By Robert Rushmore
As defined by Webster, faith is an “unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.” Unfortunately, this is the definition most of the world uses. It is unfortunate because this definition is a false one in that it implies faith is a “leap in the dark.” New Unger’s Bible Dictionary gives a better definition of faith, “the body of truth, moral and religious, which God has revealed–that which men believe.” This is a true definition as it corresponds to the biblical definition of faith. Unger’s definition uses the phrase “body of truth,” which correctly implies a need for evidence that comes from God.
The Bible also shows faith requires evidence. Hebrews 11:1 actually gives a definition of faith, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” According to Strong’s, the Greek word for “substance” in this verse means “a setting under,” implying a support or a foundation. Using Strong’s for the meaning of “evidence” one finds it means “proof.” So the verse is saying that faith is the “foundation” of things hoped for and the “proof” of what is not seen. Another Bible text showing faith requires evidence is 1 Thessalonians 5:21, “Prove all things.” The Greek word for “prove” means “to test.” This verse shows every teaching should be tested before it is believed by man. The testing process implies a need for evidence. Thomas is sometimes called “Doubting Thomas” because he desired proof before believing Jesus was risen (John 20:25-29). Man has ridiculed him for this desire, but the Lord did not. Jesus gave Thomas the proof he needed, thus causing him to believe. Thomas then took his faith to the next level and confessed Christ. This account, as do the above texts, shows the biblical teaching of faith based on evidence.
We now know faith requires evidence, but where does one acquire this evidence? The answer is simply “the Bible.” Romans 10:17 tells us faith comes from hearing the Word of God. The Bible gives us faith based on proof contained therein. Further, John 20:31 states Jesus did many things not recorded in the Bible, but the ones recorded were recorded as evidence so that we might believe. The evidence of these events is proof that will lead one to faith that Jesus is the Son of God. Clearly, the evidence for faith comes from the Word of God, the Bible.
Biblical faith is necessary for salvation. Romans 5:1 says we are “justified by faith.” One who is justified has been rendered just or innocent. According to the verse, this faith gives us access to peace with God, which is salvation or eternal life in heaven. John 8:24 informs that a lack of faith results in spiritual death. Salvation depends on biblical faith.
Biblical faith is necessary for salvation, but faith alone is not enough. James 2:17 says “faith without works is dead.” Quite simply, our works show our faith. James 2:19 says even the devils believe and tremble. If faith were all that is necessary for salvation, devils would have a place in heaven. Further, the Book of Romans indicates faith is more than a noun–it is a verb because it requires action or obedience. Romans 5:1 speaks of justification by faith. The beginning of the book (Romans 1:5) speaks of “obedience to the faith.” The end of the book (Romans 16:26) mentions “obedience of faith.” Context dictates the middle of the book (Romans 5:1) must refer to an obedient faith when it discusses justification by faith.
Biblical faith is different from man’s view of faith in that it requires evidence. Faith is not a “leap in the dark.” Evidence for our faith comes from the Bible. Faith is required for salvation, but faith only is not enough. Biblical faith, based on evidence, must be acted upon. Do you have biblical faith? What will you do with that faith? The devils believe and tremble. Thomas believed and confessed Jesus. What will you do with your faith?

