levels of existence: (1) the Godhead, made up of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, (2) angels and demons, the latter of which have a leader called satan; (3) the spirits of believing and unbelieving dead human beings in hades, and (4) living human beings, both believing and unbelieving. The materialist does not factor into his thinking levels one, two, or three. According to him, these levels cannot exist (see Madalyn Murray O'Hair's statement, The Fourth Question, page 21). The materialist, of course, is wrong, and, as we have already stated, foolishly so. They would have us believe 1) everything came from nothing, 2) order came from chaos, 3) harmony came from discord, 4) life came from non-life, 5) reason came from irrationality, 6) personality came from non-personality, and 7) morality came from amorality. These materialistic presuppositions are anti-God and anti-intellectual. Not only do they go against everything that is taught in the Bible, but everything that can be observed with the five senses as well. In other words, materialism is not just unscriptural, which would certainly be enough to make it wrong, but it is also irrational.

Two Divisions

The four levels of reality articulated in the Bible can be further broken down into two divisions: (1) the kingdom of God, which consists of God, angels, spirits of the dead in Christ, and living disciples of Christ, and (2) the kingdom of darkness, which consists of satan, spirits of unbelieving dead, and living people who are in rebellion against God. We are citizens in one of these kingdoms or the other—there is absolutely nothing in between! Although these two divisions are basic to a Biblical world view, too many today seem to be ignorant of this truth. Nevertheless, from the Garden of Eden, with its two trees (one allowed, and one forbidden), to the eternal destiny of the human being in heaven or hell, we learn from the Bible that there are two—and only two—ways: God's way, and all other ways. According to the word of God, people are said to be saved or lost; they belong either to God's house or the world; there was Gerizim, the mount of blessing, and Ebal, the mount of cursing; there is the narrow way and the broad way, leading either to eternal life or destruction; there are those who are with us and there are those who are against us; there are those who are within and those who are without; there is life and death, truth and falsehood, good and bad, light and darkness, love and hatred; and, finally, there is the wisdom that comes from above and the wisdom that comes from below. Without the Biblical discernment that tells them the differences between these things, worldly Christians will miss the way, the truth, and the life, and, in doing so, will miss all there is!

The smudged line that in too many instances exists between the church and the world today must be made as clear as our Lord demanded. This can only be done when Christians develop a Biblical world view. As we said in the introduction to this series, two keys to developing a Biblical world view are repentance and revival. If we are going to be the salt that savors a lost and dying world, and if we are going to be the light that shines out of the terrible darkness all about us, then worldly Christians, who will not repent and renew their minds, must be withdrawn from (II Thessalonians 3:6; I Timothy 6:3-5; II Timothy 3:1-5). There is simply no other valid alternative. We must not be conformed to this world. Instead, we must be transformed by the renewing of our minds, so as to prove the good and acceptable and perfect will of God (Romans 12:1,2).

Modern Sadducees

Influenced by the materialistic/atheistic mind-set that is so prevalent in our society, many Christians, like the Sadducees of old, no longer reflect a Biblical world view (cf. Acts 23:8). Consider, for instanc e, the subject of angels. Angels are real. They are spiritual beings created by God (Psalm 148:1,5), who are on a higher order than man (Hebrews 2:7), and neither reproduce nor die (Luke 20:35,36). They are mentioned some 273 times in the Bible and often function as agents of destruction or blessing (Genesis 19:13,16). As such, they were involved in God's providential care for His people (II Kings 18-19). It is our firm conviction that angels still function in this capacity today.

Unfortunately, many have assumed that, because miracles have ceased, angels are no longer in business today. This view would seem to be an obvious contradiction of Hebrews 1:13,14, which says angels are “ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation.”

Although it is true that we are not living in an age when God operates miraculously through men, this must not be taken to mean that God is not still exercising control over His creation. In Matthew 5:45, the Bible teaches the general providence of God, and in Matthew 6:33, the child of God is taught to trust in God's specific providence toward His children. In Romans 8:28-31, we are taught that “all things work together for good to them that love God.” Does this not suggest God's continued providential care? If so, is there any reason for us to think that angels are not still involved in this providential care?

