III. EVOLUTION AND MATERIALISM:
Humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Humanism denies the existence of God. They believe that man is a part of nature, who has emerged as the result of continuous evolution. Atheists affirm that God does not exist. They are the most common atheists today, and they fall under the category of atheism as defined by
Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789). They see the concept of God as useless to any real contribution to the advancement of society. This belief has brought more harm to society than good.
D'Holbach's statement indeed fits the statement of the “fool” in Psalm 14:1. It is foolish to say there is no God because that implies there is no purpose in life. This philosophy is called “nihilism.” It was championed precisely by an atheistic philosopher named Frederick Nietzche. He rightly acknowledged that if God did not exist, then one could not claim any absolute objective purpose of life.
“The end of the moral interpretation of the world, which no longer has any sanction after it has tried to escape into some beyond, leads to nihilism. All lacks meaning.”
Some atheists have tried to get around this by claiming there are purposes in life.
Humanist doctrines assert the following:
“. . . We find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. We reject the divinity of Jesus, the divine mission of Moses . . . . We do not accept as true the literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments . . . . We have found no convincing evidence that there is a separable "soul" that . . . . survives death.” (Declaration, pp. 18,19).
“Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process ... science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. - " (Manifestos," pp. 8,17).
“Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns ... We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life's enrichment ... - " (Manifestos," pp. 16,17).
Humanists surely affirm their belief in
evolution by displays in many state or federal parks and museums. Often our schools have brainwashed us with the supposed
evolutionary ancestry of various kinds of plants or animals. Fossils and geological formations are stated to be millions of years old, to support
evolutionary theory.
Many government-financed scientific projects are based on evolutionary beliefs. For example, one of the American space program's primary goals is to determine the origin of the planets or seek evidence of life in outer space. Their hope, of course, is to confirm evolution and nothing else.
Some courts have forbidden schools to teach the evidence for creation. Some have even ruled that schools must not allow teachers to point out the flaws in evolution or to refer students to books that present alternative views such as the Bible.
It is no surprise that the Bible, God, and prayer are banned from public schools. This is another consequence of
atheism and humanism. Evidence for evolution is frequently presented in public schools with zero evidence for creation from a biblical view. Here are typical quotes.
“New species of living plants and animals have come about as the result of changes in the old species . . . . The theory of evolution attempts to answer the question: How did so many different kinds of plants and animals come about? . . . Evolution is, therefore, being studied as the process by which life not only diversified, but first arose . . . . Of all the theories you may study in biology, the theory of evolution occupies a unique place . . . . It is so much a part of the foundation of biology that science can hardly be understood without it.” (Biological Science, Heath, pp. 47,74,64).
“. . . studies demonstrate that we are much closer to our nearest relatives, chimpanzees and gorillas, than was imagined even a decade ago . . . . [In earlier centuries, the] commonly accepted explanation for the origin of species was the one outlined in Genesis, that God created the species during the original six days of creation . . . . The Biblical doctrine of creationism was placed in some doubt as important fossil discoveries were made . . . . The alternative to creationism . . . was transformism, also called evolution . . . . An evolutionary approach orients this book." (Anthropology, Random House, pp. 10,25,26,12).
“. . . no major pattern of scientific evidence that conflicts with [Darwin's] theory has turned up.” (Biology, Scott-Foresman, p. 222).
Parents, do you know what your children are being taught?! Do you even care?!
An estimated 55 million U.S. public school students open their science textbooks day after day, week after week, year after year, to learn about
Big Bang theory,
spontaneous generation, and
man’s alleged evolution from toads (
“Back to School...,” 2009).
Even though various scientific laws defy the General Theory of Evolution (e.g., the Law of Biogenesis, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics; see The Scientific Case..., 2004), and almost half of Americans still believe God created humans in our present form (cf. “Poll: Creationism...,” 2004; see also Gallup and Lindsay, 1999, pp. 36-37), multiplied millions of taxpayer-funded textbooks support man’s alleged animal ancestry as fact.
Christians cling to the hope that their public-schooled children have teachers who do not believe in evolution; however, the odds are stacked against them. A 2007 nationwide survey revealed that only “16% of US science teachers are creationists” (Holmes, 2008). [NOTE: Similar to how atheists are annoyed that “only” 85% of the members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences are atheists (see Brooks, 2006, p. 10), many militant evolutionists are bothered because “only” 84% of U.S. science teachers are evolutionists; see “Comments,” 2008).]
,
Evolution is regularly defended in science, history, geology, sociology, health, and, especially, in biology classes. When creation is mentioned at all, it is dismissed with statements such as the following:
"... no major pattern of scientific evidence that conflicts with [Darwin's] theory has turned up.” - (Biology, Scott-Foresman, p. 222).
It is undeniable that Charles Darwin's influence on evolution has impacted practically every person in every nation in this world through educational, cultural, religious, and political institutions. His evil theories have had a tremendous impact on the minds of many.
Indeed, godlessness prevails in many places in this world: in the classrooms, media, entertainment, and politics. Even for many Christians, God is often a distant reality. He seems to be very far away from many of them. We may observe His marvelous creation, but at the same time, we scarcely see His fingerprints anymore. We seldom use terminology that speaks of His “creation.” Darwin's naturalistic materialism has so much changed the Western worldview. The average person rarely senses God's providential interaction with our world. Let alone His existence.
In a recent poll, thousands of readers rated Darwin's Origin of Species as one of the most influential books in history, outranking even the Bible, the Koran, and Marx's Communist Manifestos. In the war of worldviews, Darwin's naturalism and Marx's materialism are big competitors against the theistic worldviews of Islam and Christianity.
Humanism has offered the theistic religions a run for their money over the last two centuries without any question. What remains to be seen is whether these relatively humanist ideologies will continue having such a harmful impact in the hearts of so many or if it will have the everlasting power of a Christian worldview. Thus far, by God's grace, the Christian faith has outlasted every world empire since the Roman Empire fell in the fifth century. Nevertheless, the last century grieves most of us due to a significant increase in atheism. The road to atheism almost always begins in a biology class or some Darwinism thinking.
The Theory of Evolution has affected mankind more psychologically than logically. Though it was poorly supported scientifically and hypothetically, it still allured men who were running away from God. The evolutionary community is looking for pseudo-intellectual reasons to reject the Christian faith. With Darwinian hypothesis, they hope to find enough convenient justification for their atheism. If man can separate God from his reality and origins, he will have no trouble separating God from ethics. And if man can separate God from ethics, he will not have to worry about sin, guilt, God's judgment, God's Law, or God's redemption for salvation in Jesus Christ. He, man, can be a law to himself, free to choose his own set of ethics and his own future in a world without God and His Son. That simple!!
Hundreds of thousands of Bible believers who are creationists have chosen to homeschool their children partly because they do not want their most precious God-given gifts (Psalm 127:3) sitting year after year at the feet of evolutionists, reading evolutionary textbooks, especially without critical analysis. These homeschooling parents still provide their children with training in Earth science, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. In fact, many Bible-believing homeschoolers (which comprise at least 83% of homeschooling families in the U.S.; see Lovan, 2010) provide more hands-on, operational science experiences for their children than a lot of young people receive in public schools (where funding is limited and where classrooms are often shared with 20-30 other students). However, some are extremely critical of the various textbooks many homeschoolers use.