BY WAYNE JACKSON
On the Fourth of July weekend in 1999, a young man named Benjamin Nathaniel Smith went on a murderous rampage. He wounded nine people and killed two, before turning the gun upon himself. He was a hate-filled, unhappy person.
Prior to his death, Smith was interviewed for a documentary by a student filmmaker. In that interview, he revealed a bitter hatred for non-white people. ABC News aired portions of the interview on its “Good Morning America” show.
In his conversation, the vicious young man revealed his bitterness toward the Christian religion. In one of his statements, he said:
“It’s really Christianity that’s our biggest obstacle.”
Smith was quite forceful in his opposition to the principles of the Christian system.
Why? Because of the fact that those who truly respect the teaching of Jesus Christ believe that human beings have been specially created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). We are, therefore, his “offspring,” (i.e., products of his creative genius – Acts 17:28). Accordingly, there is worth to every person.
Moreover, even though man is fallen by virtue of his yielding to personal sin, Christ came into the world and died for the benefit of all humanity (1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Jn. 2:2). Those who choose to avail themselves of the Lord’s redemptive love, in obedience to the plan of salvation (Heb. 5:8-9; Acts 2:38), may do so.
Any person for whom Christ died is worthy of our love!
Christians, therefore, love all people—regardless of their ethnic identity. This is the thrust of that wonderful parable, the Good Samaritan. In this story, the despised Samaritan, who showed compassion to his long-time racial enemy, the Jew, is the hero (Lk. 10:25ff).
If Christians are to be viewed as an “obstacle” simply because we love all of our fellow beings, then let it be so. Here we take our stand.
But why was Smith’s wrath directed solely toward Christianity? Why was it not aimed at the atheistic community as well?
Because atheism has a history of viciousness toward the underprivileged.
Consider these examples:
Charles Darwin
The ideology of Charles Darwin foisted racism. The subtitle of Darwin’s The Origin of Species, alludes to the “Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life.”
In his authoritative book, Social Darwinism in American Thought, Richard Hofstadter noted:
The Darwinian mood sustained the belief in Anglo-Saxon racial superiority which obsessed many American thinkers in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The measure of world domination already achieved by the “race” seemed to prove it the fittest (1955, 172-73).
Nietzche
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was the “philosopher of evolution.” He translated some Darwinian principles into philosophical or social premises—though he thought Darwin was too “soft.”
Nietzsche argued a notion he called “the Will to Power,” which, he believed, would result in the development of “the super man.” The super man (not the comic book character) is the one who creates his own values, who triumphs over his own weakness, and despises weakness in others.
Nietzsche’s proclamation that the Christian God is dead had a devastating effect upon the values of society, due to his enormous influence. Here is a sampling of his ideology:
[W]e believe that severity, violence, slavery, danger in the street and in the heart, secrecy, stoicism, tempter’s art and deviltry of every kind,—that everything wicked, terrible, tyrannical, predatory, and serpentine in man, serve as well for the elevation of the human species as its opposite (1924, chapter II, section 44, emphasis added).
Adolph Hitler
In the wake of Nietzsche came Adolf Hitler, who idolized the philosopher. Hitler’s racism (e.g., the elimination of the “inferior” Jews) is an undeniable and gruesome fact of history.
What is not commonly publicized is the fact that Darwinism was at the root of this mania. Dr. Robert E. D. Clark has written:
Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching—probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas—quite undisguised—lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf—and in his public speeches . . . Hitler’s hatred of the Jews was rationalized in the same way. The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future (1967).
And so, as long as people subscribe to ideological premises that devalue human life, tragedies—like that described above—will continue to happen.
A key question is this. When will folks begin to identify, and repudiate, the philosophical origin of this senseless brutality?
REFERENCES
Clark, Robert E. D. 1967. Darwin: Before and After. Chicago, IL: Moody.
Hofstadter, Richard. 1955. Social Darwinism in American Thought. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1924. Beyond Good and Evil. New York, NY: Macmillan Co.
SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
Genesis 1:26; Acts 17:28; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 John 2:2; Hebrews 5:8-9; Acts 2:38; Luke 10:25

