Science and religion may not be mutually exclusive.

(An article from Signs Of The Times® October 2007 Edition by Dr. Ariel Roth)

The intellectual dignitaries of the world were shocked! What they heard could not be true! On December 9, 2004, Associated Press broke the news that British philosopher Antony Flew, who had been leading the cause of atheism for half a century, had changed his mind and decided that there must be a God. Flew’s move was precisely in the opposite direction from the secular philosophy that dominates most scholarly circles today.

To be sure, Flew’s dramatic turn-around was not a conversion to any traditional religion. He believes in a God that had to originate what we are finding, not a God that has produced a supernatural revelation of Himself such as the Bible (though he says he is open to the possibility that God could, or might, have revealed Himself.)

Flew is famous. He’s written some two dozen books on philosophy and has been called the world’s most influential philosophical atheist. So why did such a well-known and prominent thinker reverse himself and declare that there has to be a God? The answer is simple. He did it because of the scientific data. Science, which now rejects God as an explanation for nature, is providing rather overwhelming data that God exists. In an interview, Flew stated: “I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries.”1

Flew refers especially to the “reproductive power” of living things, for which evolutionists have not given an account. “It now seems to me,” he says, “that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided material for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”2 Flew was willing to overthrow the dominant but restrictive naturalistic (mechanistic) philosophy of science that excludes God because he allowed the data of nature to speak for itself—and that data points to the necessity for a God. In Flew’s own words, he “had to go where the evidence leads.”3

The most baffling problem that evolutionary science faces is the origin of life. After a century of searching and proposing various kinds of scenarios, no plausible model has emerged. The problem is much more acute now than it was decades ago, because we are discovering more and more intricate systems in living things that are complex and that will not work unless several other parts are present. This is sometimes called irreducible complexity,4 and it represents a major stumbling block to the gradual evolutionary process, because there is no evolutionary survival value until all the necessary parts are present. It turns out that most of the systems in any living organism are of this kind, making God essential for the origin of any kind of life.

The simplest form of independent life is a tiny microbe called mycoplasma, and it is incredibly complex. Its DNA contains more than half a million bits of information, which, through the genetic code, dictate the formula for nearly five hundred protein molecules that perform a multitude of essential, specific chemical functions in the microbe.

Just one protein molecule is incredibly complex. Often several hundred amino acids tied to one another are involved, and not much variation can occur if the protein is to function properly.

Molecular biologist Herbert Yockey, of the University of California at Berkeley, has estimated that it would have taken 1023 years (10 followed by 22 zeros!) to produce one specific protein, even if the oceans were already well supplied with amino acids! To put it in another way, the nearly five billion years that geologists commonly assign to the age of the earth is ten thousand billion times too short a time to produce one specific kind of protein molecule! Yet many kinds of protein molecules must be present all at the same time and place in order for life to originate. Protein molecules are delicate, so by the time a second specific protein molecule appeared, chances are the first one would have disintegrated, thus making the spontaneous origin of life essentially impossible.

Then There’s DNA!

And proteins are just the beginning of the problems for the evolution of life all by itself. DNA is much more complex than proteins, but cells have to have DNA to produce proteins—and proteins are needed to produce DNA! Life requires both. Thus, it would be impossible for life to evolve without the two. In addition to proteins, life requires fats and carbohydrates and many other highly specialized structures that we find in living cells. Furthermore, life requires a genetic code in order to function at all. But how can random evolutionary processes produce a complex genetic code? The code is useless until the DNA that dictates it and the special molecules that read it all adopt and “understand” the same language.

Reproduction is one of the cardinal characteristics of living organisms— and it is incredibly complex. Reproduction requires duplicating all the necessary parts of a cell, or the new organism will not survive. Sometimes the process can be quite sophisticated. For instance, when DNA is copied for a new cell or organism, errors in copying the information can occur. These errors are common enough that life would not be possible if it weren’t for a proofreading and editing system. Each cell contains a set of proteins that checks the new DNA that has been produced, and if an error in copying has occurred, it is removed and replaced with a corrected version. Evolution cannot explain the origin of this necessary process.

Complexity is even more abundant in advanced organisms. Organs like the eye, which has complex accommodating systems, or the brain, with its billions of connections, also need to be accounted for. Through the entire evolutionary process, many thousands of new kinds of proteins are needed, some of them very different from others. But at present, on an average, the billions of years proposed for evolution are way too short a time to produce even one specific original kind of protein molecule. God seems absolutely essential!

A Strange Combination!

