Church leaders and God

1. Denying creation

- (Rom 1:19,20) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

When it comes to the universe and life, it is generally agreed by scientists that these two have had a beginning. They admit that the universe hasn’t always existed and that life on earth hasn’t been infinite either. They might not believe in creation by God but are forced to acknowledge the fact that the universe came about at some point, as did life on this earth, too. This acknowledgment is due to the following factors:

• The second law of thermodynamics shows us that usable energy sources in celestial bodies decrease slowly. If they were infinite old, they would no longer be able to radiate warmth and light. However, celestial bodies, such as the Sun, are still very much radiating. It suggests that they must have had a starting moment when this process started.

• Since life on Earth is dependent on the light and heat of the sun, it sets its own limits to the existence of life. Life cannot be eternal, because the sun has not existed forever either. Life must have a beginning.

How do the so-called liberal church leaders react to God’s creation? Many of them deny it. They think that the biblical teaching about creation is not true and, instead, believe that the universe came about by itself through the so-called Big Bang, that life began by itself, and that all species stem from the same original cell. They fail to consider the following factors that are crucial aspects in the matter, however.

They have exchanged theistic faith for naturalistic faith. When some church leaders reject God's creation work, it is not a matter of science. There is a simple reason for this: the beginning of the universe and life cannot be viewed scientifically, because no one was around to see these events. Animations that have tried to depict the birth of the universe in the Big Bang, the birth of the Earth by itself, and the birth of life by itself, are based more on imagination than on real knowledge. It is a naturalistic belief just as others may have a theistic view of the early stages of the universe and life. Both conceptions move in the realm of faith and not of knowledge. The theistic and naturalistic conception is well encapsulated in the following creeds:

Theism:

- (Hebr 11:3) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Naturalism and atheism:

Through faith, we understand that the universe was born from nothing, that matter itself formed the heavenly bodies, and that life arose from itself.

Nothing can be born out of nothing. When some church leaders believe that everything was born from nothing by itself, in the so-called Big Bang, they don't take into account that it is a view comparable to magic. It requires much greater faith than faith in God's creation work.

    The reason for the former is simple: No practical observation shows that things appear out of nothing. Bicycles, airplanes, stones and rocks, or road signs do not suddenly appear out of nothingness by themselves. Why would the universe be an exception, even though it is many times bigger than the previous things? Why can only the universe start from nothing but not other things? If we believe in such a theory, which is against logic and true science, we are certainly not acting wisely. It is much more reasonable to stick to the view that an almighty God created everything (any "little god" could not have done that). This is also evidenced by the complexity and beauty in nature. It is difficult to reconcile them with the Big Bang.

- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

- (Rev 10:5,6) And the angel which I saw stand on the sea and on the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,

6 And swore by him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

The beginning of life. When some church leaders deny God's creation work, they do not take into account that life’s beginning by itself hasn’t been proven either. The more the subject has been studied, the more difficult the problem has become. In naturalistic theory, dead matter is given supernatural properties that it does not possess. That is why it is strange that many people deny the miracles mentioned in the Bible, but believe in fairy-tale theories in which dead matter itself gives birth to life. They believe in miracles without a miracle worker, and it certainly doesn't make sense.

Species changes. As noted, many church leaders prefer to believe in naturalistic theories rather than the Bible's description of the beginnings. This also applies to species changes, which the theory of evolution requires. These people believe that all current species have descended from one and the same primordial cell in the sea or water.

    The question is, where is the evidence for species transformations? When the theory of evolution has been popular for approx. 150 years, examples of changes in species should have been brought up during this time. A single piece of evidence is enough, but isn't the fact that Darwin did not present them in his book On the Origin of Species and no one else has been able to prove it in the 150 years since Darwin's book was published? If the theory of evolution is true, at least one concrete example should be shown in its favor, where one species of animal has changed into another, but several scientists have admitted that such species do not exist. Even Darwin had to admit this as the following quote shows. Other comments continue on the same topic. They show that Darwin had no concrete evidence for his theory:

Darwin: I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it. (1)

Encyclopedia Britannica: It must be emphasized that Darwin never claimed to have been able to prove evolution or the origin of species. He claimed that if evolution has taken place, many inexplicable facts can be explained. The evidence supporting evolution is thus indirect.