- Entertainment and the Media:
Movies and TV programs, especially PBS programs and scientific
"documentaries," frequently point to
evolution as an established fact.
Modern music and other forms of entertainment also often ridicule life after death. Take, for example, the Beatles’ song "Imagine," which asks us to imagine that “there's no heaven - it's easy if you try. No hell below us, above us only sky. Imagine all the people living for today ... and no religion too ... You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us..." (Fact Sheet, p. 1; and Peters, pp. 63,64).
Michael Omartian, singer-songwriter, who has produced albums for many top artists, said that the image portrayed by pop stars is: "Do whatever you want to do. It doesn't matter. There's nothing to live for anyway. Let's just go crazy" (Peters, p. 180).
The “British Invasion” began in 1964 with the Beatles’ famous song, “I want to Hold Your Hand.” It seemed pretty harmless at first, but by 1968 they were asking, “Why Don't We Do It in the Road?” It is a fact that the Beatles led the sexual revolution.
A few decades later, in 1996, the album Antichrist Superstar made Marilyn Mason a household name. Manson publicly endorsed Satanism in an interview:
“I incorporate satanic philosophy, more times subtly than others. It gets across the philosophy without the name 'Satanism.' After I get people close to me, I let them know my affiliation with the church (of Satan).”
Despite all these demonic lyrics, Marilyn Manson has sold more than 50 million records thus far, at least 200 times the distribution Nietzche's books have received. Take heed!
Genesis 1:1-28: God created the heavens and the earth, the plants and animals, and the people.
Evolution, however, cannot explain how life came from non-living matter apart from God. That would be spontaneous generation, which all scientific evidence has disproved (
Acts 14:15; 17:24; Exodus 20:11; Psalms 33:6,9; 148:5; Matthew 19:4,5; Hebrews 11:3).
Genesis 1:11,21,24: All plants and animals reproduce after their own kind. Anyone can confirm this by personal observation. Evolution has yet to prove that kinds of living things can produce new kinds. If evolution were true, there should be millions of fossils of animals halfway between the kinds we have now, but there are none (Galatians 6:7,8; Matthew 7:16,20; James 3:12).
Genesis 1:26,27; 2:7: Man did not evolve from the animals but was created in God's image to have dominion over the animals. Evolution tries to belittle the differences between people and animals but fails to explain why man's intelligence is far more advanced than that of the animals or why we have a sense of conscience (James 3:9; 1 Corinthians 11:7).
- Man's spirit will exist after death in eternal reward or punishment:
John 5:28,29; 2 Corinthians 5:10: All men will be raised from the dead and then judged for their actions (
1 Corinthians 15:22-26; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:10; Matthew 5:10-12; 25:41-46; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Romans 6:23; Luke 16:19-31).
Ecclesiastes 12:13,14: Man's purpose in life is to serve God that he may receive the reward He offers to those who obey Him (Matthew 6:33; 10:28; Hebrews 10:26-36; 1 Peter 1:3-9).
1 Corinthians 15:32: If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. This is the end result of humanism. It is a philosophy of despair and hopelessness. According to humanism, this life is all we have, and nothing follows. No wonder young people commit suicide when tragedy strikes! Only those who believe in God have better hope.
Humanism asserts that:
- There is no life after death.
- Matter is eternal.
- There is no God.
- Man and his environment are the results of evolutionary forces.
- Ethics are situational.
- Man cannot possess absolute truth.
- Views of salvation are false, misleading, and harmful.
- Man is the most important thing in the universe.
- Man has no soul; and
- There is no heaven, hell, or judgment.
The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that:
- There is an eternal God.
- Man has an immortal soul.
- There is heaven, hell, a promised and planned salvation, an absolute Truth, morals based on objective standards, etc.
Humanists have failed to understand the greatest of all truths: “the fear of the Lord,” “the beginning of knowledge,” and “the beginning of all wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10). Therefore,
- The only true wisdom is found in Christ (1 Cor. 1:30).
- He is the only way, the Truth, and the life, and no one can come to the Father but through Him (John 14:6).
- His Truth will make man free from the yoke of sin (John 8:32).
- Only He can protect us from the foolishness of man, the “philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
The wisdom that man values so highly means zero to God (1 Cor. 3:19-21; 2:6; 1:19-21). The Word of God often warns us to be careful with friendship with the world, which is enmity with God (James 4:4). So let us be careful who we listen to!!!
IV. SITUATION ETHICS:
The following statement is found in
Humanist Manifestos I & II:
“We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.” (1973, 17)
The above declaration is wholly void of reason. If man is “autonomous,” i.e., he is a self-governing creature, there could never be a situation in which he could do wrong! It is an exercise in futility to attempt to construct any sort of ethical system apart from the concept that man has a soul that ultimately will be accountable to God for eternity, that heaven has revealed that concept, and regulated human activity, through the Scriptures.
The French philosopher Pascal wrote:
“It is certain that the mortality or immortality of the soul must make an entire difference to morality. And yet philosophers have constructed their ethics independently of this: they discuss to pass an hour.” (n.d., 79)
In his Diary of a Writer, the Russian novelist Dostoevsky observed:
“Neither a man nor a nation can live without a “higher idea,” and there is only one such idea on earth, that of an immortal human soul; all the other “higher ideas” by which men live follow from that.” (Berdyaev 1934, 105)
“The right to ... abortion ... should be recognized ... the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes ... a recognition of an individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide." (Manifestos, pp. 18,19)
There are three schools of thought regarding human moral responsibility. First, there is nihilism. Nihilism argues that there is no God; hence anything one wishes to do is permitted. According to this ideology, there are no rules, absolutely none for human conduct; every person is a law unto himself.
Second, there is relativism. Relativism contends that all conduct is relative to the circumstance. Thus, each individual must determine what is moral or immoral in a given situation. Ultimately, every man is his own judge on any matter.
Third, there is absolutism. This concept affirms that there is an absolute, objective standard of right and wrong (grounded in the holy nature of God Himself), and this code of moral conduct is outlined in the Bible, reaching its apex in the New Testament.
There are two fundamental categories of situation ethicists. There are atheistic situationists—those who utterly reject the Scriptures as having any bearing on morality. Then, there are religious situationists; including those who allege that the Bible endorses this code of action. No skeptic can consistently argue the case for situational morality.
Situation ethics removes God from the throne as the moral sovereign of the universe and substitutes man in his place. Situationism completely ignores the Bible view that mere mortals are void of sufficient wisdom to guide their earthly activity (cf. Jeremiah 10:23).
Some claim that the Bible endorses the concept of situation ethics. Some like to cite the Canaanite harlot's case, Rahab, when she lied to save the Israelite spies; yet, she is commended in the New Testament record (Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25). This, they allow, is a clear argument in defense of situation ethics.
It is also claimed that even Christ sanctioned the principle of situationism when He appealed to the circumstance of David and his men eating the showbread, usually reserved for priests only, in an emergency situation (Matthew 12:1ff). Neither of these cases provides any justification for the practice of situation ethics.