As it is presently practiced, science is an honest search for truth about nature combined with a secular philosophy that excludes God. Today’s scientific community has such a strong mechanistic, naturalistic commitment that to include God as an explanatory factor is considered to be unscientific. God is now not allowed as a possible scientific explanation. This belies the usual picture we have of science as an open search for truth that follows the data of nature wherever it may lead. This strong secularism in science exists in spite of the fact that 40 percent of the scientists in the United States believe in a God who answers their prayers, 45 percent do not, and 15 percent are not sure.5 It appears that what some scientists believe in and what they publish when they take science’s secular stance can be very different.

In past centuries, science was not a secular philosophy. Some of the greatest scientists of all time, such as Sir Isaac Newton, included God in their explanations about nature. Other leading scientists who helped establish the foundations of modern science, such as Kepler, Linnaeus, Boyle, Galileo, and Pascal, all believed in a God who was active in nature, and they occasionally referred to God in their scientific writings. They saw no conflict between God and their discoveries, because they believed that God is the One who established the laws of nature that make scientific studies possible. They demonstrated how good science and God can work together. Now the rule is that you must try to explain everything materialistically without God.

In summary: All of the complexity evidenced in living things indicates that a Creator God is necessary. This is what convinced Antony Flew that there must be a God. God seems essential to explain what science has found. The observations on proteins and DNA are all repeatable, and this provides high quality scientific evidence for God. Unfortunately, the secular idealism in science is so strong that the idea of a designer God is now generally rejected by the scientific community. It’s important to understand that this rejection is based on sociological and theological factors, not scientific data.

1Gary Habermas and A. Flew, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: A Discussion Between Antony Flew and Gary Habermas,” Philosophia Christi 6 (2004) 2:197–211.2Ibid., 202.3Ibid., 198.4M. J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Touchstone, 1996). 5E. J. Larson and L. William, “Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith,” Nature 386 (1997) 435, 436. A later survey of the National Academy of Science shows a lower proportion of belief in God for that very small, but leading group, of scientists.

(An article from Adventist Review February 2009 Edition by Collin Killick – article written by Hyveth Williams)

Optimism, also known as hope, is on the minds of Americans. There is an “audacity of hope” at a time when our economy is at its worst, when unemployment is at its highest, along with the limitless toll of two wars, and an unprecedented foreclosure of millions of homes. As novel as this hope may seem, it will slip from the lips of our nation as easily and as quickly as it became a fad if it’s merely a politically manufactured phrase.

(An article from Liberty Magazine September/October 2008 Edition by Collin Killick)

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Those 16 words from the First Amendment spark controversy today, as they have throughout American history. Individuals have tried to inject religion into government and policy, to use religion as a political litmus test and to use the powers of government to pro-mote a religious belief, usually Christianity.

These people have argued that such interaction is constitutional, the separation of church and state is not cited in the U.S. Constitution, and the Founding Fathers intended the United States to be a Christian nation. As such efforts intensify under the Religious Right, it is essential to reaffirm the barrier between religion and government.

First, it must be noted that support for the separation of church and state is in no way grounded in opposition to religion. The belief that religious and government institutions should leave each other alone does not constitute an abandonment of faith. On the contrary, it is for many an expression of the principles of tolerance and respect common to all religions.

Furthermore, there is compelling reason for religious people to support separation: it not only protects government from undue religious influence, but also protects religion from undue governmental meddling. This was the position of many early backers, who had feared the control that the government of England exerted over religious institutions and believers.

Without a firm separation of the two, the government could conceivably interfere with religious affairs and tell believers and institutions how to practice. Anyone who would support a government based on his religious principles should carefully consider how government power functions. It is based, fundamentally, on precedent.

Once it is established that the government has the right to establish religious law, a sufficient majority of legislators could pass laws based on any system of religious belief. Almost any law could be justified on religious grounds, particularly if such a government had the authority to compel its citizens to obey religious law. Laws that establish religion in government, even if created with most benign intent, could put our nation on a path toward repressive theocracy.

Finally, the notion that the Founding Fathers intended our nation to be a Christian one is fundamentally wrong. Our founders included a number of deists and skeptics of organized religion. James Madison, though a religious man, spoke strongly and repeatedly for a strong separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson, who described himself as a Christian, removed every passage asserting the divinity of Jesus from his Bible, and spoke of the need for a wall between church and state.

The framers of the Constitution inserted a ban on religious tests for office, a common practice in most Western nations.

Considering that the laws of most such nations, particularly England, contained explicit establishments of Christianity, it would seem odd that founders intending to make America Christian would omit such language from the Constitution.

Rather, a clear clue to the intentions of the Founding Fathers can be found in an obscure but important diplomatic document: the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated between the new United States and the Muslim Barbary state and ratified in 1797.

Buried in the standard diplomatic clauses is Article 11: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . . it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” The entire treaty, including Article 11, was read in full in Congress and printed in several major newspapers. No record of any disagreement or protest has ever been found.