God's Providence Is Real

As we have already pointed out, both Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:17 make it clear that God's creation has not been left to mere chance, as the materialistic/atheistic world view proclaims. God is still in control. He still rules in the kingdoms of men and this is verified by such passages as Romans 13, Acts 17:26, and Daniel 4:17,32. To believe, as some do, that God takes a “hands-off” position with reference to the affairs of mankind is not only a contradiction of Scripture, but it is tantamount to dethroning Jesus Christ, who now reigns as King of kings (Revelation 1:5; Ephesians 1:20,21).

Actually, when one develops a Biblical world view, he or she recognizes there is a great battle going on in this world—a battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. Consequently, it is comforting to know that angels are sent forth by God to minister unto us, because “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:13). There is great consolation in knowing that our prayers to God are not exercises in futility, but are, in fact, requests based on a faith that God can and will help us, and that angels are His agents in these matters.

It is unfortunate that many Christians living in the last decade of the 20th century are more comfortable with naturalistic rationalism than they are with the supernaturalism taught in the Bible. As we have already pointed out, there is a real battle going on today, although spiritual in nature (cf. Ephesians 6:10-20). But just because those who fight against us are spiritual beings does not mean they are not real. Christians must snap out of the worldly thinking that causes them to equate the material, physical world and its inhabitants as being real, while at the same time thinking the spiritual world and its inhabitants are somehow unreal. Such thinking does not reflect a Biblical world view. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are supernatural but real. So are the holy angels and satan and his angels. If the Bible says we fight against “principalities, powers, rulers of darkness, and a spiritual host of wickedness,” then let us believe God rather than man in this matter.

Supernatural, But Not Miraculous

Some erroneously believe that in order for God to be actively at work in His creation today He would have to be performing miracles. This is just a failure to appreciate the fact that most of God's activities in both the Old and New Testaments were non-miraculous. The story of Joseph is but one of the many examples of God's non-miraculous activities. Although men, with all their lusts, jealousies, and deceptions, were exercising their free wills in the matter of Joseph, he could say, “you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about this day, to save many people alive” (Genesis 50:20; 45:5-8). The Scriptures attribute David's success against the lion, bear, and Goliath to the help of God (I Samuel 17:37,45-47). Are we to label these as miraculous? The Lord was able to work a great victory through Shammah (II Samuel 23:11,12). When we stand in our own bean fields today, cannot God work victories through us without performing miracles?

The Bible tells us that God can deliver us from the evil one (Matthew 6:13; II Thessalonians 3:3) and can open doors for us (I Corinthians 16:7; Colossians 4:2,3; Revelation 3:8). Does He? By faith we can answer, “yes.” Does He need to perform a miracle to do so? Certainly not! Therefore, we can confidently sing: “Lord I believe, yes, I believe, I cannot doubt or be deceived; the eye that sees each sparrow fall, His unseen hand is in it all.” Just because we cannot see God's providence does not mean that it is not real.

The apostle Paul prayed that Christians would have the eyes of their understanding enlightened so they could see “the exceeding greatness of His power to usward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power” (Ephesians 1:18,19). If we will, by faith, open our eyes, we can see the spiritual reality that says, “they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (II Kings 6:16).

What is real? More than the atheistic or pantheistic world views tell us. How do we know? The Bible tells us so!

The Importance Of A Biblical Worldview

All of us see ourselves and our world through a particular set of beliefs, attitudes, and values. These operate as a filter or grid through which we process all information. For the Christian, this filter or grid is shaped by the truths taught in the Bible. The Bible, of course, has a beginning and an end. Although this may seem obvious, it isn’t. Many believers, who either ignore, or are ignorant of, the beginning-to-end continuity and theme of the Bible, think they can pick up the Bible, begin reading just anywhere and, as a result, conjure God-given answers to every little personal problem they think they have. In other words, they believe there is something mysterious, even magical, about reading the Bible. They are unaware that the same rules for understanding other kinds of literature are to be applied to the Bible as well. Then, on the other hand, there are many serious critics of the Bible who have never read it, know very little of its stories, and absolutely nothing of its general theme. Consequently, they have no appreciation at all for the superb nature of the book they criticize. However, the sincere student of the Word, the one who is willing to study to show himself approved of God, is capable of rightly dividing the Bible (2 Timothy 2:15). Not only does he know it has a beginning and an end, he also knows that in between are many different biblical stories, all of which mesh into one grand theme—the scheme of redemption. As he learns these biblical stories and comes to grips with the great scheme of redemption, the sincere student develops a biblical way of looking at himself, and everything else in the world. It is this biblically based way of looking at things that I am calling a biblical worldview. Therefore, a worldview can be likened to a pair of eyeglasses through which one looks at the world—eyeglasses that focus, shape, and color all one’s experiences.