"It is quite ironic that a book that has become famous for explaining the origin of species does not explain it in any way." (Christopher Booker, Times columnist referring to Darwin's magnum opus, On the Origin of Species) (2)

Recently, it has been admitted that Darwin's "proofs" were really philosophical without much scientific basis. I quote the influential evolutionist Ernst Mayr (Harvard University): “It must be admitted that two objections of Darwin's opponents are valid. First, Darwin provided embarrassingly little concrete evidence to support his main claims.” (Nature 248, March 22, 1974, p. 285) The evidence for evolution has never been strong, nor is it strong today. (3)

Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of the current situation is this: while Darwin is treated as a secular saint in the mass media, and while the theory of evolution is seen as an invincible challenge to religious claims, leading biologists take it for granted that the origin of species is still unexplained. In Nature magazine, Eörs Szathmary wrote an assessment of Jeffrey Schwartz's attempt to build such a theory and he began his assessment as follows: "The origin of species has long fascinated biologists. Although this is the title of Darwin's main work, his work does not offer a solution to the problem. Does Jeffrey Schwart offer a solution?  I’m afraid that generally speaking he does not do that. (4)

What about species changes in fossils? Perhaps the world's most famous fossil scientist, the late atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, has noted the same thing, the lack of evidence, when studying fossils in rocks. He says that there is no discernible gradual development in them, even though the theory of evolution requires it:

The extreme rareness of intermediate forms in fossil material continues to be the trade secret of palaeontologists. The evolution trees appearing in our textbooks include facts only at the heads and folding points of the branches. The rest is reasoning, no matter how reasonable it is, not evidence of fossils –- I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks…(5)

2. Denying the significance of Jesus

It is a known fact that history is dated according to Jesus. He is considered a historical person, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to say 1970 AD. or 2014 AD. This shows how people firmly believed that Jesus was a historical person who influenced in the area of Israel.

    As for the historicity of Jesus and the New Testament, it also receives confirmation from other sources. For example, dozens of people from the New Testament are mentioned in these sources, among them John the Baptist, Jesus, Pilate and numerous rulers. This shows that it is a question of real historical events and persons, although it must be admitted that historical events cannot be completely proven afterwards. The following list is related to the topic. It refers to what is mentioned about Jesus in early non-biblical sources. These sources agree with the New Testament:

• Jesus was a man filled with wisdom, if he can even be called a man (Josephus).

• Jesus was known by the name Jesus the Nazarene (Talmud).

• He said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Talmud).

• He was a teacher (Josephus, Talmud).

• He had disciples (Talmud).

• He worked miracles (Josephus, Talmud).

• His disciples healed the sick and worked miracles (Talmud).

• Pilate (26–36 A.D.) condemned Him to death (Tacitus, Josephus) because of the provocation of influential Jewish men (Josephus) during the reign of Emperor Tiberius (14–37 AD.) (Tacitus).

• He was condemned to death on the cross (Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Talmud).

• There was darkness at the time of His crucifixion (Thallus).

• He was crucified during the Passover (Talmud).

• He rose from the dead (Josephus).

• The successors of Jesus regarded Him as God and sang songs to praise Him (Plinius the Younger).

• He had Jewish and Greek successors (Josephus).

• Faith in Christ originated from Judea (Tacitus, Josephus) and spread to Rome from there (Tacitus).

• Jesus' successors were called Christians (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plinius the Younger).

• Jesus had a brother called Jacob (Josephus).

• Jesus was called Christ or the Messiah (Josephus).

The historicalness of events (including the miracles) mentioned in the New Testament gets affirmed by the fact that they have plenty of eyewitnesses. The disciples were, of course, one of the witnesses, but they may have also pleaded to other people who saw what they had seen. In total there were thousands of eyewitnesses, which is the best starting point and evidence that you could have for confirming historical events:

- (2 Peter 1:16) For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

- (Luke 1:1-4) For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them to us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That you might know the certainty of those things, wherein you have been instructed.

- (Matt 4:24,25) And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought to him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

25 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

- (Matt 14:16,20,21) But Jesus said to them, They need not depart; give you them to eat.

20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.

21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

- (Matt 16:9-11) Do you not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you took up?

10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up?

11 How is it that you do not understand that I spoke it not to you concerning bread, that you should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?  

- (Acts 2:22,40,41) You men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the middle of you, as you yourselves also know

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added to them about three thousand souls.

- (Acts 26:24-26) And as he thus spoke for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, you are beside yourself; much learning does make you mad.