Today, we must be vigilant in deter-ring any erosion of this crucial barrier. While religion naturally informs the ethical beliefs of our legislators, religious doctrine must never be established as law. If we fail to guard this distinction, we risk destroying two of America’s greatest institutions: the freedom of religious practice, and the right of citizens of all beliefs to fair and equal governance.

Will sinners burn in hell for eternity?

(An article from Signs Of The Times® September 2007 Edition by Mark Bullock)

In a sermon he preached in 1741, Jonathan Edwards told his listeners: “The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire. . . .

“You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder” (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God).

But are sinners really in the hands of an “angry God”? Is God a sadistic deity who suspends sinners by a thread over the hungry flames of hell—eventually to plunge them into the churning inferno below? Does He then watch as they writhe and shriek through all eternity in flames hot enough to bring agony but somehow not hot enough to bring death?

Some Christians say that Seventh-day Adventists (publishers of Signs of the Times®) don’t believe in hell—or, at least, not in a very hot hell. The truth is that Adventists believe in the hottest hell of all—a hell that’s hot enough to destroy the wicked and not just scorch them through all eternity.

In saying so, Seventh-day Adventists stress several Bible passages which they believe predict complete annihilation of unrepentant sinners. For example, Malachi 4:1*: “The day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.”

Here’s another: “The wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away” (Psalm 37:20).

I once heard a fire-and-brimstone preacher like Jonathan Edwards describe scenes of the lost writhing in flames that would burn through ceaseless ages. Since then I’ve wondered why hellfire means so much to so many Christians. I believe that what the Bible says about the fate of the wicked is important, and that in all our study we must always also consider the character of God, His justice, and His pledged word.

Seventh-day Adventists see many errors in the doctrine of eternal torment of the wicked in hell. Let’s consider several of them.
Error: Love Prolongs Suffering.

I find it very strange that Christians readily condemn Hitler for prolonging people’s suffering yet insist that’s exactly what God does.

When I was a boy, a mad dog chased me. Men in the neighborhood soon came with guns and destroyed the pain-crazed animal. Rational human beings put sick animals to death to end their misery; they certainly do not wish even brute beasts to suffer endless torture.

Now let’s consider Job 4:17: “Shall mortal man be more just than God?” Are we to believe that our heavenly Father hates unrepentant sinners so much that He tortures them in flames through ceaseless ages when sinful humans wouldn’t even submit a dog to that kind of suffering? The way Adventists look at it, it is consistent with God’s mercy to destroy the wicked quickly, and, in fact, it is because He loves them that He permits their rapid destruction.

Here let me mention another idea about what will happen to the wicked, one that is the exact opposite of hellfire. This is the doctrine— often called universalism—that God will save everyone, the wicked along with the righteous. Adventists see it as an erroneous doctrine invented to avoid the repellent idea that God burns human beings forever.

Seventh-day Adventists do not teach universal salvation for two reasons: (1) We can’t find it in the Bible, and (2) we think that an unrighteous person forced to live forever in heaven would be just as uncomfortable there as if he were forced to live in hell—and God doesn’t intend for anyone to spend eternity feeling uncomfortable.

You see, if God took these people to heaven, they would not be happy there, for in this life they objected to the holy principles that govern the paradise of God. If they are not comfortable in the company of good people here, they would be uncomfortable with them in heaven. Moreover, the Bible says that God will make “a new earth” (Revelation 21:1), “and there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth” (verse 27).

There will be no place for the wicked in heaven. “For yet a little while,” we read in the Psalms, “and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be” (Psalm 37:10).
Error: A Blemished Heaven.

Adventists understand the Bible as teaching that both righteous and wicked will receive their final reward on this earth. “Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner” (Proverbs 11:31).

If the flames of hell were to burn forever, then there would always remain a plague spot somewhere on the new earth.
Error: Disproportional Punishment.

The doctrine of eternal torment seems to be so very contrary to the biblical teaching that the punishment of the wicked will be commensurate with their sins. Using a figure of speech, Jesus said that when He returns in judgment, some people “shall be beaten with many stripes” and others “shall be beaten with few stripes” (Luke 12:47, 48). In Matthew 16:27 He said that everyone will be rewarded “according to his works.” The apostle Paul spoke of the “righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds” (Romans 2:5, 6). Surely it would be all out of proportion to punish the wicked age after age without end for the sins of a brief lifetime.

Supposedly, the lost will cry for water, but a just and merciful God through unceasing ages will refuse even one drop to alleviate their pain. But God’s character of love will not change when He deals with the finally impenitent. Then—as at all other times—“shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25). Adventists believe He will always be a God of justice. “His righteousness endureth for ever” (Psalm 111:3). “His mercy endureth forever” (Psalm 118:3).