The case of Rahab does not grant any divine sanction upon the practice of situation ethics. First, The Scriptures never condoned Rahab’s lie. The fact that this is recorded in the Bible does not mean that God approves it. All lying is condemned (Revelation 21:8). Rahab's narrative merely provides an example of where God honored a woman because of her obedient faith; despite flawed character. Though this woman was a harlot in a pagan society, she had developed a growing, living faith in God. (see Joshua 2:9ff). Accordingly, she received the Israelite spies with peace (Hebrews 11:31). Her motive was right, even though her method was wrong. There is nowhere in the Scriptures that endorses the false story she told in concealing the spies. It is no attempt to justify situation ethics.
In Matthew 12, on the Sabbath day, the Lord and His disciples traveled through a grain field. The disciples were hungry and began to pluck grain to eat. Certain Pharisees saw this and charged these men with breaking the Sabbath regulation within the Mosaic Law. The fact is, the disciples had violated only the uninspired traditions of the Jewish elders. They at no moment had transgressed the Law of Moses. Christ cited the case of David (1 Samuel 21:6), who, along with his men, once ate of the temple showbread, which “was not lawful for him to eat” (Matthew 12:4). The Lord’s argument is this:
"4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?"
This occurrence does not support situation ethics. Jesus plainly said that what David did was “not lawful.” Those who attempt to use this event in defense of situationism simply have missed the force of the Master’s argument. Situation ethics is a popular belief in a world that is bent and departed from God.
Has situation ethics influenced our rulers? Do they ever lie to one another or us? Do they ever argue that the situation justified it when they get caught?
One of the practices most frequently justified by
situational reasoning is the taking of human life. Since 1973,
1 1/2 million unborn babies per year are killed in this country. The
"gateway" arguments used to break down resistance to the killing always involve emotional situations.
We have been told that if the mother was raped, the baby was deformed, the parents were too poor, the child will have too poor a "quality of life," the parents will abuse the child, etc. When people conclude that these "situations" justify killing the baby, judges and politicians rule that a mother may kill an unborn child for any reason whatsoever. And as a result of this atrocity, more than 80% of all abortions occur, not for any of the mentioned reasons, but rather because the woman conceived outside marriage!
The irony of all this is that the government punishes parents who deliberately kill or harm children after they have been born. Parents who even bruise a child have been accused of "child abuse" and subjected to vigorous prosecution. Could one deliberately kill any child after birth at any age, conceived as a result of rape or deformity, poor, or abused? Of course not! But if the child is still in the womb, then the government allows the child to be killed, even when these situations do not exist!! It is outrageous that so many people want the government to pay for women's abortions!!!
- Mercy-killing and "assisted suicide."
Now the government often permits (or overlooks) individuals who kill or help kill people even after birth.
It is outrageous!! Babies who are born deformed are often set aside to die without legal penalty. Some nations and at least one state in America have laws that allow doctors to help people commit suicide.
How on earth can this be justified?! By situational arguments or ethics. For them, it is easy to kill someone who is old and sick if they choose to die.
Who would have believed, just a few decades ago, that our society would come to this?! This is exactly what Humanism has defended all along.
Students in public schools often are face to face with activities designed mainly to modify their
values and attitudes, often called "values clarification," "values education," "morals education," etc. This is especially prevalent in
sex education, social studies, psychology, sociology, etc. They can definitely be found in any subject at any grade level.
These activities involve questionnaires, role-playing, and group discussions of challenging and often controversial moral and personal issues. Students are frequently assured that "there are no right or wrong answers." Conclusions are based not on research to accumulate and evaluate evidence but on personal feelings and opinions along with peer pressure (hence, "pooled ignorance"). And when parents and students appeal to the Bible as their proof for authority, they are disallowed. They are asked, "But how do you think it should be?" Various difficult hypothetical situations are invented to make it appear that traditional absolute values will not work.
An English teacher at a High School dared to ask the question: “How do you feel about a school doctor who gives out birth control pills to high school students on request? How would you feel if your son brought a girlfriend home for the weekend and shared his bedroom with her? How do you feel about a decision to permit an unmarried faculty member of a university to continue to teach after she has become pregnant? How do you feel about a wife who is six weeks pregnant with her first child who has an abortion without consulting her husband?”
Difficult hypothetical situations are invented to make it appear that traditional absolute values will not work. Students are compelled to participate at ages when they are not prepared to reach mature judgments about such difficult issues. It is a crime!!
A frequently used example is a lifeboat (or bomb shelter) with too many people in it. Students must examine each occupant and decide who should be killed and who should live. As a result, kids conclude that it is okay to kill since the ends always justify the means.
In a teacher's edition of a High School text, Person to Person, published by Bennett. Students were encouraged by their teachers to agree or disagree with controversial statements, including the following. But made sure to assure the student that "there are no right or wrong answers."
- To find out if they are sexually suited for each other, a couple should have sexual relations before marriage.
- If a couple is in love, it is all right to have sexual relations before marriage.
- One way to tell a date "I like you" is to have intimacy with him or her.
- If people have a safe birth control method, it is all right to have sexual relations before marriage.
An exercise in this book allows the students to choose another student as a partner and pretend they are married, and role-play making arrangements for their divorce!
A High School health class used a death education survey with 57 questions, including all the following:
- To what extent do you believe in life after death? ...
- Regardless of your belief about life after death, what is your wish about it? ...
- To what extent do you believe in reincarnation? ...
- Based on your present feelings, what is the probability of your taking your own life in the near future? ...
- When you think of your own death ..., how do you feel? A. fearful B. Discouraged C. Depressed D. Purposeless [etc.] ...
- What is your present orientation to your own death? A. Death-seeker B. Death-hastener C. Death-accepter [etc.] ...
- If you had a choice, what kind of death would you prefer? A. Tragic, violent death ... F. Suicide. G. Homicidal victim [etc.] ...
- To what extent has the possibility of massive human destruction by nuclear war influenced your present attitudes toward death or life? ...
- Whom have you known who has committed suicide? ...
- How do you estimate your lifetime probability of committing suicide?
- Suppose that you were to commit suicide; what reason would most motivate you to do it? A. To get even ... G. Family strife H. Atomic war [etc.] ...
- Suppose you were to commit suicide; what method would you be most likely to use? A. Barbiturates or pills B. Gunshot C. Hanging [etc.] ...
- Suppose you were ever to commit suicide, would you leave a suicide note? ...
- What kind of a funeral would you prefer? ...
There is a multitude of examples like these. You can read about them in the book: Child Abuse in the Classroom.
Remember that all these issues are discussed by young, immature students in the face of intense peer pressure, without the Bible in mind (which of course has been banned), and with all appeals to authority being disallowed.
The goal is to teach immature students to ignore all authority and objective evidence and reach conclusions according to personal subjective feelings, opinions, and peer pressure. Situation ethics is the fundamental tenet here, and Humanism is the big winner!!
Humanists strip God of all authority as the main source of human morals (ethics) and the Supreme Authority for all human destiny. The issue at stake here is the very “Goodness” of God. While rejecting God's morals or excellence, the humanists allow for no moral absolute. There is no moral value at all in this system of thought. One simple Proverb in the Bible that destroys all the Humanist Manifesto's proclamations is Proverbs 16:9, which states: “The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.”