25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

26 For the king knows of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

 - (Acts 10:37,38) That word, I say, you know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

What about the attitude of the church's liberal leaders towards Jesus? What do they think about Jesus and the supernatural things associated with him? In this area, you should pay attention to two things:

• They deny the supernatural things associated with Jesus such as miracles, resurrection and ascension.

• They do not believe in Jesus' divine position, but consider him only as a wise and good teacher.

They deny the supernatural things associated with Jesus such as miracles, resurrection and ascension. As for the supernatural things in the Bible and in the life of Jesus, the liberal decision-makers of the church are the followers of liberal theological teaching in this area. They do not believe in the reliability of the Bible in describing things. They doubt miracles, the virgin birth of Jesus, the resurrection and the ascension as liberal theologians generally do.

    Are these leaders and liberal theologians scientific in rejecting the miracles and supernatural things attributed to Jesus? They are not at all, because they reject clear historical facts that have had plenty of eyewitnesses. Because everything that is in history and that happened historically is also science, even if it includes miracles and supernatural things. This is often not taken into account.

    On the other hand, for these people, the issue is a naturalistic world view, where matter is all that exists and where the possibility of supernatural things has already been rejected beforehand. These persons have therefore adopted a naturalistic world view but not a scientific world view.

    The naturalistic world view of these decision-makers also comes to the fore in that they believe in previously mentioned fable-like theories such as the birth of the universe by itself from nothing and the creation of life by itself. They believe in these unproven naturalistic theories because they have a closed universe where God cannot intervene in world events. In their universe, matter is all that exists. Furthermore, they believe that this dead matter has supernatural properties, because they believe that matter formed itself into the celestial bodies and that life and all the present forms of life arose by themselves from inanimate matter. They give matter properties traditionally associated only with God.

They do not believe in Jesus' divine position, but consider Him only as a wise and good teacher. What do the church leaders think about Jesus and His meaning? Here, many of them have an unbelieving attitude. They deny the special status of Jesus and that He was the Son of God who came from heaven. They deny the principal things that pertain to the Apostles' Creed. They don't believe e.g. to the following statements that Jesus made about Himself:

- (John 8:23,24) And he said to them, You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins.

- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

- (John 8:56-58) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews to him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am.

- (Matt 7:24-27) Therefore whoever hears these sayings of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, which built his house on a rock:

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell not: for it was founded on a rock.

26 And every one that hears these sayings of mine, and does them not, shall be likened to a foolish man, which built his house on the sand:

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

- (Matt 24:35) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

- (John 5:24) Truly, truly, I say to you, He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death to life.

So what do these people think about Jesus? In short, many consider Him just an ordinary person. They think that Jesus was wise and a good teacher, but by no means divine. They may see Him as a good example for people and His teachings as edifying, but they reject Jesus' divinity and His claims about Himself.

   Here, however, they continue their inconsistent and illogical line. If someone makes such claims about himself as Jesus made, he certainly cannot be a good and wise teacher unless the other claims he makes about himself are also true. These things are connected and cannot be separated from each other. Liberal church leaders may do so, but then they are rejecting sound logic. Either Jesus was a good and wise teacher and the Son of God from heaven, or He was neither. Only one of the options is true.

Thomas: Yes, according to literary notes He started it. It was the reason why they put Him on the cross – blasphemy.

Socrates: He Himself claimed to be God?

Thomas: Yes.

Socrates: He really said that?

Thomas: Yes, according to the only records we have, the four gospels.

Socrates: Only on one occasion?

Thomas: No, many times, in multiple different ways.

Socrates: How? In which ways?

Thomas: He called Himself the Son of God. He claimed to be sinless and that He’d atone all the world’s sins. He said that in the end of times He would condemn the whole world. He said thing like, “I and Father are one” and “he that has seen me has seen the Father” and “before Abraham was, I am”. 

Socrates: You don’t believe this Thomas, do you?

Thomas: Yes Socrates, it is incredibly absurd.

Socrates: So it seems. What about the rest of you, what do you think of this Jesus?

Bertha (looks at Thomas with disdain): In any case, more than he does.

Socrates: Do you believe He was a God?

Bertha: No.

Molly: Not in my opinion.

Socrates: Why do you study Him then?

Bertha: He was a great philosopher, a wise man.

Socrates: Oh, that cannot be right.

Bertha (surprised, while others also raise their heads): What? Why not?

Socrates: I believe I can demonstrate it quite easily. Thomas, do you think He was a great philosopher? What do you think of Him?

Thomas: I don’t think anything. I certainly do not believe He was a God.