God has never been a vengeful tyrant—and He won’t become a vengeful tyrant when the time arrives to punish the wicked.
Error: Life Without Christ

The doctrine of eternal torment is in error because it is contrary to the biblical teaching that there is life only in Christ. “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1 John 5:12).

A person burning in hell would not have a pleasant life, but he would have life. According to the Bible, the wages of sin is death, not eternal torment (Romans 6:23).
Error: Confusing Time and Results.

The unquenchable fire spoken of in Matthew 3:12 and Luke 3:17 refers to the kind of fire and the effect of the fire that will destroy the wicked, and not its duration. Jeremiah foretold that Jerusalem would be destroyed by fire that “shall not be quenched” (Jeremiah 17:27). When an enemy came and set fire to the city, the flames could not be extinguished, but the fire did go out after it had accomplished its work. Jerusalem is not burning today.

The “eternal fire” spoken of in Jude 7 reduced the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah “into ashes, . . . making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly” (2 Peter 2:6).
Error: Judgment at Death.

While the doctrine of eternal torment teaches that man goes to his reward at death, the Bible teaches a future day for settling accounts. Jesus said, “I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be” (Revelation 22:12). In Peter’s day the judgment was yet future. “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished” (2 Peter 2:9).

Jesus taught that the wicked would be resurrected before being consigned to hellfire. “The hour is coming,” He said, “in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good’ unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:28, 29).

The day of judgment isn’t at each person’s death. Rather, it’s an event still to take place in the future.**
Error: Punishment vs. Punishing.

Jesus said, “These [the wicked] shall go away into everlasting punishment” (Matthew 25:46). He did not say everlasting punishing. The wicked shall be visited with “everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9). “Transgressors shall be destroyed together” (Psalm 37:38). “The wicked . . . shall be destroyed for ever” (Psalm 92:7). The punishment of the wicked is a destruction that will be everlasting.

How hot is hell? Hot enough to devour the wicked (Revelation 20:9). Hot enough to reduce them to ashes (Malachi 4:3). Hot enough to cleanse the earth and melt the very elements (2 Peter 3:10, 12). Happily, after the fire has burned up all evil and every evil thing, then those who love God may confidently, “according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13).

That, as Seventh-day Adventists see it, is the Bible’s truth about hell.

*All Bible texts are from the King James Version.
**The second coming of Christ is popularly known as “the great judgment day,” and that event is still future. However, the Bible also teaches that a divine judgment will take place in heaven prior to Christ’s return.

When Jesus promised His disciples “I will come again” (John 14:3), He created a hope that has burned in the hearts of nearly all Christians for two thousand years. And seldom since the first century A.D. has this hope burned more brightly in the hearts of more Christians than it does today.

This hope is darkened, however, by one shadow. According to the Bible, a terrible time of trouble—often spoken of as the “tribulation”—will take place on earth just before Christ’s second coming. For nearly eighteen hundred years, Christians believed that all of God’s people would pass through this tribulation. However, about two hundred years ago a new theory was proposed—that God will take true Christians out of the world and transport them to heaven prior to the tribulation. Those left behind will pass through the tribulation, during which millions of Jews will be converted to Christianity. The second coming of Christ will take place after the tribulation.

The carrying away of the saints to heaven prior to the tribulation is called the “rapture.” According to those who hold this view, the rapture will be secret in the sense that no one will know when it will occur, and those who are left behind on earth will only know that it has occurred when they realize that many people have suddenly disappeared for no good reason. A number of books and films like “Left Behind” portray cars and airplanes crashing because their drivers and pilots were “raptured.” They picture startled people wondering what happened to their friends and loved ones.

This view of the end of the world could be called a dual second-coming theory, because it splits Christ’s return to our planet into two parts: the rapture before the tribulation and the Second Coming after the tribulation.

A careful study of the Bible suggests three reasons for rejecting this two-stage theory of the second coming of Christ.
The Vocabulary of the Second Coming

Advocates of the rapture claim that when Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians 4:15, he used the word parousia, which means “coming,” to describe the secret rapture. But in 1 Thessalonians 3:13, he used the same word to describe “the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints” (NKJV), which according to advocates of the rapture, occurs at Christ’s actual second coming. Again, in 1 Thessalonians 2:8, Paul employed the term parousia to refer to the coming of Christ that will cause the destruction of the antichrist, which rapture proponents understand refers to Christ’s actual second coming.

Thus, the vocabulary of the Bible provides no basis for a two-phase second coming of Christ. Its terms are used interchangeably to describe a single, indivisible, post-tribulational advent of Christ to bring salvation to believers and retribution to unbelievers.
Not a Secret Second Coming

The “rapture,” according to its advocates, will be a very secret event. However, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, which gives the most famous description of Christ’s second coming, suggests the very opposite. It speaks of the Lord descending “from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God.”