Our schools are primarily social institutions whose goal is to train the young to belong to the social unit and pursue the social unit's objectives (ungodly, unwise). Dewey, the father of the system of public education, said: “Education is the regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness.”
When this evil agenda is in place, everything else takes a back seat for the worse: academic rigor, the fear of God, and character training. The humanists don't see a need for the fear of God or the honor of parents, and it displaces the family and the church with the all-consuming state. This is exactly why modern teenagers are expected to rebel against their parents while conforming to the standards of popular culture and the uniform social systems embedded in culture by the socialist state. They are trained to break the fifth commandment yet maintain order in their social institutions.
God made the family and the church the fundamental social units. The family is responsible for the children's education and upbringing and not the government or the schools (Eph. 6:4; Deut. 6:7; 1 Tim. 5:8). The state is only responsible for prosecuting crimes like murder and robbery (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:4). This is exactly what humanists reject.
- Entertainment and the Media:
Situation ethics has been the standard of TV since it began. Even programs in the early days of TV justified
lying to help people feel better. Modern TV and movies
justify stealing, abortion, mercy-killing, and even deliberate, killing adults in certain situations. Our entertainment industry celebrates the worst forms of decadence.
Nihilism characterizes much of our musical language or expression today. Not to mention,
pornographic displays are funded by tax dollars.
The Newsweek survey of 104 top TV writers and executives reported that 97% believe abortion is a woman's right.
Elton John recorded the song "Suicide." In the song, he says: I'm getting bored being part of mankind … Think I'll buy a forty-four and give 'em all a surprise. Yeah, think I'm gonna kill myself, cause a little suicide. Stick around for a couple of days, what a scandal if I die. Yea, I'm gonna kill myself, cause a little headline news. (Fact Sheet, p. 6).
Alice Cooper, in his performances, frequently pretended to hang himself (Larson, p. 22f).
Eddie and the Hot Rods had an album called "Teenage Depression." The front pictured a young man pointing a gun at his head, obviously about to commit suicide (Peters, p. 136). Amazing!!
Along with the philosophers and literary giants, these cultural icons demonstrate the same apostasy from the faith.
Another example is Katy Perry, who started out as the daughter of a Bible-believing household in Santa Barbara, California. She grew tired, according to her own words, of singing “Amazing Grace.” She denied her faith, claiming “I am not Christian,” and promotes homosexuality big time in her music.
Kin Kinkle killed his parents and shot up his school on May 21, 1998. Cultural destruction takes on many forms. These are just a few examples of the many young people who follow the Pied Piper of cultural apostasy.
Among the most popular songs of all time is Frank Sinatra's “My Way.” Recorded in 1966. The song remained on the charts for a whopping seventy-five weeks! This song most clearly represents Sartre's existentialism philosophy that has ever been produced in mass culture. According to its lyrics, man will define himself by his own choices when he insists on doing it, “My Way.” The song likewise reflects a virulent rejection of God's Word with these words, “to say the things he truly feels and not the words of one who kneels.” This is the raw humanism of John Dewey, who refused to bow before God in fear, humility, and reverence.
The Beatles had a tremendous impact that lasted for more than fifty years. Their ideas represented the spirit of the age. They professed agnosticism, atheism, humanism, and Hinduism. John Lennon, the band guitarist, and organizer was the most influential songwriter of modern times. He led a popular culture into rebellion against God in the 1960s and 70s. In a magazine article, he quoted,
“Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right, and I'll be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first-- rock 'n' roll or Christianity.”
He later told other members of the band he believed he was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. What a blasphemy!!
Philosopher Nietzsche said something similar before going insane. In a later press conference, John Lennon confirmed that he believed in the “God in all of us,” which amounts to Eastern pantheism or transcendentalism.
The Rolling Stones, another popular group with staying power (they recently completed a Bridges to Babylon tour, which raked in scores of millions), made it big with their Chuck Berry-tinged blues sound wedded to a bad-boy image. The Stones were the undisputed ruffians, even becoming apologists for Satan. They titled one album, "His Satanic Majesty's Request." Their album "Beggar's Banquet" had a hit song entitled "Sympathy for the Devil," which remains one of the most insightful songs ever penned about Beelzebub, though written from the wrong side. Penned in the first person for Satan, the song reveals a knowledge of the Devil's ways that is far more comprehensive than that entertained even by many professed Christians. It sees Satan's hand in the bigger scheme of things, historically and culturally.
"I've been around for a long-long year, stole many a man's soul and faith. I was 'round when Jesus Christ had His moment of doubt and pain; 'made... sure that Pilate washed hands, and sealed His fate."
Amazing!!
Another one of John Lennon's popular songs is “Imagine.” With this song, he marketed the egalitarian philosophy and atheism of Karl Marx as well as the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, who taught us to 'live for today.” John Lennon's creed also appeared in his 1970 song, “God,” in which he confessed that he did not believe in God and the Bible but rather, “I just believe in me.”
The Bible claims that man is not wise enough to define moral issues without Divine revelation.
Jeremiah 10:23: It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Proverbs 14:12: There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.
2 Corinthians 10:18: For not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.
Isaiah 55:9: The Lord says that as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.
When a person claims he is wise enough to determine right from wrong on his own human wisdom alone, he is demonstrating his foolishness and not his wisdom! (Proverbs 3:5,6; 2 Corinthians 10:12; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; 2:1-5; 4:6; Colossians 3:17; Matthew 15:9; Luke 16:15; Romans 1:18-32; 10:1-3; Matthew 7:21-23; Galatians 1:6-9; Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18,19; 1 Timothy 1:3; 6:3; James 4:12).
The Bible claims to be the absolute standard for right and wrong, which all men must obey.
2 Timothy 3:16,17: Scripture is given by God's inspiration, and is profitable to instruct in righteousness and thoroughly equips us for every good work.
Psalms 119:105; Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
John 14:15: Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." Love is not an excuse for disobedience but a motivation for obedience.
Psalms 19:7-11: God's laws are perfect, right, and true. They make us wise, enlighten us, and lead to great reward.
John 12:48: Jesus' Words will judge us on the last day.
God's revealed Word is perfect. No man can improve on it. It is the only standard by which our lives will be judged. Our eternal destiny will depend on our obedience to it. Our duty is to learn and obey it rather than modify it. God will judge us according to His revealed Word on the final Day of Judgment (1 Corinthians 14:37; 9:21; Matthew 28:18-20; 2 John 9; John 17:17; 14:21-24; 1 John 5:3; 1 Peter 4:11; Ephesians 1:22,23; Colossians 1:18; 2:8,19; Acts 3:22,23; Romans 2:6-10; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10; 1 John 3:6-8,10; Revelation 22:12; 1 Samuel 15:3-23).
The revealed Word of God gives men compelling evidence that it is God's revelation to mankind.
- The Bible is unanimous and harmonious:
Disagreement about moral issues is the consequence of human wisdom.
Humanists admit that they do not agree among themselves ("Manifestos," p. 24).
So if men are so wise, why can't they agree on what is right or wrong?
Though the Bible was written by over forty men from different backgrounds over a period of 1500 years, their writings contain no contradictions. How could they all agree unless God guided them as they claimed it to be?
Bible writers strongly and repeatedly predicted the distant future in detail.