Socrates: Do you believe He was a great philosopher?

Thomas: No. I believe He was a great conman. I think He started the biggest superstition in the world.

Socrates: Thank you. Does any of you believe He was a God?

Chris: I do.

Socrates: Ah, then you Chris, are the only one who is allowed to think He was a great philosopher.

Others: What? Why?

Socrates: Oh, it is quite simple. The man claimed He was a God. If He truly was, then Chris is the only one who is right. If He was not, then Thomas is the only one who is right. A mere man who claims to be God, cannot be a wise man. In fact, He would quite possibly be insane. Therefore, whether He was or wasn’t what He claimed to be, only one of you can be right about Him. The majority is in the wrong in any case.

Bertha: But surely He was a wise man. Read the gospel and you’ll see.

Socrates: That is not possible.

Bertha: How can you be so sure? You’ve never read them.

Socrates: Don’t you understand? This cannot be the case, just as a triangle cannot have four sides. A mere man who claims to be God, cannot be a wise man, and a God that claims to be God isn’t a mere wise man. The former is crazy, and the latter is God. Jesus is inevitably either crazy or a God. The only thing He cannot be is a mere wise man.

Bertha: Then why do so many people think of Him like that?

Socrates: That is exactly my question. And I ask you that now, I am not asking those many people who are not here, but you who are here. Why do you choose the most illogical option, the only one that is inherently in conflict with itself? You are familiar with logic, right?

Bertha: Professor, can you help me out of this?

Professor: I am not sure that is necessarily my task…(6)

3. Denying God’s personality and judgement

It was stated above how the liberal decision-makers of the church do not believe in the things mentioned about Jesus. They do not believe that he was the Son of God who came from heaven to atone for sins, that he was born of a virgin, and that his resurrection and ascension are true. They deny these things as they may deny the miracles mentioned in the Bible.

    The same line continues in these people's conception of God. They do not believe in the God who has revealed himself in the pages of the Bible. They usually think that the Bible's descriptions of God are the people's own ideas about God at that time - ideas that reflect the world view of that time. On the other hand, the church's liberal decision-makers have a different conception of God. It is characterized especially by God's impersonality and that He does not judge anyone. We will look at these views separately.

God's impersonality is a common concept among the liberal decision-makers of the church. They have a strangely impersonal god who doesn't react to anything. He doesn't love, or maybe He can love, but He doesn't react to other things. He doesn't care if people do bad or good, everything is indifferent to Him. That's why they don't believe in judgment after this life either. They think that God – if He exists at all – is indifferent to that too.

    However, one can ask, why should God be impersonal? If people are persons with feelings and who react to things, why can't God be like that too? For example, a mother can experience different emotions with her children. For example, the following feelings may be common:

- A mother loves her children.

- She may be worried about the children and their health.

- She can experience joy from the children's success.

- A mother hates it if someone tries to harm her children. That is, the mother has hatred for sin - in this case, for the sin that is directed at her children.

So when the mother of the family can feel different emotions because she is a person, the same must be taken into account for God. He too can feel different emotions because He is a person. It is strange if people have feelings so that they can love, rejoice or be angry at injustices, but a personal God would not feel the same way. Among other things, the following passages of the Bible mention the subject:

• God feels love for people, because it is written:

- (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

- (1 John 4:8-10) He that loves not knows not God; for God is love.

9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

• God and His angels are happy if someone repents and turns to God:

- (Luke 15:7-10) I say to you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repents, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, does not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?

9 And when she has found it, she calls her friends and her neighbors together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.

10 Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repents.

• God hates injustice, as it has been written:

- (Rom 1:18,19) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.

So one can ask, why should God be impersonal? If people are persons with feelings and who react to things, it is wrong to think that God cannot also be a person. If He created the first human couple in his own image, as the Book of Genesis shows (although this image was distorted in the Fall, when sin entered the world and into people's lives), it is natural to think that intelligence, language, emotions and other characteristics associated with personality originate from Him. They didn't come into being by themselves in the empty big bang, because none of these things can come out of nothingness. It is not wise to believe such theories. Instead, the best starting point is that man was created in God's image as the Bible shows. Humans have feelings, intelligence and language because God has the same characteristics.

- (Gen 1:26,27) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

"God does not judge anyone." As stated, the liberal leaders of the church have a strangely impersonal god who does not react to anything. He doesn't love, or maybe he can love, but he doesn't react to other things. He doesn't care if people do bad or good, everything is indifferent to him. Therefore, there is also no judgment and hell after this life.