The “loud command,” the “voice of the archangel,” and “the trumpet call of God” hardly suggest a secret event. On the contrary, this may well be the noisiest passage in the Bible. And the references to a trumpet call in the parallel passages of Matthew 24:31 and 1 Corinthians 15:52 corroborate to the public nature of the Second Advent. No trace of a secret rapture can be found in any of these passages.

Furthermore, Matthew 24:30, 31 uses language that is very similar to 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, yet according to the secret rapture theory Matthew 24:30, 31 refers to Christ’s actual second coming while Paul’s statement in 1 Thessalonians refers to the secret rapture.
God’s People and the Tribulation

In His Olivet discourse, Jesus spoke of the great tribulation that will immediately precede His coming, promising that “for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.” (Matt. 24: 21, 22, 29). To argue that the “elect are only Jewish believers and not members of the church, means to ignore that Christ was addressing His apostles, who represent not only national Israel, but the church at large. This is confirmed by the fact that both Mark and Luke, who wrote their gospels for the Gentile church, report the same discourse (Mark 13; Luke 21).

Christ never promised His church a pre-tribulation rapture out of this world. Rather, He promised protection in the midst of tribulation. In His petition to His Father, He said, “My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.” (John 17:15) If the church were absent from this earth during the hour of testing, there would be no necessity of divine protection.

In light of the reasons discussed above, the answer is clear. The popular teaching of a secret coming of Christ to rapture the church before the final tribulation is devoid of any biblical support.
How and When Jesus Will Come

The second coming of Christ will be anything but secret. Here are some of the Bible’s clearest declarations:

1. It will be very visible: “Every eye will see him” (Revelation 1:7)
2. It will be very audible: “The Lord Himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God” (1 Thessalonians 4:16)
3. It will be glorious: “The nations of the earth … will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory” (Matthew 24:30)
4. It will have consequences: “The Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done” (Matthew 16:27). “The dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17)

Does the word utopia mean a never-never land that doesn’t exist, or is it a real place? The author examines the biblical evidence.

(An article from Signs Of The Times® August 2008 Edition by Doug Batchelor)

In 1516, Sir Thomas More wrote a book titled, On the Best State of a Republic and on the New Island of Utopia— or just Utopia. Ever since then, utopia has conjured up in people’s minds the idea of an ideal land with no crime, sickness, or natural disasters.

The word comes from a combination of two Greek words: ou, which means “not,” and topos, which means “place.” In other words, utopia is a fictional land that does not exist. That’s what Thomas More intended in his book, and we still sometimes use the word utopia in the sense of a “pie in the sky” dreamland.

However, there’s another way to think about utopia. The Greek letters eu mean “good.” The Greek eu preceding topos would mean “good land.” While that’s not what Thomas More meant by the word utopia in the title of his book, we nevertheless use the word to refer to a good land, even if it doesn’t exist.

Trying to Create Utopia

And, indeed, in our imperfect world such a land never will exist. Not that people haven’t tried. President Woodrow Wilson called World War I a “war to end all wars.” He envisioned building a basis for lasting peace among the world’s nations that would prevent future armed conflicts that kill people and destroy societies. A planet without wars might not be the most ideal world, but it would be far better than anything we humans have known since the fall of our race in Eden.

An interesting effort at creating utopia here on earth was a state-of-the-art greenhouse built several years ago on three acres in the Arizona desert. This sealed, computer-controlled environment was planned to be a miniature version of the much larger biosphere we call Earth.

Completed in 1991 at a cost of $150 million, Biosphere 2 had five ecosystem areas, ranging from rain forest to desert, and it was stocked with several thousand plants and animals. Eight scientists, called Biospherians, were supposed to learn how to live off of this land, physically isolated from the outside world—but allowed communication via phone and e-mail.

The designers envisioned humans creating a perfect, self-sustaining environment. But the project met with unforeseen environmental and human complications, requiring outside intervention. Oxygen levels dropped so low that emergency oxygen had to be pumped into the complex. Crop production was so poor that it was at times supplemented from outside.

Some of the animal species died off, but one kind of ant thrived to the point that outside help was required to exterminate it. This proud vision of man making a utopia on earth became a joke.

God’s Utopia

Fortunately, God has a much better “Biosphere 2” planned for your future and mine—a world that truly will have no wars, crime, or natural disasters. Let’s find out what He’s told us about it.

John the revelator saw “a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.” He also saw “the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven [God’s dwelling place] from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband” (Revelation 21:1, 2).

