LIFE CHANGING MESSAGE

 

Most informed Americans are unquestionably familiar with Dan Brown's foolish and insulting novel, The Da Vinci Code, and probably with Ron Howard's movie by the same name. Many readers have been deceived into believing that the book consists of historical fact. Not one reputable scholar in the world would agree with that assessment of the book. It does include some facts about the life of Leonardo da Vinci and about the life of Christ, but it is literally filled with deliberately misused facts and applications. Incidentally, a number of books by reputable scholars have shown how perverted Brown's novel is and what his motivation was in writing the book. Lee Strobel and Garry Poole wrote one of those books showing just how wrong Brown was in his use of information about Christ. Their book has the title, Exploring the Da Vinci Code (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006).

 

My purpose in this lesson today is not to discuss the serious errors in Dan Brown's book, but to speak for a short time on the topic: "Life-Changing Message." Strobel and Poole write: "Many people testify to the life-changing message they encounter in the Bible. What are the strengths and weaknesses of using that as a basis for validating the trustworthiness of the Bible" (p. 50)? Strobel and Poole quote these words from Dr. Bernard Ramm, a highly respected evangelical scholar: "A thousand times over, the death knell of the Bible has been sounded, the funeral procession formed, the inscription cut on the tombstone, and the committal read. But somehow the corpse never stays put" (p. 50).

 

There is not a reasonable person on earth who does not understand how messages affect people—either for good or for evil. Plato, the world's most influential philosopher, believed and taught that wives in the ideal state would be common and children would also be common. Parents would not to know their own children and children would not to know their own parents. Husbands would not to be devoted to one woman but to the community. Surely no one in his right mind would suggest or adopt such utter stupidity or would they? Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1954) proposed the abolition of the family. Marx asserted: "Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women" (p. 33). In fact, Plato's ideas about the family have done enormous damage to people all over the world. It is unreasonable to argue that messages do not affect the lives of people.

 

Marx's Communist Manifesto has had devastating effects on humanity. It is altogether possible that Marx's ideas as adopted by Russia, by Cuba, by China and by other countries have been responsible for the deaths of as many as 100,000,000 people. When Communist ideas are adopted by a nation, millions of people starve to death. Not one country in the world that has become Communist has adequately provided for the needs of its people. In Africa, for example, thousands and thousands of people are starving to death because of the failures of the Communist system. That is also true in Cuba, in North Korea and in other nations. Many of the Communist leaders in those countries are among the worst criminals the world has ever known. Pol Pot was responsible for killing millions of Cambodians. Fidel Castro in Cuba has abused and misused his office and allowed many Cubans to die of starvation. It would be nearly impossible to find leaders worse than Pol Pot, Edi Amin or Fidel Castro. The message of Communism or socialism has destroyed millions and millions of people. But there are college and university professors in America who are still committed to some form of socialism. If those professors were honest, they would admit that Communism and socialism have failed everywhere they have been tried and they always will fail.

 

One of the reasons—but not the only one—that has caused Communism to fail its people is Communism's proposal to abolish private property. When a government destroys men's motivations to take care of their own families, the nation will suffer shortages and deficiencies in every phase of life. The old Soviet Union was rich in natural resources. But because the government had removed men's incentives to provide for their own, the government miserably failed. The apostle Paul told Timothy: "But if any provide not for his own, especially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (1 Tim. 5:8).

 

A man's first obligation is to provide for his own family. But Christianity has done more than any other religion or philosophy to help those who are not members of our own households. The reason for that is easy to explain. Our Lord was compassionate toward those who were in need. He set the example for his followers. In addition, inspired writers urged Christians to care for all people—not just members of our households and members of the church. The apostle Paul admonished the Galatians: "Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10). In most cases, our means of doing good are limited. We do not have enough money or other resources to help everyone who needs it. So we first must take care of our immediate family. Then our next priority is to help fellow Christians. But Christians have an obligation to help all, as we have opportunity. Our Lord's story of the good Samaritan should teach us to do good unto all men.