    Here, however, the liberal leaders of the church have a god of imagination. How do they know there is no judgment and hell beyond the border? Because when they have no personal knowledge of the conditions beyond the border, and do not believe in the teaching of Jesus and the apostles on the subject, what remains is their own pure imagination. They are completely up to their imaginations because they have no experience with these things. Such information should not be trusted. Or if someone decides to trust these church leaders, it is similar to asking directions about New York from a Chinese or an African farmer who’s never been there. Such a person cannot give correct information because he does not know these regions.

    On the other hand, a God who does not react to evil, but is indifferent to it, is himself evil. If he accepts all evil and does not condemn wrongdoers, he will inevitably side with evil. I.e. if God exists and even unrepentant people enter his kingdom, as the liberal decision-makers of the church believe, such a God cannot be considered good.

    It is worth bringing up the parable of the children's mother again. When many liberal church leaders accept God's love, but not God's hatred for sin and injustice, an ordinary family mother can feel the same way: a mother loves her children and she hates it if someone tries to harm her children. That is, the mother has two different traits that do not contradict each other. Why is it difficult to connect this same thing to God? He, too, has love for people and holiness, which is hatred towards sin. There is no contradiction in them, as John showed in his letter:

- (1 John 4:8) He that loves not knows not God; for God is love.

- (1 John 1:5) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

In practice, these two opposite things manifest themselves in the following ways:

1. God's love manifests itself in the way that in His love he wants to save every person, because it is written: 

- (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

- (1 Tim 2:3,4) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

2. God's holiness, or hatred of sin and injustice, is manifested in the fact that He condemns unrepentant sinners to hell. It's specifically about unrepentant people who intentionally do wrong, don't want to change, and don't care about forgiveness. God is ready to forgive everyone, but man himself must confess his sin. Or if God were to forgive unrepentant wrongdoers who enjoy their wickedness and do not want to change, he would be acting against his own nature. He would accept iniquity, and you wouldn't expect that from a good God. A God who accepts wrong would be evil.

- (Rom 3:5,6) But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who takes vengeance? (I speak as a man)

6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

So what is our part if we want to avoid hell and experience God's love? It happens in such a way that we repent, that is, we turn to God, we confess our sins and above all we receive Jesus as our Savior and we do not reject Him (John 5:40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.). Mercy is available to every person, but everyone must also repent of their sins. An unrepentant person cannot be saved, but someone who turns to God and repents of his sins can. We do not earn salvation and eternal life by repenting and confessing our sins, but it only happens through Jesus Christ. On the other hand, if we do not confess our sins and repent of them, it only shows that we have not really come into communion with God.

- (Acts 17:29,30) For as much then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold, or silver, or stone, graven by are and man's device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to repent:

- (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

- (Prov 28:13) He that covers his sins shall not prosper: but whoever confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy.

4. Rejecting God’s will

When Jesus lived on earth, the most important thing in his life was God's will. He came from heaven to do not His own will, but the will of His Father, who had sent Him. This was the main goal in His life. The same thing, Jesus' sinless life and that he then carried our sins, also made it possible for modern people to receive a remission of their sins and enter into communion with God. If Jesus had not lived in God's will and sinless life, it would not be possible for us.

- (John 4:34) Jesus said to them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

- (John 5:30) I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which has sent me.

- (John 6:38) For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

When we look at the teachings of Jesus, we see that God’s will is a crucial part of them. He emphasized it in the Lord’s Prayer and in other instances. He said, e.g., that "not every one that said to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven" Similarly, he stated that the punishment will be greater to those who know the will of God but decide to break it:

- (Matt 6:9,10) After this manner therefore pray you: Our Father which are in heaven, Hallowed be your name.

10 Your kingdom come, Your will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

- (Matt 7:21) Not every one that said to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.

- (Luke 12:47,48) And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For to whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

What is the attitude of liberal church leaders towards the will of God? Are they trying to respect it and use it as a base for their decisions, or what seems to be the case? Are they striving to act like Jesus, who said He is here to do the will of the one who sent Him?

   In short, they reject the will of God. They do not believe moral comes from God, and they have even less faith that the teachings of Jesus and the disciples apply to the people of today. They consider them to be old-fashioned notions that no longer apply. They think people today are wiser and can see things more clearly.