The name Jerusalem means “city of peace.” The old Jerusalem on this earth today is anything but a city of peace. Three major religions— Jews, Muslims, and Christians— each claim it as a holy place, making it the most fought-over piece of real estate in the world. The walls of old Jerusalem are riddled with bullet holes! But God’s New Jerusalem will truly be a city of peace.

Perfect Food and Water

One thing we know is that this city will have an absolutely perfect water supply. John said that his accompanying angel showed him “a pure river of water of life” (Revelation 22:1, NKJV). In today’s world we have to add chemicals to kill the bacteria so people don’t get sick. That won’t be necessary in God’s New Jerusalem.

Revelation also says that “on each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations” (Revelation 22:2).

I propose that this means spiritual healing. When we all gather together as one family under the tree of life, our divisions will be healed. We will be a united people. This verse doesn’t mean that people will get sick and use the leaves of the tree as an herbal remedy.

Perfect Health

Isaiah gives another description of God’s new earth: “Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. / Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy” (Isaiah 35:5, 6). Blind people will see, deaf people will hear, and crippled people will walk! John adds that “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

In heaven there won’t be any need for doctors, hospitals, or funeral homes!

So what will you and I do in that new earth that Jesus is preparing for us today? Isaiah gave us a glimpse into that, too: “ ‘They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit’ ” (Isaiah 65:21). Isaiah’s readers would have found that to be good news.

Back then, warring nations or marauding tribes could invade your country at any time and take over the house you’d built and the orchard and farm you’d cultivated. Then someone else would live in the house you’d worked so hard to build and eat the food you’d labored so long to grow. In that context, Isaiah’s promise is meaningful: “ ‘No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat’ ” (Isaiah 65:22).

Even today, other people enjoy the product of our labor: our houses get left to children or grandchildren when we die. Someone else gets to live in the home we worked so hard to build. But not in God’s new world! If you build it, you’ll live in it! If you grow it, you’ll eat it!

Perfect Bodies

People have many misconceptions about heaven. Some people believe that when they die, they’ll turn into little cherubs who sit on clouds and play harps all day. No wonder so few people want to go to heaven— they think hell will be much more interesting! They don’t realize that in heaven they will have real bodies and do real things.

The Bible says that when Jesus comes, He will “transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (Philippians 3:21). So what is Jesus’ body like today?

When He rose from the dead, He walked through a locked door where His disciples were gathered in an upper room. They were sure He was a ghost, so He said to them, “ ‘Look at my hands and my feet. It is I, myself!’ ” He invited them to touch Him, because, He said, “ ‘A ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.’ ” Then, to emphasize that He was real, He said, “ ‘Do you have anything here to eat?’ ” Someone gave Him a piece of fish, and He ate it in front of them (Luke 24:36–43). Jesus wanted them to know that He had a real physical body.

So that’s the kind of body Jesus has today, and the Bible says that in heaven our bodies will be “like his glorious body.”

Will You be There?

Shortly before He left this earth, Jesus told His disciples that He would be leaving them to prepare a place for them. Then He promised, “ ‘If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am’ ” (John 14:3).

I want to be with Jesus in that utopia where there’s no sickness or death, where there is no pollution, and where terrorists can never frighten me. Do you?

If your answer is also Yes, then there’s a key question we need to ask ourselves: What does it take to get there? It’s actually very simple. Accept Jesus as your Savior from sin. Tell Him you want to serve Him as a citizen of His new world. He’ll see that you get there!

I’ve done that! I invite you to do it too. Let’s make an appointment to meet in the real utopia!

(An article from Liberty Magazine May/June 1968 Edition by Donald E. Brown)

Was This the Answer to Our Nation’s Problems?

Run up the flag and tune up the band! The problems of our nation are about to be solved. Three Congressmen have intro­duced a bill into the ninetieth Congress that will, if adopted, commit this nation to “de­voutly” recognize “the au­thority and the law of Jesus Christ, Savior and Ruler of nations, through whom are be­stowed the blessings of Almighty God”! According to them, this Christian Amendment will (1) reduce the menace of a virile and militant Com­munism to naught; (2) shore up the sagging mo­rality of society as evi­denced in sexual immo­rality, unchastity, dishonesty in both private and public life; and (3) restore this nation to its place of moral leadership in the world.

All worthy objectives, I concede, but will the so-called Christian Amendment—offered perpetually to the Congress—really achieve them? I think not. Its backers reveal an extraordinarily naive and simplistic view of society, and a gross misunderstanding of the nature of man. Morality and law are not the same. If declaring a nation to be Christian could solve the evils and problems of society, Europe would be enjoying a spiritual utopia today, for the experiment was tried there. The church was established by law and sup­ported by the machinery and authority of the state. To all the previous problems, establishment added only another—how to disestablish the church! Alliance be­tween church and state has increased, rather than solved, the mutual problems.