By Louis Rushmore
It is important to emphasize biblical fundamentals, especially when they differ from contemporary religion. The churches of Christ belong to Jesus Christ, and consequently, they are obligated to conduct themselves according to what Jesus authorizes (Romans 16:16; Colossians 3:17). People living in the Gospel Age must heed the words of Jesus Christ rather than Moses or the Old Testament prophets (Matthew 17:1-5; John 12:48). Jesus Christ is the Lawgiver and Mediator of the New Testament, to which people living today must turn for religious instruction (James 4:12; Hebrews 9:15). Jesus Christ condemns alteration of the Gospel with “the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9), and the apostle Paul condemned false Gospels and the human will when substituted for the divine will (Galatians 1:6-9; Colossians 2:23). One must turn exclusively to the New Testament to learn what God has authorized respecting Christianity.
The churches of Christ are obligated to emphasize exactly what the New Testament teaches. The churches of Christ are obligated to adhere to what the New Testament teaches regarding every divine doctrine. Consequently, the churches of Christ teach what the New Testament teaches about Christian worship. The churches of Christ teach what the New Testament teaches about Christian living. The churches of Christ teach what the New Testament teaches about Christian service. Therefore, the churches of Christ teach what the New Testament teaches about salvation.
The New Testament consistently teaches that baptism is the point at which one’s sins are removed. Jesus taught the faith and baptism results in salvation (Mark 16:16). The apostle Peter taught that through repentance and baptism one’s sins are remitted (Acts 2:38). The apostle Paul observed regarding his own salvation that his sins were washed away in baptism (Acts 22:16). The apostle Peter wrote that baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21).
Of course, though baptism is the point at which one’s sins are taken away, other things also affect one’s salvation. God’s grace and mercy toward obedient souls affect salvation (Ephesians 2:8; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 5:8-9). The blood of Jesus makes salvation possible (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Revelation 1:5). Preceding baptism, a person must have Bible faith, repent of sins and acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God (Hebrews 11:6; Luke 13:3; Acts 8:37).
Part of emphasizing baptism has to do with identifying biblically what it is, as well as showing what it is not. The world around us has taken upon itself the redefinition of baptism. Some denominations dispense with baptism altogether. Some denominations relegate baptism to an optional activity, except that something called baptism may be required to join some denominations. Many religious people have decided that any of a number of different actions constitute baptism (e.g., sprinkling or pouring water or being immersed in water).
However, the churches of Christ are obligated to define baptism the way in which the New Testament defines baptism. Not only does Bible baptism save one’s soul (1 Peter 3:21), the Greek words for baptism and baptize mean to dip, immerse or plunge (any Greek lexicon [dictionary] will so indicate). Biblically, baptism is called a burial or a planting (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12). Consequently, biblical baptism involves going down into and coming up out of a water source (Acts 8:38-39), hardly something that corresponds to pouring or sprinkling water. Therefore, when John the Baptist baptized in the Jordan River, he did so at a location where there was “much water” (John 3:23).
In conclusion, the churches of Christ emphasize baptism because the New Testament emphasizes baptism. The churches of Christ emphasize baptism because the New Testament teaches that baptism is the point at which (after faith, repentance and acknowledging Jesus Christ) that one’s sins are taken away. The churches of Christ emphasize that Bible baptism is immersion because many denominations either have dispensed with baptism or changed it into sprinkling or pouring water over a person. The churches of Christ emphasize baptism because rather than being an optional activity or the way one joins a denomination, Bible baptism is the point at which one’s sins are taken away.
The churches of Christ realize that they are duty bound to preach and teach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). Baptism of penitent souls is merely a part of the whole counsel of God (Mark 16:16). Erring Christians must repent and pray (Acts 8:22; 1 John 1:9). “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of [by the authority of] the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Colossians 3:17). “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).