Different Worldviews And Their Consequences

Every person, whether he realizes it or not, has a worldview. The modernist, for example, sees (we’re talking worldview here) humans as purely physical machines. Blinded to the spiritual dimension of God’s creation, he believes nothing exists beyond what he can perceive with the five senses. On the other hand, the Christian sees (again, we’re talking worldview) humans as the only beings on earth who are made in God’s image. Like the modernist, he is aware of man’s physical nature; but, unlike the modernist, he is not blinded to man’s spiritual dimension.

It is true—“Ideas have consequences.” The Bible says, “[As a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7). This means that worldviews exercise tremendous influence on behavior. Because the modernist believes this physical world is all there is, he is convinced there is no life beyond the grave. Therefore, eating, drinking, and making merry is the central meaning of his life. If he can’t see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, or smell it, then it’s just not important to him. Believing “you only go around once,” and convinced that he must do just what the now famous beer commercial commanded, he uses all his energy trying to get “all the gusto” he can out of life. According to the modernist, that so-called “pie in the sky by and by” that preachers talk about is just a bunch of religious gobbledygook. Reflecting the hedonism inherent in his worldview, the modernist wants, even demands, his dessert right now, and he wants it with chocolate fudge and a cherry on top. Putting others before himself makes absolutely no sense, therefore, he aggressively goes through life looking out for “Number One.”

In contrast to this, the Christian, who knows who and what he is, realizes the meaning of life (i.e., “the whole duty of man”) is to fear God and keep His commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13). He knows that life on this physical plane is not all there is to living. By faith, he understands there is life beyond the grave, and this, he realizes, is associated with Christ Jesus (1 John 5:11). His “living hope” (1 Peter 1:3) is based on his heavenly citizenship (Philippians 3:20). Hence, he views himself as a stranger or pilgrim while here on this earth (Hebrews 11:3; 1 Peter 2:11). Instead of storing up his treasures “where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal” (Matthew 6:19-20), the Christian is laying up treasures for himself in heaven . As he develops the “mind of Christ” (Philippians 2:5), he learns to humbly put others before himself (James 4:10; 1 Peter 5:6) and gladly bears their burdens (Galatians 6:2).

Americans Have Changed Their Worldview

As recently as 50 years ago, the majority of Americans never really questioned biblical ethics or morality. Back then, most people looked upon divorce as disgraceful. They thought pregnancy outside marriage was a disaster; that chastity was a good thing; that an honest day’s work was the responsibility of any respectable and dependable man; that honesty was the best policy. But, not today. Things have changed.

Americans no longer view themselves and their world through the truths taught in the Bible. As a result, Americans teach their children that evolutionary theory is to be believed unquestionably. They teach them that there remains no objective standard for judging what is right or wrong. Spawned by the modernistic worldview, these ideas have produced the current decline of moral standards being evidenced in America. As our countrymen have learned to think in their hearts, so they have become (cf. Proverbs 23:7).

And So Has The Modern Church

This change in worldviews has profoundly affected the modern church. As a result, the modern church has become an intellectual and spiritual disaster area. It no longer knows how to out-think, out-live, and out-die the unbeliever, and its members are certainly not the alien residents the Lord has called upon them to be (cf. 1 Peter 2:8-11; Philippians 3:20). Instead of being different, modern church members blend in nicely with the materialistic world. They yearn for and fret over the same things the modernists do.