   Their attitude is clearly visible in their reactions towards sexual questions, especially towards homosexual behavior. As we already know, liberal church leaders avidly support this lifestyle, such as some of them may even support free heterosexual affairs if “both of them love each other”. They use the same argument that was used back in the day to support the sexual revolution. They believe in this argument more than they do, for example, the following verses, which warn us from the consequences of wrongful behavior:

- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Where will this behavior of liberal church leaders lead us? We are going to look at this and other aspects related to this issue from different angles.

They claim Jesus and the disciples were either liars or oblivious. The first consequence to their behavior is that they claim Jesus and his disciples to have been either liars or oblivious. They might not directly say it, but in practice they place themselves above the teachings of Jesus and the disciples by considering their teaching unreliable. They think they know more about eternal affairs than Jesus and the disciples did.

   Here we see an imminent conflict: we have church leaders, who think they are acting as advocates of God and Jesus, but in reality, deny the teachings that came through Jesus and the disciples. These church leaders do not believe these teachings are based on truth, despite Jesus and the disciples stating so (see the following passages!). The question is, which should be trusted: do we trust that Jesus and the disciples were experts on eternal affairs, or do we trust people of today, who reject Jesus and the disciples’ teachings regarding them as false. Church liberals have shifted towards the latter.

- (John 1:17) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
 

- (John 8:44-46) You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, you believe me not.

46 Which of you convinces me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe me?

- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

- (2 Cor 4:1,2) Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;

2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

- (Eph 4:15) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

- (1 Tim 2:3,4) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

They lead people to hell. Another consequence is that the liberal decision-makers of the Church lead people to hell when they make people trust their own claims. For if, in spite of everything, the teachings of Jesus and the apostles are true, there is no other option left. Either they are right, or Jesus and the apostles were right. There are no intermediate forms between these options. On the other hand, if these decision-makers are wrong with their claims, they have become the seducers and blind leaders of others, of whom Jesus spoke and warned. If we trust their arguments, which may be wrong, we will certainly not act wisely.

- (Matt 15:14) Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

- (Matt 18:6, 7) But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

7 Woe to the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

How does love work?

- (1 John 4:5) They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world hears them.

- (Luke 6:26) Woe to you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

The reality is that liberal church leaders are often popular among the masses, because they talk in a way that appeals to people. They talk about love and think that they are being loving and sensible, when they accept a view that’s becoming popular among the masses. This can be seen, e.g., when they support extramarital affairs or homosexual behavior in the name of love.

What is the Christian view? The fact is, we are not here to be the judges of others (fortunately!), and that we should love every person despite who they are. This should be self-evident, and it should not be questioned. Love should be directed to any kind of person, despite what they represent or how they live. God, too, loved the whole world, and that is why Jesus was sent here (John 3:16).

- (1 Cor 13:1) Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

- (1 Peter 2:17) Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

However, the liberal leaders of the church do not know how to distinguish between two things: inclination and sinful behavior (just as they do not know how to distinguish between the fact that people can be loved, even if their wrong behavior is not loved. For example, the mother of a drug addict's son can love her son, even though she does not want her son to use substances). Many people may have a tendency towards sinful things such as homosexual behavior or other addictions (drugs, alcohol, pornography, pedophilia tendency, hatred, etc.), but that is not an obstacle to a relationship with God, if they turn to God, admit these things as sins and want to be freed from them. It does not prevent them from working in spiritual work either, because others have similar tendencies, which they want to stay away from, knowing them to be sins. There must be hundreds or thousands in the congregation who are in this situation. They may have a homosexual inclination and temptation or some other inclination, but they do not live that way of life because they want to follow the will of God. However, liberal church leaders do not take this into account, they think they are showing love when they defend people's sinful tendencies and actions. Thus they have become deceivers, leading people away from God and valuing sinful things. Herein lies the difference between the teaching of Jesus and the liberal church leaders of today. Jesus and the apostles talked about the act of repentance, but the latter group does not accept the teaching of Jesus and the apostles that people should repent of their wrong ways of life:

- (Luke 13:2,3) And Jesus answering said to them, Suppose you that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?

3 I tell you, No: but, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish.

- (Acts 17:29,30) For as much then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold, or silver, or stone, graven by are and man's device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to repent:

Foreseen development. When it comes to liberal church leaders, they usually do not believe in fulfilled prophecies. They reject biblical prophecies, like they do other prophecies, due to their naturalistic views.