​

BY WAYNE JACKSON
During the days of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, the kingdom of Israel split. The northern section, under the rebellious Jeroboam, retained the name “Israel,” while the southern kingdom became known as “Judah.” The northern faction, with its capital at Samaria, lasted about 210 years. It fell to the Assyrians in 722/21 B.C. According to Assyrian records, 27,290 Hebrews were taken into that captivity. Many of the northern Jews, however, were left in the land — so the expression “ten lost tribes” is not accurate.
The Assyrian empire was conquered by the neo-Babylonian regime in about 612-09 B.C., and the Hebrews who were in that captivity came under the control of the Babylonians.
Beginning around 606 B.C., and continuing through 586 B.C., in a series of three invasions, the Babylonians came against the kingdom of Judah. It has been estimated that some 70,000 Jews were taken to Babylon during these campaigns (and this doubtless included some of those of the northern kingdom who had remained in Canaan). The Babylonian captivity lasted for 70 years (cf. 2 Chronicles 36:21; Jeremiah 25:12).
In about 538 B.C., Cyrus, a Persian king, overthrew the Babylonian regime. Presently, he initiated a policy by which the Hebrews were permitted to return to their homeland in Palestine. In three movements westward, the Jews migrated back to the land. It is estimated that approximately 125,000 people returned (Nehemiah 7:5-73). Some, however, chose to remain in the land of the captivity (see the book of Esther).
Tribal Distinctions
That tribal distinctions had not disappeared is evident from the following facts.
When the Jews settled in their own land, they began to rebuild the temple — which project took about six years. When completed, it was formally dedicated. At the dedication, sacrifices were offered “according to the number of the [twelve] tribes of Israel” (Ezra 6:17). It thus is clear that the ten tribes were never lost; some of these either remained in Babylon, or else returned with their kinsmen of the southern kingdom. As with many other Jews, eventually they were scattered far and wide (see: Deuteronomy 28:64ff).
When Christ was born, and was brought to Jerusalem to fulfill certain requirements of the law, there was a Hebrew woman, a prophetess of the tribe of Asher (one of the supposedly “lost” tribes), who was praising God in the temple. See also James 1:1.
Armstrongism
In c. A.D. 1649, John Sadler advanced the theory that the Anglo-Saxons of Great Britain were the descendants of the “ten lost tribes.” This theory later was developed by Richard Brothers (1757-1824). In our day it was popularized to some extent by Herbert W. Armstrong, of the World-Wide Church of God. Armstrong contended that the modern throne of England was an extension of David’s throne, and that the “Stone of Scone,” upon which the queen was crowned, actually was the pillar of Jacob (Genesis 28:11), though the stone appears to have come from Scotland!
Mormonism
The Mormons teach a similarly absurd doctrine. In Mormon lore it is alleged that in 600 B.C., during the reign of King Zedekiah, a man named Lehi, together with a companion, Ishmael, left Jerusalem and sailed to America. It is argued that Mulek, Zedekiah’s son, joined Lehi, and the two groups combined to form a great nation. Mormons claim these people were ancestors of the American Indians. In Joseph Smith’s “Articles of Faith,” it is stated:
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built on the American continent; that Christ will reign personally on the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory (Article 10).
So much error, packed into such a brief sentence!
Neither of these speculative theories is supported by a shred of historical truth. They originated in the minds of those who, though perhaps sincere, had little understanding of, or regard for, biblical truth.
SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
1 Chronicles 29:21; Jeremiah 25:12; Nehemiah 7:5-73; Ezra 6:17; Deuteronomy 28:64; James 1:1; Genesis 28:11

​

By Steve Preston
The story of Adam and Eve is one that even most non-Christians know. God formed man out of the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7) and woman from a rib of the man (vs. 22). God also gave them a garden to live in and commanded them that, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (vss. 16-17). However, the serpent deceived the woman by telling her that she would not die but that she would be like God (Genesis 3:1-5). Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and also gave to Adam to eat (vs. 6). Thus the fall of man had begun. This might well be the end of the story of Adam and Eve except a letter the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy.
In his first letter to Timothy, Paul is giving instructions to Timothy about how Christian men and women should conduct themselves. Part of those instructions were that women were “not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:12). One of the reasons for this was that “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (vs. 14). Both Adam and Eve were punished for their transgression. Since the Bible tells us that Adam’s sin was not about being deceived, what exactly was Adam’s sin?
Adam, as well as Eve, knew the commandment of God not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He knew the penalty was death, which is separation from God. Yet he chose to eat the fruit anyway. Perhaps he just decided that just eating one piece of the fruit would be okay. Perhaps he decided that his wife knew something he didn’t. Whatever his original reason for eating the fruit was, Adam deliberately disregarded the command of God, ate of the fruit, and made the situation worse by trying to hide his sin: “If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom…” (Job 31:33). In pronouncing judgment against the man, God said, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake” (Genesis 3:17). Adam sinned because he listened to his wife instead of God.
Jesus knew this problem (listening to the world instead of God) when He said, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37). Certainly our Heavenly Father expects us to take care of our families (1 Timothy 5:8) yet in doing so we are not to put them above our obligations to God (Matthew 6:33). In similar fashion, the apostles knew their responsibility towards God: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Do not let the world deceive you into disobeying God. Study His word and do what it says.

​