Their predictions always came true. Humanists cannot predict the future. Since Bible writers could predict the future and Humanists cannot, why should we believe that man is the greatest source of wisdom? Why not admit that the Bible writers spoke the truth when they claimed God inspired them?
Those who revealed the message of the Bible could do miracles: works that are impossible except by Divine power.
These inspired men of God raised the dead, walked on water, calmed storms, and instantaneously healed incurable diseases. Humanists are not capable of performing any of these things. So why should we accept humans as the highest power on earth and submit to human guidance? Why not admit that the Bible writers spoke by the guidance of God, as they claimed?
When man acknowledges that God exists and made the universe, he must believe God is far wiser than he. Man cannot make anything as great as the universe. Therefore, man must trust God's wisdom to guide us through His Divine revelation.
Faith in God is far more judicious and far wiser than Humanism. Human wisdom cannot measure up to the wisdom of divine law. It cannot evaluate the evidence that God exists and that the Bible is His revealed Word. Human wisdom is at war with God (Romans 8:7) and is foolishness according to God. Therefore we must help people to see that through false and deceptive ideologies and philosophies of humanism, the god of this world has blinded the minds of many (2 Cor. 4:3-4). They cannot see God's Truth because of their blindness of heart. So what can we do to respond to humanism? We must attack the false teachings of humanism with the perfect teachings of God's Word.
V. SEXUAL PERMISSIVENESS:
"In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered “evil.” Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.'" (1973, "Manifestos," pp. 18-19; emp. in orig.).
Hence, with its human wisdom and situation ethics, Humanism concludes that men have a right to premarital and extramarital sexual unions, divorce, polygamy, homosexuality, and any other "sexual proclivity" they desire. What if a person's "proclivity," inclination, leads him to want physical intimacy with children? According to Humanist's "wisdom," no one has to "repress" such conduct with their "intolerant attitudes." (Many Humanists defend the practice of pedophiles).
Humanists derive their standards of sexual conduct from human experiences. Personalsonal pleasure is the primary standard by which most humanists determine their sexual behavior. It follows that, for humanists, there should be no restraints upon sexual freedoms except as each person prefers. If any particular person, in any given situation, determines that fornication (i.e., adultery, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism, or whatever) is right, then in that situation, for the humanists, it is considered all right! And to make the experience more pleasurable, hard-core pornography is acceptable and all right for humanists.
On the other hand, Christians believe that God dictates the standards by which humanity must live. Because those rules say, “You shall not commit adultery,” all sexual immorality behavior must be restrained for the Christian to be pure and chaste. Moreover, Christians should seek to refrain from sexual impurities and fulfill all sexual appetites within the marriage relationship.
Humanists permit total freedom from sexual restraints, at least between consenting adults. And as a terrible consequence of this today, we have more separations, divorces, and much family deterioration in communities dominated by humanist values. On the other hand, because Christians practice sexual restraints, based on God’s standards of moral purity and marital commitment, more families are stronger, have stronger ties, cultivating a society that is more stable because they are driven by Christian principles.
While it is true that many God-fearing people in our society still follow the biblical code regarding sexual morality, is it not also true that our society is becoming more sexually permissive? Would you not agree that our society is more humanistic when it comes to sexual conduct than it was 60 or more years ago?
Left-wing American politics has redefined
social justice as sexual freedom. The opening words of the
Communist Manifesto were,
"A specter is haunting Europe," the specter of justice for the proletariat. A modern-day
Marx would have to write,
"A specter is haunting Europe, the specter of unfulfilled sexual desire."
A perfect example of this was Hillary Clinton's reply to a question in her third debate. She was asked to identify the most substantial priorities for the Supreme Court. Guess what? Of the three, her first two were abortion and gay rights. I imagine that the 20th-century philosophers, such as Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) who wrote the book "Sexual Revolution," would have applauded. He believed that America's consumer society offered more fertile ground for his agenda on "Sexual Revolution" than any other one. He replaced class struggle with a "struggle against repression." This, of course, meant complete sexual fulfillment and happiness as not inconsistent with economic inequality.
"Today's social struggles are being waged between those forces interested in the safeguarding and affirming of life and those whose interests lie in its destruction and negation. Today the principal social questions no longer is: 'Are you rich or are you poor?' but: 'Do you endorse and do you fight to secure the greatest possible freedom for human life.'"
So it turned out that Reich's Sexual Revolution fulfilled American consumer capitalism during the Cold War Era. According to him, there would be no danger of revolutions on the streets if workers were engaged in exploring their sexuality. His words (1949) are:
"But here, as nowhere else, there is the possibility of striving for happiness and for human rights... The present volume, the Sexual Revolution, has also been favorably received. In America, there are powerful and well established parent-teacher organizations which defend the principle of self-regulation and, with it, of sex-economy for the child. Universities teach the life principle, including its sexual elements. Here and there one encounters hesitation, silence, even hostility, but sexual hygiene for the masses is making strong progress."
Today with "no-fault" divorce laws, almost anyone can obtain a divorce if they can afford the lawyer's fees. As a result, nearly half of all marriages end up in divorce.
What can be said of our world today where the divorce rate is 500 times greater than it was in 1680? What about homosexuality, which is a million times more prevalent in public schools than it was in 1950?
For years our government has provided contraceptives to unmarried teens without their parents' consent. Isn't it ironic that our girls cannot get their ears pierced without parental consent, yet our government can provide them with birth control pills and condoms, even if parents object?! They will pay for it with our tax dollars!!
Many communities have passed laws granting special favors to homosexuals. Now homosexuals demand that states grant them the rights and privileges of marriage. And officials that refuse to bow to the Gay Rights' demands can be sure that their personal lives will be searched with a fine-tooth comb; any faults found will be exposed to public ridicule, probably right before an election. And the incredible hypocrisy is that often the homosexuals and humanists will expose some official for one of those "sexual proclivities" or other such practices that the homosexuals and humanists themselves practice, defend, and justify!!
The National Endowment for the Arts gives federal tax dollars to fund "art" projects that are so grossly immoral that I cannot even describe them here. They include open displays of homosexual acts. One display showed a crucifix immersed in urine. One woman's "art" consisted of calling men from the audience to come on stage and inspect her private parts. So our tax dollars promote the "sexual proclivities" that Humanism defends.
These subjects come up in
health class, family living, parenting, social studies, psychology, sociology, etc. Much of it falls under the heading of
"sex education," though educators often disguise it with terms that are less likely to alert parents. As such, it can be found in almost any class.
"Sex education" in schools almost invariably defends
Humanist views.
The most influential sex education organizations are Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and Sex Information & Education Council of the US (SIECUS). Humanists totally dominate them. The American Humanist Association gave the honorary title of "Humanist of the Year" to SIECUS executive director Mary Calderone and PPFA's founder Margaret Sanger. Other prominent sex educators affiliated with humanist organizations or have endorsed humanist documents are Albert Ellis, Alan Guttmacher, Sol Gordon, Lester Kirkendall, John Money, Deryk Calderwood, Ira Reiss, etc.
SIECUS Study Guides are used to tell sex education teachers what to teach in the classroom. Study Guide #5,
The official "SIECUS Position Statement" says regarding pornography: "It is the position of SIECUS that: “The use of explicit sexual materials (sometimes referred to as pornography) can serve a variety of important needs in the lives of countless individuals."