Actually, the issue posed by the Christian Amend­ment is much more serious than a misleading view of society and of the nature of man. The real issue is the loss of faith in, and gross misunderstanding of, the democratic form of government and the meaning of religious liberty. The same issue is involved in the persistent efforts to obtain public funds for parochial chools—whether by direct appropriation or by indirect benefits, subsidies, and services. Let us not be misled. The attempt to secure public funds for parochial schools and the push for the so-called Christian Amendment alike are the frontal attacks on the constitutional provision for separation of church and state.

During the Civil War the United States had to face up to the meaning of its heritage of freedom. Lincoln rightly interpreted the Civil War as the crucial test of the democratic ideal. In the Gettysburg Address he stated that the struggle between the States was being waged to determine whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal could exist in this world. That struggle is still going on, and in the great gains being made in the field of civil rights, we are witnessing the mopping-up opera­tions of a battle begun more than a century ago.

Today, however, liberty is endangered by other forces and interests. This nation was conceived also in religious liberty. It was founded on separation of church and state, on the conviction that it was neither wise nor proper for the Congress to legislate for God. That principle is under attack—not by atheistic Com­munists, or by noncommittal and cynical secularists, but by some within the Christian community, Protes­tant and Catholic alike. Religious liberty is under at­tack not from its avowed enemies but from its friends. That which was so dearly purchased, and so proudly held, is in danger of being thrown away—unless we understand both our democratic form of government and the meaning of religious liberty.

Jesus talked a great deal about the relation of a Christian to God, the relation of a Christian to his fellow man, and the relation of a Christian to his Christ, but He said very little about the relationship of a Christian to the state. Religious liberty, as we understand it, was unknown in New Testament times, although the Romans granted a certain freedom of worship to their subjects, including the Jews. So long as a subject people’s religion did not endanger the stability of the state or disturb the people, the Roman government kept hands off. The tolerance was mutual with the Jews. So long as the government, or Caesar, did not interfere with their religious duties and loyalties, they could live under Rome. But let Caesar claim for himself the glory and authority belonging to God, and the Jew resisted to the death.

Such was the background of the question asked of Jesus, “Is it lawful to give tribute [pay taxes] to Caesar?” (See Matt. 22:15-22.) However, as Matthew observes, the question was not asked to seek light and truth upon a sometimes difficult and always perplexing relationship. It was asked to trap Jesus, to trick Him into saying something that could be used against Him. The question illustrates how the truth could and can be used, not to enlighten but to ensnare. If Jesus answered, “Do not pay the tax!” His enemies could charge treason. If He said, “Pay the tax!” then they could say, “This man acknowledges another as King of Israel. This is blasphemy.” But Jesus answered, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (verse 21).

Few sayings of Jesus have been more tragically misunderstood. Jesus did not say, as some have claimed, that there is a sharp line of division between secular and sacred. He did not say, “This part of a man’s life belongs to Caesar. God has nothing to do with that. God has to do only with ‘spiritual’ things.” “Dummelow, for instance, says that Christ here sympathized with imperialism, with a ‘great and beneficent empire,’ so that ‘submission and loyalty to civil power is a duty binding on the conscience.’”1 Not so. Every work of His hands, every word of His mouth pointed to the sovereign fact of God and to the sovereignty of God over all His works. True, Caesar must have his due, but always within the framework of obedience to God. Caesar, or government, has a just claim on part of a man’s life. Jesus readily acknowledged that. But one wishes for elaboration of the rest of His answer, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

What “things”? Some things do belong to Caesar, and Caesar must have his due—that much and no more, for beyond that is idolatry. But Caesar’s tendency is to claim more of man’s life than is his due, not less. The history of totalitarian states, both ancient and modern, shows that Caesar’s appetite for loyalty, homage, praise, and obedience is insatiable. Frederick William I of Prussia expressed it perfectly when he said, “Salvation is of God. Everything else is my affair.” It is not likely that He who said “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness” would agree with that.

Jesus did not delineate a program of relationships between Caesar and God or church and state. He did not lay down a step-by-step guide, a clear-cut “how to do it,” but He did lay down what must be done. “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

What belongs to God? Everything belongs to God—even Caesars and commissars, prime ministers and presidents. All hold their power under God whether acknowledged by law or not. If there is any guidance in these words it is simply that Caesar must make no claim on a man’s life, or on his mind, which will keep him from freely rendering unto God the things that are God’s.