In order to “make ends meet,” members of the modern church have abandoned their small children to strangers while they (both father and mother) go off to the work-place. They believe that “wanting what’s best for their children” equates to the accumulation of as much of this world’s goods as possible. The children of these members are forced to fend for themselves without the help and guidance of a parent in those long hours after school before their parents return from work. This ever-growing number of children has even been given its own special name. Consequently, the “latchkey” children of these modern church members learn to fend for themselves at an early age. It should be no surprise that when these abandoned children—and that’s what they are—get older, they can hardly wait to reject true religion, wrongly thinking it to be that hypocritical mumbo-jumbo their parents practice.

In addition, modern church members are always ready to assert their “right” to personal happiness, as if this were a spiritual birthright from the Lord. Bent on building their own personal kingdom, rather than enlarging the Lord’s Kingdom, modern church members are primarily interested in newer cars, larger homes, and nicer clothes. In their minds, the once-honored biblical virtues of sacrifice and conservation have been replaced with the hedonistic idea that “he who has the most toys when he dies, wins.” On such, the warnings of Colossians 2:8 fall unheeded. Instead, such warnings are viewed as the shrill voice of one who has simply gotten “too fanatical” about his religion.

Because the modern church has abandoned its biblical worldview, “preaching as entertainment” is the only kind of preaching acceptable to its members. Like those spoken of in Ezekiel 33:31-32, members of the modern church are enchanted with spectator-worship. “Make me laugh, make me cry, make me happy, and make me want to sing,” they say, “but don’t you ever try to make me think, and don’t you ever ask me to change!” These twist and mold the Bible to fit the “felt needs” of their “itching ears” (2 Timothy 4:3). To the modern church member, discerning God’s will simply means learning about the things God has approved that they have already decided they want to do. Without a biblical worldview, the idea that one should submit his or her will to the Sovereign of the universe falls on deaf ears. Self-abasement and putting others before oneself have given way to pure selfishness. Without the proper focus, the modern church member looks inward rather than upward. Instead of being in an intimate relationship with the Lord, he thinks himself to be in a “limited partnership” with Jesus. This enables him to call himself a Christian, while being totally absorbed with the pursuit of “Self.” Unless he can be “massaged” with “preaching as entertainment,” then he is unhappy, uncomfortable, and will soon be involved in some effort to get the preacher to move. Or else, he himself will be moving to a church that will meet his “felt needs.” In the modern church, the spiritual pygmies are giants, and they always win.

The Remedy

Despite what may be observed in the modern church, and in the personal lives of many who claim to be New Testament Christians, the gospel of Jesus Christ is truly a dynamic force that lives in the hearts of all true believers. Its effect is so totally radical, and the transformation it makes is so revolutionary, that the Christian is actually called a “new creature,” who, from a spiritual standpoint, has been “born again” (1 Corinthians 5:17; 1 Peter 1:23). It is this life-changing gospel that provides the only life-giving remedy for that which ails the modern church.

The Bible makes it clear that the one who has been truly converted—i.e., the one who has been renewed and transformed in his mind (Romans 12:1-2)—will have no trouble understanding the absolute seriousness of his spiritual and intellectual quest. Accordingly, this true disciple of Christ will be willing to “gird u p the loins of [his] mind” (1 Peter 1:13). As he diligently pursues his study of the Word (2 Timothy 2:15), he will learn to consistently and effectively apply to his life the Bible’s eternal truths . In doing so, he will be both “salt” and “light” to a lost and dying world (Matthew 5:13-16). Apart from this, nothing else matters. This, the Bible says, “is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Consequently, this alone is the ultimate importance—dare I say, focus—of developing a biblical worldview.

God's Knowledge In View Of Genesis 18 & 22: Is It Limited?

Psalm 147:5 says that God's understanding is infinite. Infinite in this verse is the Hebrew micpar and means the same thing it does in English. Now, if God's understanding is infinite (having no boundaries or limits), and understanding is predicated on knowledge, then it follows necessarily that God's kno1wledge is also infinite. If not, then why not? Of course, such infinite knowledge would, in fact, be “unsearchable” by finite creatures, and this is exactly what Romans 11:33 says. In other words, God “knows all things” (1 John 3:20). Notice that the Bible does not say God has the capacity to know all things, which He certainly does have; instead, the argument is that God actually “knows all things.” Now, if God knows all things, what is it that He does not know? Remember, the Great Intelligence of the universe is writing to His intelligent creatures. Consequently, not only does He teach us through direct statements and approved examples, but He also expects us to make necessary conclusions. By direct statement, the Bible teaches that God “knows all things” (1 John 3:20), and the necessary conclusion is that there is nothing God does not know—and this includes the then, now, and not yet!