In 1973 Alan Guttmacher, the head of PPFA, said:
". . . the only avenue the International Planned Parenthood Federation and its allies could travel to win the battle for abortion on demand is through sex education . . . ."
Efforts to get sex education in local schools usually come through local "planned parenthood," "family planning," or abortion clinics. In many states, federal tax dollars are used to support these clinics. Girls at any age can get contraceptives and abortions without their parents' consent!
"Educational materials" and counselors are also offered to local schools.
- The National Education Association:
The
NEA, the professional organization (actually a union) with which most teachers are affiliated, is another
Humanist-dominated organization. Every year it passes official resolutions describing the goals they hope to achieve. Among the many resolutions regularly passed, we find:
- Support for "the right to reproductive freedom" (including abortion).
- Support for sex education that teaches "birth control" and "diversity of sexual orientation."
- Support for clinics in the schools where students can obtain "access to birth control methods with instruction in their use" (without parents' consent, of course).
- Training programs for teachers include the "acceptance of diverse sexual orientation" and "Support for the celebration of a Lesbian and Gay History Month."
- Support for federal funding to the National Endowment for the Arts with no restrictions on what projects paid for.
- Opposition to any efforts by parents or government to control what the schools teach about any of the above.
In many parenting discussions, the value of spanking is almost always undermined. Page 315 of Child Growth and Development, published by McGraw-Hill, for example, lists "unsatisfactory" forms of punishment, and the first two items listed are:
"Spanking because it puts too much stress on the child as a 'bad child' and too little on the wrong act . . . . Other physical punishments . . . . All physical punishment has the danger of turning into child abuse or causing injury when the adult is really angry. For this reason alone, it should be avoided."'
Easy and no-fault divorce are also advocated. Your Marriage and Family Life, published by McGraw-Hill, says on page 430:
"If happiness is the goal of marriage, some marriages must be dissolved . . . . These results confirm the view that having happy marriages and happy children means we must allow some marriages to break up."
This text is used in many local high schools.
The effects of humanism on the family are intensive. In 1940 only 3.8 % of children were born fatherless. Seventeen years later, the illegitimate rate had spiked to 42.% Over 50% of births today to women aged thirty or younger are illegitimate. What's even worse, households with both the father and mother make up less than half of American families today. Dysfunctionality is the standard in modern society. The morality of our nation is in shambles. In our country, 95% of Americans getting married today confess to having already committed fornication.
- Entertainment & the Media:
The sexual laxness of the media is incredible, whether it is in movies, TV, or music.
A survey of the contents of
PG and
PG-13 movies revealed:
- Nearly 1/4 have the most shockingly vulgar words that I will not describe.
- 61% take God's name in vain.
- 71% contain vulgar references to sexual immorality.
- 50% imply physical intimacy.
- 13% show intimacy in the bed.
- 30% show explicit nudity (via Citizen, 1/89).
A study of sexual acts in 58 hours of prime-time TV revealed:
- Five rapes, seven homosexual acts, 28 acts of prostitution, 41 examples of sexual relations between unmarried people, and six sexual relations between married people. And that was in 1983! (Christian Inquirer, 7 & 8/83).
- Several programs now feature characters that are openly homosexual and lesbian.
The Newsweek survey of 104 top TV writers and executives learned that only 45% believe that adultery is wrong, compared to 85% of Americans in general. Only 20% believed homosexual acts are wrong, compared to 76% of Americans in general.
Our popular music today is saturated with loud references to
rape, murder, and mayhem. The most popular and wild rapper of the 2000s,
Eminem is known for his crude references to his mother as a
"female dog" and a constant flow of the grossest profanities. Pop stars today degrade their mothers with the worst profanity. Some encourage our
young girls to embrace the
lesbian lifestyle while others promote
suicide, purposelessness, cannibalism, and cop killing. Indeed, we live in troubling and lawless times!!
Music is so filled with sexual immorality that we hardly need to document it. Chris Stein (Blondie) once said: "Everyone takes it for granted rock and roll is synonymous with sex" (People, 5/21/79, p. 53; via Fact Sheet, p. 2, and Larson, p. 18 and Aranza, p. 76 and Peters, p. 107).
Lady Gaga promotes blasphemy and sexual nihilism on stages all over the world. Her recent album, Born This Way, promotes homosexuality and has reached the top pop charts. There is no doubt that the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham has now gone mainstream!
Miley Cirus has become famous for her sexual perverseness. Likewise, Carrie Underwood started her career singing “Jesus Take the Wheel,” but within a few years, she was endorsing homosexuality.
Madonna has also promoted premarital sex, homosexuality, and feminist sexual domination. Her concerts are filled with mocking Christians.
Elton John is one of the most popular musicians of all time. He is a professed homosexual. Following him is a host of other stars who advocate and practice such sins, including Queen's Freddie Mercury, George Michael, Melissa Etheridge, and Boy George.
Led Zeppelin was a real pioneer in demon worship. Many of the 19th-century philosophers admitted their admiration for Satan. After all, there was no point in trying to glorify Satan while they were calling into question the existence of Satan and God.
These celebrities and many others that I didn't mention are leading our younger generation away from Biblical faith. They are corrupting entire civilizations of people. They are selling hundreds of millions of recordings. Sadly, their music is piping into the brains of billions of iPods and mobile phone users. Certainly, the philosophers of previous centuries did not foresee so much cultural machine power, producing humanism in bite-sized pieces for their consumption. People, let us wake up and smell the coffee!!!
Music videos multiply the damage by often combining immoral words with pictures of immoral conduct.
Add to this the corrupt influence of many video games. It is clear that Humanistic moral liberation and revolution have conquered most of the entertainment world, and it successfully uses schools and government agencies to spread its immoral philosophies.
By and large, Bible Truth is not hard to understand, though it may be hard to apply in one's life.
The intimate relationship between a man and a woman is pure when they are Scripturally married to one another.
Hebrews 13:4:
"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous."
God's Word does not condemn the sexual union as being inherently wrong. On the contrary, God designed it and glorified it. And therefore, His laws must regulate it. He says it is honorable within marriage. All sexual relations outside of marriage are forbidden! (1 Corinthians 7:2-5,9; 6:9-11,16-18).
- Marriage is a lifetime commitment.
"2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress." (Romans 7:2-3)
Sexual relationships between those who do not have a Scriptural marriage commitment with one another constitute adultery or fornication. This would include relationships before marriage, outside marriage, polygamy, and homosexuality.
The only Scriptural grounds for divorce is fornication. Remarriage without any Scriptural divorce is adultery.
Matthew 19:9:
"Whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (cf. v3-9; Matthew 5:32; 1 Corinthians 7:10,11).
God grants only one reason for which one may divorce a Scriptural marriage companion: the fornication of one of the two companions. Therefore, to divorce for other reasons is forbidden, and to remarry then is adultery.
- Sexual relations between people of the same sex are explicitly condemned as immoral.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11: Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God unless they repent and cease to practice it.
Matthew 18:6-7 - If we tempt others to sin, we would be better off drowned in the sea. We should not only protect our own hearts from immoral influences, but we must make sure that our words, thoughts, actions, teaching, and manner of dress do not encourage others to immorality and sin.