   Remarkably, the direction, where church and different congregations are headed to, has been foreseen. For instance, Paul mentioned how before the second coming of Jesus, there would be an apostasy. It means that people in church and congregations would abandon God and the basic truths that relate to our connection with God and Christian faith. This seems to directly apply to liberal church leaders who have impaired the teachings of Jesus and the disciples. They advocate things foreign to early congregation and things that were clearly understood as sin. However, this kind of trend began taking place already shortly after the disciples (Jude 1:4: For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.)

- (Acts 20:29-31) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

- (2 Thess 2:3-5) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

5 Remember you not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

As stated, the development in churches has been foreseen. However, it is not limited to the Bible only. That is why we are going to look at a few other related prophecies. The first one comes from David Wilkerson’s book, the Vision, from more than 40 years ago, when people were not aware of the developments of today. It might be unnecessary to say that such developments have gone quite far with no end in sight, as the current trend seems to keep going. Our quotation talks about positive attitudes towards homosexuality, which has already become a reality because of many liberal church leaders. They eagerly advocate for this cause in congregations, but it is hardly a surprise to God.

There are two forces that prevent gays from dedicating themselves completely to their sin: society does not accept them and the church's teachings are against them. But these barriers will disappear, when society no longer resists their sin and deems it abnormal, but on the contrary encourages them to continue, and when the church no longer preaches about their sin, but supports them in their sexual activities. The floodgates will open, and the gays will be encouraged to continue in their sin. I have seen in my vision that these two obstacles will be wiped away and when they are taken away, chaos will follow. (7)

Another prophecy is more than a hundred years old, and it comes from the founder of Salvation Army, William Booth. The prophecy describes the spiritual state of the so-called Christendom a day before the second coming of Jesus. It might not need to be said that this prophecy, too, has largely come to pass, because of things like “heaven without hell” and “forgiveness without reform”. They are exactly the kinds of topics that we discussed above, and what liberal church leaders have brought up in their talks:

   1. "Then there will be politics without God... The day will come when the official state policy of the entire Western world will be such that no one at any governing level will fear God anymore... a new generation of political leaders will rule Europe, a generation that will no longer be in the least bit afraid of God;

    2. Then there will be Heaven without hell (...) There will be a day when a great withdrawal of what the Bible says to be "the Gospel of the full truth" will take place. At that time a "gospel" for the itching ears of the people will be preached. The hearers will determine what is preached from the pulpits. Then, the common order for the pulpits will be 'speak mild, sweet words; speak about heaven, leave us in peace so that we would not have to be strained when you preach about hell.'

   3. Christendom is full of forgiveness without repentance. The Bible's doctrine that there can be no forgiveness of sins without repenting of the sin is disappearing from Christianity.

   4. The day before Jesus' coming is filled with the joy of salvation, in people who have not been born again from above.

   5. There is a lot of religion without the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:5 Jude 18,19).

    6. Christianity without Christ. Christ is not anywhere where the 'BLOOD and FIRE' are not valid – deny one of the two and you will have forms of Christianity but without Christ."

5. Close to Hinduism

Above, we mentioned how liberal church leaders may think that Jesus was only a human, a wise and a good teacher, who was not born of a virgin, did not resurrect, nor perform any miracles. This is their conclusion, despite it is against historical facts and it being the worst option logically (wise and good teacher cannot put forth such claims that Jesus did if they are not true).

   The fact that liberal church leaders do not consider Jesus to be divine and that His claims true also affects what they think about salvation. For they may suggest that behind all religions there is the same god so that all roads lead to the same destination. In this area, there are three common views in western countries: a view based on atheism, Christian theism, and Hinduism:

• Atheism: no path will take you to heaven, because nothing exists after death. Atheists are certain that their view is the right one.

• View based on Christian theism; the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who came from the heavens, is the only way to God’s kingdom.

- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

- (John 10:9,10) I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

10 The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

• View based on Hinduism. According to this view all paths lead to heaven. The holy book of Hindus (Bhagavad Gita, IV:11) says:

"Oh Paartha, no matter how the people approach me, I will receive them; whatever way they use, it is also my way."

Needless to say, many liberal church leaders have leaned toward the third option. Their view is much like the one in Hinduism, because they might see all paths as equal in leading to heaven. They are more Hindus than Christians. It also appears in the fact that many of them have a pantheistic conception of God or consider God to be an impersonal being. These are common concepts in Hinduism as well, so the liberal decision-makers of the church have adopted the Hindu worldview. These people posing as open-minded, who might still strongly put forth their own views, are close to Hinduism.