But, some say that this is not true. For example, bro. Ken Green takes the position that there are some things God cannot know, such as the future, contingent, free will choices of men and women. For those interested in pursuing bro. Green's argument, get a copy of the Green-Turner debate on the foreknowledge of God that took place in the Gospel Anchor several years ago. On the other hand, there are others who believe that God has the capacity to know all things, but, for reasons known only to Him, chooses not to know some things. Unlike bro. Green, this group does not take this position primarily for philosophical reasons. Instead, they take this position only because the Bible seems to be saying that there are things God did not know (Genesis 18:21 and 22:12), and, as they are wont to say, the sincere Bible student knows the Bible does not contradict itself.

Yes, the Bible does not contradict itself; therefore, if the Bible teaches that there is not anything God does not know, then passages like Genesis 18 and 22 must be interpreted in light of this truth. In fact, a fundamental rule of hermeneutics (Bible interpretation) says that we must understand Scripture in its normal sense unless a literal interpretation contradicts other clear teaching found in God's Word. This, in my opinion, is the error one makes in thinking these passages negate the all-knowingness of God. (If you disagree with me, I would be very interested to know what you think Psalm 147:5; Romans 11:33; and 1 John 3:20 are saying about God's omniscience.) In their defense, many who take this erroneous position argue that just as God being all-powerful does not mean He has to be doing everything He has the capacity to do, being all-knowing does not mean that God must actually know everything He has the capacity to know. What to many otherwise bright individuals seems like iron-clad logic is, in fact, a non sequitur, an argument that does not logically follow the premise or evidence. Yes, being all-powerful, definitionally, does not mean one has to be engaged in doing all things; but, on the other hand, knowing all things, definitionally, means knowing all things. Being all-powerful infers ability only, while being all-knowing infers not just ability but the actual knowledge itself, which, in this case, is universal in scope. In other words, God is not claiming that He could know all things; He's claiming He does know all things!

It should be clear, then, that those who wrongly believe Genesis 18 and 22 to be teaching that God has chosen not to know some things are trying to explain away, ignore, or impugn, by their literal interpretation of the these passages, the plain teaching of those passages I have cited that teach the all-knowingness of God . Of course, fairness compels me to admit that it is equally possible for one to argue that I am guilty of the same thing I am arguing against. This is why I would like to know how those who disagree with me interpret the passages I have cited in favor of God's all-knowingness. Evidently, they must think these passages mean something other than what they literally say. But, whether one agrees with me or not, the task before us is to harmonize two seemingly contradictory teachings—God knows all things; God does not know some things—and do it in a way that does no damage to the integrity of either set of scriptures.

So, here is how I try to explain the apparent dilemma. In Genesis 18:21, we are dealing with an unusual circumstance. God, who is omnipresent, which means His ontological being is present to all of space equally, has, on occasion, entered space at specific points and become present in it for a specific purpose. The theologians call these “theophanies.” This seems to be the case in Genesis 18:21. In verse 1 of the chapter, it says, “Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.” In verse 2, it mentions “three men.” Whether these three men are manifestations of the triune nature of God, or whether the other two were angels, is not clear. What seems clear is that this is, in fact, a theophany. In entering the time/space continuum, God, who is infinite ontologically, willingly, and somehow, without ceasing to be who He is, allowed Himself to be subject to the finite. It's mind-boggling, I know, but, nevertheless, this appears to be the clear import of Scripture. Now, let's look at the passage in question with my interpretation of it:

“I, [who have somehow subjected Myself to the time/space continuum] will go down [not from heaven, but down the way geographically] now [not in eternity, but right now at this moment, subject to time and space] and see [i.e., learn experientially in time and space] whether they have done [and, more importantly, continue to do “now”] altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me [in eternity, not limited by time and space]; and if not [i.e., if they are no longer doing what I knew they were doing before I allowed Myself to be subject to time and space], I [God subject to time and space] will know [experientially]” (verse 21).