Here is the seed of a doctrine of religious liberty. Although growth was slow and ultimate fruition is yet to come in much of the world, by the 1700s our Founding Fathers were firmly convinced that religious freedom is the mother of all freedom. They had seen the devastation wrought by wars of religion in the Old World where the state freely legislated for God. In fact, it was to escape the inequities and injustices of an unholy alliance between church and state that many fled to the shores of America. When they began to consider the shape and form of a more perfect union, they explicitly and carefully laid down the principle “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” To claim, as some now say, that from the first our nation was a Christian nation, is to miss the point. It was never intended that this nation should “devoutly recognize the authority and law of Jesus Christ.” It was, however, intended that men should be absolutely free to pursue the truth according to the lights of their own conscience. It was intended that the powers of government should never be used to enforce, or persuade, or coerce, or define a response of faith from any citizen.

In 1614, Leonard Busher, an English Baptist, published a pamphlet pleading that king and Parliament revoke “and repeal those anti-Christian, Romish and cruel laws that force all in our land, both prince and people, to receive that religion wherein the king or queen were born or that which is established by the law of man.” 2 The Founding Fathers of these United States had heard those heartfelt pleas and were de­termined that such a plea would never be necessary in this nation. Further, religious lib­erty with separation of church and state is a safeguard against a false and easy sense of security. The prophets were well aware of the dangers of ritualism in religion. They did everything they could to eliminate misleading ritual from the worship of God. Ritual has its values but it also has its dangers. Slogans, prayers, Bible reading in schools, and rituals can easily convey the idea that the per­formance of certain required religious acts actually makes a nation religious. God re­quires more than this. He requires the obedi­ence of a willing heart and the sacrifices of a broken and contrite spirit. These cannot be legislated; they can be only the offering of free men, gladly and joyfully responding to the free gift of God.

Religious liberty maintains a healthy skep­ticism regarding the infallibility of men and institutions. So does democracy—for the gen­ius of the democratic form of government is that it is responsive to the changing needs and desires of the governed. This means that all governmental solutions to human problems are tentative, and therefore subject to change. The same is true of institutions of religion. Thomas Hooker, back in the 1600s, made it clear that there must always be an element of humility and tentativeness among those who take their Christian faith seriously. “We doubt not,” he wrote, “what we practice, but it’s beyond all doubt that all men are liars, and we are in the number of these poor feeble men; either we do or may err, though we do not know it; what we have learned we do profess, and profess still to live that we may learn.” Religious liberty keeps the doors open to new truth about the nature of man and his life with his neighbor.

The old principles that inspired the consti­tutional safeguard of separation of church and state are valid still. As Jack Mendelssohn put it some years ago, “Let us render unto God the things that are God’s. But let us not try to use Him as a masthead for our Constitu­tion, a banner for our patriotism, or a pillar of fire for our foreign policy. American democracy is worthy of a more profound re­spect for the universe and for the human race than that.”

Donald E. Brown, was pastor at the First Baptist Church, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
This article originally appeared in Liberty, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 20-22. May/June 1968.

1 The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), vol. 7, p. 518.
2 Henry Cook, What Baptists Stand For (London: The Carey Kingsgate Press, fourth ed., 1961), pp. 204, 205.

Source: http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/730/1/107/

Shopping lists promote healthier choices.

(An article from Signs Of The Times® October 2007 Edition by Sue Radd)

If you want to cut down on impulse buying, save money, and make better food choices, take a few minutes to plan a shopping list before you get to the grocery store.

Why Lists Help

Researchers from Duke University, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Florida have confirmed what many of us always suspected: When faced with what to buy at the grocery store without a shopping list, the decision is “stimulus-based.”

This means, we base our purchase on what is directly in front of us, regardless of whether we really need it or whether it’s good for us.

Visiting certain grocery aisles with no plan or limits can cause significant damage in terms of the calories, fats, and sugars you and your family will consume. Compare being a marketing target in a candy aisle versus a fresh produce aisle!

Planning shopping lists is particularly important if you have children, if you are frail, if you live a busy lifestyle, or if you are trying to manage a medical condition. It will save you time and reduce the anxiety associated with that frequently asked question shortly before meal time: “What’s for dinner?”

How to Plan and Shop

1. Plan your meals a week in advance, and compile a list of the food items you will need to prepare and cook your meals.

2. Most of your list should contain items for healthy meals and snack options; place a limit on the number and/or quantity of rich foods, such as cake, ice cream, potato chips, or chocolate.

3. Look for “real” foods and those that are minimally processed, for example, look for 100 percent fruit juice or whole-grain bread.

4. Think variety. Choose seasonal fruits and try new vegetables in your favorite recipes.

5. Organic foods are a great option, but not the most economical. Either way, emphasize more plant foods and less meats and full-fat dairy products in your shopping cart.

6. Don’t go shopping on an empty stomach—you are likely to buy more than you really need.