    So what is the truth about salvation? In this matter, you should pay attention to the following points:

1. The universality of sin is a matter that is clearly known. Every person knows deep down that they have not always followed what they know to be right. Everyone knows that they are – if they are honest – deficient in many areas. We are not one hundred percent perfect and sinless.

- (Rom 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

- (1 John 1:8) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

2. Not having assurance of salvation is a consequence of the former; our imperfection. Because people are imperfect, they do not have the assurance that God will accept them and that they will be alright on the other side. This is the case in every religion where people try to achieve assurance with their own merits. Paul Little tells us his observations. He describes how Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims do not have the assurance, but this also applies to many Western people who have grown up in Christian culture:

The Muslims do not have an assurance of salvation either. I have often asked the Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists whether they are going to nirvana or heaven after they die. None of them has been able to give me a definitive answer. They have rather referred to the incompleteness of their life, which is an impediment in reaching this goal. (8)

3. What is the solution to our imperfection? If we cannot receive salvation with our own merits, the only option is that it is gifted to us by someone perfect.

This is exactly what the New Testament tells us. Since only God can atone our sins, the New Testament tells us how Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth and took our sins away. In fact, God was in Christ and atoned the world with Himself, as told in the Corinthians. God made the initiative and made it possible that we can have our sins forgiven and we can receive an eternal life. His motive was His love for people. We are going to look at some related verses:

- (2 Cor 5:19-21) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them; and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be you reconciled to God.

21 For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

- (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

- (1 John 4:9,10) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

- (Rom 5:8) But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

As God has made everything for us, it means that we can receive salvation by grace. It is the gift of God. Do not reject this gift:

- (Eph 2:8,9) For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

- (Rom 3:24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

- (Rev 21:6) And he said to me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to him that is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely.

The following quote fits well with the topic. When the gap is too great for us to surpass, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, came here to be the bridge and the mediator for us (Hebr 8:6 But now has he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.) enabling us to surpass the gap. Otherwise, getting to the other side would be impossible.

"Wait, I’ll give you one example: the average man can jump, for example, two meters. A person who has practiced sports and is fit may jump perhaps five meters. And if he is an Olympic winner, he can jump almost nine meters, but jumping any longer will be quite impossible in our generation. Let’s suppose then that we are all standing at the edge of a canyon with 200 meters to the other side. None of us has the ability to jump over that abyss, right? Now let's look at this same thing in the form of a parable. That abyss is the abyss of sin and God is on the other side. He looked upon us just as we are – poor little grasshoppers -- and began to pity us. He knew that it was quite impossible for us to get to Him by our own powers; for this reason, He sent for us His own Son, Jesus, who is a bridge between God and man. Jesus is the mediator between God and man. We can go with Him safely, because according to His own words He is 'the way and the truth and the life’! I know that there are many who will reject this divine solution as too easy. They’ll rather try to do something by their own power to save themselves, but no effort of man can take him to God, our destiny is to fall into that gaping abyss!” (9)

The prayer of salvation: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.

REFERENCES:

1. Darwin, F & Seward A. C. toim. (1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray.

2. Christopher Booker: “The Evolution of a Theory”, The Star, Johannesburg, 20.4.1982, p. 19

3. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 257

4. Rodney Stark, p. 184

5. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), s. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

6. Peter Kreeft: Sokrates & Jeesus, p. 78,79

7. David Wilkerson: Näky, p. 48

8. Paul Little: Tiedä miksi uskot, p. 129

9. Jakov Damkani: Siionin poika, p. 107,108

More on this topic:

Misled priests; that is, how modern priests have created their own religion based on the basic assumptions of atheism

A message to a Church employee. Modern priests want to appear tolerant and progressive, but at the same time they give their support to injustice

Are you a foolish virgin? It is possible to be a member of the church and attend church, but still be a foolish virgin, or unsaved person. What are the characteristics of such religiosity?

Theoretical belief. Many have faith in God, having outward forms of Christianity, and some are even church workers, but they still do not know the matter of salvation

Religiousness or faith? What is the difference between religiosity and saving faith in Jesus and God? They are not the same thing

About salvation. How do Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses understand salvation, and how their teaching differs from traditional Christian and biblical teaching?

Jesus and the Catholics. Mary, the merits of the saints, the works of atonement, and the sacraments have supplanted Jesus in the Catholic Church. Therefore, most lack salvation and certainty