Matthew 5:27-28: Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So the problem to be avoided is not just immoral actions, but immoral thoughts and anything that leads our hearts to desire immorality, lust. (Proverbs 6:25)
Mark 7:21-23: There are a number of passages that warn us against "lascivious or licentious" practices. That is practices that entice us to improper sexual lusts (Genesis 39:7-12; Romans 13:13,14; Galatians 5:19-21; I Peter 4:1-4; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Ephesians 5:19; 2 Peter 2:2,7,18; Jude 4; Philippians 4:8; Colossians 3:2; Philippians 3:19; 2:5; Matthew 5:8; 6:13; Proverbs 6:27; I Corinthians 15:33; Proverbs 13:20; 5:8; James 4:4; 2 Corinthians 6:17-7:1).
To sum things up, humanist permissiveness is entirely opposed to the Bible teachings. Those who have a real relationship with God must live pure lives and oppose immoral philosophies and ideologies.
CONCLUSION:
The humanist asserts that the Bible is outdated (old-fashioned). He says that the only way we would benefit from its pages is to allow modern man to make a practical application (that is to say "revisions" of God's inspired Word). Please do not be fooled! He who is speaking is Satan! He is saying that God could not have designed an appropriate book for each generation. That modern man has left behind the teachings found in the Bible. Just look around and observe. Do you see how Satan has already won much of the battle?! How often do you seek diligently to find some way to make any practical application of any Bible teachings? Even after fully understanding all the details that the Scriptures present about history? Let us awaken to what is happening!! The Bible, the revealed Word of God, is not out of date! The Bible has practical application. Each teaching that Adam needed is still needed today.
Notice to what extent Satan and his doctrine of humanism have advanced into our classrooms, even in Bible classes. Let me remind you of the way that the humanist sees godliness today. He says:
"God is dead (He does not exist). But the majority are not ready yet to leave their faith. So, let them have their religion, but let us remove God from the picture. Direct all the emphasis to life on this earth, because there will be no other one."
Humanism asserts that matter is eternal and that there is no God. Man and his environment are simply the results of evolutionary forces. Ethics are situational, and no one can have absolute truth. There is no life after death; there is no salvation or judgment day; man has no soul; there is no heaven or hell. Man is the most important thing in the universe. But the Bible speaks the opposite of that!
Indeed, there is a great conflict between God's statements in His divine book and those taught by modern men. Obviously, there is fundamental disagreement in the war of worldviews. Christians and Humanists disagree on the fundamentals that make up our understanding of Truth and the universe.
We Christians firmly believe in the sovereignty of God. It means that God is the ultimate authority in truth. God is the highest authority in reality. God is the highest authority in law. God is the ultimate source of man's salvation. God must be the center of man's life and worship.
On the other hand, humanism opposes God’s sovereignty with its own basic presuppositions of man's sovereignty. They claim that man is the ultimate authority in truth. Man is the ultimate authority in reality. Man is the ultimate authority in law. Man is the ultimate source of his own salvation. Man must be the center of his own life and worship.
And according to these fundamental criteria, God will be God, or man will be the god. Indeed, this is a clash of worldviews: the Humanist worldview and the Christian worldview. Christianity opposes humanism altogether.
Confronted with a worldview that asserts the centrality of God in the face of man's existence, the modern humanist reacts by saying,
"But I don't want God to control my truth! I don't want God to control my ethical behavior! I don't want God to control my reality!"
Ultimately it does not matter whether the humanist wants God to be God or not. If God really is sovereign Lord and Judge, then man cannot dispossess Him of His sovereignty by denying it. It is only in the minds of these men that God has been stripped of His Goodness, producing a defective worldview that inevitably produces a flawed life and culture.
Humanism is nothing more than a proud declaration and defense of the natural autonomy of the sinful heart. He, the humanist, summarizes his system of thought in an introductory philosophy textbook with these simple words:
“Any law that people are counseled to obey that is not of their own making enslaves them and robs them of their dignity.”
The humanist faith defends the dignity of mankind, which always leads to autonomy in which man cuts himself loose from the Almighty God who created him. Thus man loses the only possible way for human dignity.
Humanism is unstable because it has no basis in eternal truth. Humanism always results in anarchy or tyranny. This rejection of the biblical worldview will inevitably lead to an intensified conflict between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Satan. Once a nation has rejected all Christian law or biblical law, they set themselves up to disintegrate society or civilization. Sadly this social disintegration often begins with the destruction of the home and education. Alas, it is already happening across our nation and throughout the world!! It will eventually lead to a catastrophic economic and political system.
But what concerns me most is not just the humanist state but the church itself. Why? Because the authority of God the Lawgiver has been compromised, there is a lot of ethical or moral confusion. Many churches have abandoned the centrality of God in ethics. An incorrect view of God's law has resulted in the general failure among many Christians to love the law. When the church compromises the Truth, refusing to preach God's Law, there is sin. Many Christians come to church but refuse to repent of their sins.
Without Christ’s Law to rule the hearts of men, Christians will never be able to crucify the flesh and live a godly life. Jesus defined love as keeping His commandments (John 14:21). Without God's Law, man's behavior degenerates. This is exactly what is happening in our times: the rise of crime and tyranny. The church is decreasing in power and influence over the lives of unbelievers in our world, but this is true even in the lives of many believers as well. They cry out against law-dependence and tell us we are saved by grace and not by law. How sad it is for the church to minimize God's authority over man's ethic! When Christians refuse to obey Christ's Law regarding sins like fornication, taking care of the fatherless and widow in the church and the family (James 1:27; 1 Timothy 5:1-15), they indeed are minimizing the authority of God.
The decline of morality is a tremendous problem today. When Christians oppose, for example, homosexuality, they are quickly silenced by dismissals, lawsuits, and even imprisonment. Humanism has replaced all biblical morality in education, government, and even in the church. So what is the end result? The rise of divorce, crime, tyranny, infidelity, and suicide.
When we abandon God's absolute authority in the area of ethics, it should not be a surprise to find increasing abominations (fornication, adultery, homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, etc.). A Christian void of a well-defined worldview is powerless in the face of cultural depravity and tyranny, and other worldviews will defeat him.
The rejection of God as Lawgiver is evident when modern churches reject objective law. While many pulpits speak of love, they shy away from objective law by which love might be defined. And though the Lawgiver has always demanded love, He has also had a law whereby He defines the terms of that love, the abiding of it. Love demands keeping all of God's commandments (John 14:15). It is God's Law that shapes love. Modern man cannot fathom this! He cannot conceive submitting to God's Law that determines how he ought to discipline and raise his children, how he spends his time, how he must worship, how he must entertain himself, or how he must engage in his business and politics. Such objective law is too hard, too restrictive for the autonomous man. The autonomous man would rather re-define love to include such evils as adultery or lying for business purposes.
The humanist's problem with God's Law is its objectivity: it cannot be twisted and molded to suit his whims or inclinations. Thus God's Law strikes humanists as dogmatic and authoritarian (too legalistic). Yet the apostle Paul acknowledged that the Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testaments, is objective enough to equip the man of God for every good work. God's Word is far too objective for the humanist man who desires to live, work, and worship without any directive or commands that might restrict his choices.