Notice that I have emphasized the word “now” by putting it in bold letters. This is because I believe this word to be the key to understanding this passage. God, who ontologically knows the past, present, and future, contextualizes His knowing to the “now” of the time/space continuum. Are we really supposed to think that the self-existent, eternal, infinite Spirit who is God did not really know everything that had been happening in Sodom and Gomorrah? 1 John 3:20 makes it absolutely clear that God is greater than our heart (he knows our heart as well as every other heart) and knows all things. No, whatever Genesis 18:21 means must be understood by the context, and the context clearly indicates a theophany. Therefore, the theophany must be taken into consideration when trying to understand this passage. When I debated bro. Green on the foreknowledge of God, he at least admitted that God knew the past and present perfectly. Now, some are wanting me to believe that the all-knowing God does not even know the past and present perfectly. This, of course, is the only conclusion one may come to if this passage is to be understood literally and apart from the “now" context. Consequently, this conclusion is not—and, therefore, cannot be—true.

We now turn our attention to what I consider to be the more difficult passage. In Genesis 22:12, the angel of the Lord says to Abraham, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” Although the “angel of the LORD” is involved in this episode, the unusual circumstances associated with a theophany are not a part of the context of this passage. Furthermore, as we have already observed, the Bible teaches us that the self-existent, eternal, and infinite Spirit who is God “knows all things.” So, again, citing a fundamental principle of hermeneutics, this passage cannot be interpreted in a way that would negate this truth.

Now, in this connection, it is interesting to note what the self-existent, eternal, infinite Spirit who is God knew about Abraham before He ever “tested” him. In Genesis 18:18-19, the Lord said: “...since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.” In other words, God knew that Abraham would pass the “tests,” of faith, which included the one mentioned in this passage. To disregard this information, as well as the truth about God's “all-knowingness,” is to make a serious mistake when trying to understand this passage. Yes, taken literally, the passage does appear to be teaching that God learned something about Abraham that He had not previously known. But, if God really does know all things, and if He therefore knew Abraham would pass all “tests,” then Genesis 22:12 cannot be teaching us what it seems to be teaching.

Although I admit to feeling a little uncomfortable making this kind of statement, nevertheless, I am confident that this is the correct way to think about this passage. One must realize that Paul was not the only inspired writer who wrote things difficult to understand, which, if we are not careful, can be twisted to teach something completely contrary to truth (cf. 2 Peter 3:16). Our responsibility is to be diligent to present ourselves approved to God, as workers who do not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). This is not always easy, but if we work hard at it, then we, too, will pass the “test.”

I think the answer to understanding Genesis 22:12 is found in places like Deuteronomy 29-30, where God promises to give life or death and blessings or cursings, depending upon one's obedience to His Word. Do what is right and one is blessed; do what is wrong and one is cursed. This is, in fact, a principle taught many places in the Bible. And although we do not expect to hear the voice of the “angel of the Lord” today, nevertheless, this principle is still true: If we serve the Lord faithfully, He will bless us; if we disobey Him, He will curse us.

God is all-knowing. This is what the Bible clearly teaches. Even so, He has agreed to deal with us in the time/space continuum. In the passage cited, you will notice that I have once again emphas ized the word “now.” This is because I believe the key to understanding this passage, like the key to understanding Genesis 18:21, is the “now” context. In the “now” of Abraham's time and space, the voice of the angel of the Lord could be heard audibly, and God is acknowledging His blessing on or appreciation of Abraham at a very critical time and place in his “walk of faith.” In fact, the word “know” in this passage is sometimes translated “to recognize, admit, acknowledge, confess, declare, or tell.” So, in harmony with the rest of Scripture, and without doing any violence to the words of this passage, Genesis 22:12 is not teaching that the all-knowing God of the universe did not really know whether Abraham would pass this critical test. He is, instead, acknowledging His appreciation of Abraham's faithfulness to Him. In other words, He is declaring, “Abraham, I have been testing you...and you have passed the test!”