God's Law is rejected in many pulpits. There is little preaching and very little understanding of God's commandments, God's Law. Many pulpits are afraid to preach against relevant sins such as fornication, abortion, theft, illegitimate divorce, dishonor of parents, worship, egalitarianism, and, of course, feminism. Meanwhile, churchgoers don't have a clue about repentance and being faithful followers of Christ. They become immune. Sadly, many Christians are leaning big time towards socialism and humanistic law. Did you know that it was churchgoing Christians who worked hard in establishing government welfare and socialist education systems? These programs have only served to weaken the home and the church. These programs have driven entire nations towards a wholesale redistribution of wealth and institutionalized stealing. The corruption of entire nations by Marxist ideologies and socialist redistribution schemes is sobering!!! Take heed!
I suspect that 19th-century advocates of humanism and natural law would be horrified to discover where their evil philosophies have led others. As a result of this, today, there is no longer an objective definition of child abuse or pornography, whether from the Supreme Court or anybody else. Take heed that without God's definition of law found in Scriptures, all definitions have become blurred.
In Isaiah 5:20, we read,
“Woe to those who call evil good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
This is exactly what is happening today in our society, where God's Law is rejected. Isaiah goes on to say 4 verses later:
“Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours the stubble, and as dry grass sinks down in the flame, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom go up like dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts, and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. “ (Isaiah 5:24)
This is prophetic of our days of ethical ambiguity in our pulpits, schools, and media. Today, evil is made to look good, leading people to wander through a wasteland of ethical confusion. It is clearly seen in our popular music, movies, novels, and documentaries. Now the murder of babies is called “choice.” The murder of the elderly is “humane.” Sexual sins are described as “gay” with no shame whatsoever. Witchcraft is sold to our children as harmless fun and adventure. Drunkenness is now considered a disease. The extreme evils of cannibalism and murder are made voyeuristic fodder in the motion of pictures and music. One documentary passed off cannibalism as “making a statement.” Our colleges or university professors excuse and commend incest as “a fulfilling experience” in some cases. Outrageous!!!
The modern man, the humanist, calls Christians evil because they uphold the objective, eternal Law of our Creator of heaven and earth. We Christians are now labeled as “homophobes” and are accused of hatred or fearing homosexuals. Christians who choose to obey God's Law in all areas of their lives are universally censured as intolerant and unkind.
When the Law of God is rejected, man's conscience can no longer make fine distinctions between good and evil. Today, our churches and leaders have little influence on many Christians' hearts because the media and government are having more and more access to Christians' minds. Unfortunately, the church hardly has any courage or conviction to preach a biblical worldview.
When man rejects all Bible authority from the Lawgiver in certain areas of life, applying God's Law in his life, he will not be equipped for every good work. This is true in the areas of civil government. The men who built our nation understood that God limited governmental authority, especially in the family, church, and private poverty. Such belief is almost foreign to the modern Christian.
And though many Christians believe that the Bible speaks to them in many areas of life and lifestyle, they have a hard time applying it to matters of government, business, medicine, economics, and children's education. So if there is nothing in God's Word by which we may make ethical decisions, then we are lost, doomed, and wandering in the desert of ethical relativism and utilitarianism like the Israelites. By ignoring these life issues, Christianity loses all moral relevance and moral authority in the home, the church, and the entire world.
Sadly many churches have integrated the world's philosophies. How? By accommodating the customs of humanism. For example, it is an affront to humanists to forbid women from leading and preaching in the church. There has been a steady compromise in church doctrine to accommodate the cries of egalitarians. Even so-called conservative churches have gradually incorporated women into leadership positions in the church, leadership committees, worship, and finally into the church's offices.
It is easier to accommodate the changing practices of society than obeying God's Law. For example, does the Social Security system encourage families to ignore the biblical principle of children caring for their own parents? Do our educational systems, church programs, entertainment, and lifestyles undermine in any way the God-given biblical pattern for parents disciplining their own children? Is there anything in the unaccountable and uncommitted custom called “dating” that encourages lust and fornication? Could parents and children choose a better courtship system by which our young might enter into a proper marital relationship? Is this the best we can do?! Please think about it!!
When everyone does what is right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6), there is danger!! We must stop denying God's Word as the ultimate source of all authority in heaven and earth. We must start revering God as the only Lawgiver and keep all of His commandments. We must start recognizing God as the only Standard of all righteousness. And we must start having a change of heart (Psalm 119:33).
The sheep follow the Shepherd in objective ways. They move in the direction that the Shepherd leads them: in marriage, the family, lifestyle, peacemaking, economics, and yes, in the voting booth! Such was the case of King Josiah, whom God said,
“25 Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him” (2 Kings 23:25).
May that be said of all of us!!
Therefore as the salt of the earth, we must not compromise our “savor” (Matthew 5:13-16). God's people must uphold that which is right and oppose at all cost that which is wrong. In doing this, we set an example of righteousness for all around us to contemplate. We must oppose humanism and its evil teachings, which are contrary to the teachings of God's Law, His Word. We must be willing to understand and help others acknowledge the folly of human wisdom, such as humanism.
“For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.' 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach[a] to save those who believe.'" (1 Cor. 1:19-21)
Why do we find the world in the state it is today? Tim LaHaye, in his book, The Battle for the Mind, suggested: “Our present society is in a state of moral decay, not because the majority of Americans love degeneracy, but because the influence of humanism has been greater on our culture than the influence of the church” (1980, p. 189). Christ said:
"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under a bushel, but on a stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house. even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 5:13-16)
Human wisdom is at war with God (Romans 8:7) and is pure foolishness (1 Cor. 3:19-20). As Christians, we must reject humanism and help others do the same (Philippians 2:15-16). We must be blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom we shine as lights in the world. This is the duty of Christians. Is your light shining, or has it become polluted by Humanistic views?
May we as Christians oppose the evils of humanism and its dogmas both publicly and privately with the revealed Word of God. May we protect our children from the onslaught of humanism that we may save their precious souls (Deut. 6:4-9). May He awaken in our land the fear of the Lord that it might be spread throughout all thought and life. May mankind reject all self-sufficiency and trust in God alone for all Truth, salvation, and life. May He teach us to fear Him and not trust our minds. May we love His Truth and allow it to cleanse us of all lawlessness, drawing us closer to the cross of Christ. May You, Oh God, protect your church from all the evil influences of humanism and help us to reject all these ideologies in the light of Your Law, for You are the very essence of all goodness. May we, Your children, never fear the evil one; rather, may we fear only You, the living God who is sovereign over all!! May we always acknowledge Your Law and call all nations to repent. May we never deceive our hearts claiming our own foolish ideas but Your ways and thoughts, submitting them all to the rule of Your Son, our Lord, and Savior. May You rule in our hearts forever. May You preserve us, Your children, from all the corrupt and toxic ideas of those who oppose Your Son, Jesus Christ. Finally, may we have an open heart, like little children, that we might believe and understand and cast away all confusion associated with these false systems of humanist thought. May You always root us and ground us in our faith that we might abound in thanksgiving to You, our God, for You are our King forever and ever. Amen.
Luci