 

There simply is no doubt that Sigmund Freud, the father of modern psychiatry, was one of the most influential scientists who ever lived, although among many professionals, Freud's influence is waning. Sigmund Freud believed and taught that virtually every action of man is directed by his sexual appetite. Dr. Walter Maier was the speaker on "The Lutheran Hour" for many years. The very first book on the family I ever purchased was Dr. Maier's book, For Better not for Worse: A Manual of Christian Matrimony (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1935). Dr. Maier quotes these words from Dr. Charles Burr of the University of Pennsylvania: "Freudianism is based on assumptions....The whole thing is absolutely unscientific. A large part of it is absolutely absurd. Incalculable harm, too, can be done by mental suggestion of this kind, and I have had young people come to me brokenhearted because, after reading Freud, they imagined they were abnormal, while as a matter of fact they were perfectly normal. Freudianism accepts much and proves nothing; yet it is the most popular psychology today. It calls itself science, and science is the popular deity" (p. 151). Incidentally, Dr. Maier's book was copyrighted in 1935. What Dr. Burr said about Freudian psychology in the early 1900s is not true today. And yet, there are still men and women who believe Freud's views of human motivation and behavior. Freudianism has done untold damage to individuals and to families.

 

Is anyone so naive as to believe that Darwinism has not exerted a detrimental influence on society? Darwin believed and taught that men and women evolved from lower animals which evolved from still lower animals which also evolved from even lower animals and on and on. In other words, all living things in this world started with a simple one-celled creature billions of years ago. Of course, Darwin did not bother to explain the origin of that one-celled animal that started the whole process. I shall not take time today to examine the flaws in the evolutionary theory, but you can rest assured, they are many and as my college teacher used to say, "They are un-get-over-able."

 

My concern today is the effect evolution has had on the morals of human beings who have bought into this philosophy. And it is philosophy—not science. Dr. Walter Maier has one chapter in his book with the title, "Marriage from God—not from the Gorilla" (pp. 69-77). Dr. Maier makes these pertinent observations: "Because marriage comes from God above and not from man or beast below, it involved moral, not merely physical problems. A sin against the commandment of purity is a sin against God, not simply the outraging of convention, the thoughtlessness of youth, evidence of bad taste" (p. 76). If a person actually believes he is descended from lower animals, what is to prevent his behaving like a lower animal? Have you ever heard of anyone's criticizing an animal for sexual impurity? Animal behavior is expected of animals, but we are not animals. We are human beings created in the image of God. We are expected to behave in civilized ways and not to spread our sexual favors like monkeys, dogs and cattle. Have you ever wondered about the conscience in man? How did it originate? When a baboon becomes involved with a female from another group, there is no evidence that he suffers pangs of conscience. When a man is unfaithful to his wife, he experiences sadness and guilt because he has a conscience. If he continues to be sexually promiscuous, after a while, his conscience may become seared as with a hot iron and may think he has a right to do whatever he pleases. The conscience is impossible for evolution to explain. Man alone has a conscience. Since it could not have come from apes and monkeys, it must have originated with God almighty.

 

Are you aware that some evolutionists, like Dr. Ruth Fisher, try to explain a man's sexual promiscuity by tracing it to his animal ancestry? Dr. Fisher argues that she is not using man's animal ancestry to try to justify adultery, but since male monkeys and apes are more sexually active than females, that may explain why males are more promiscuous than females. Do you honestly believe that some males, especially those who have read Dr. Fisher's foolish views, will not use her theory as justification for being sexually immoral? If evolution were true, there is no way under heaven anyone can consistently condemn any kind of behavior, except to say, "I do not like adultery or stealing or killing." Evolutionists do not have and cannot have any absolute standard for their behavior. Has the message of evolution changed lives? We would be extremely naive to deny it.

 

I must mention one religious practice before we examine how the gospel message changed the lives of people in the first century. The so-called "prosperity gospel" is having a detrimental effect on many of the followers of preachers like Frederick Price, Benny Hinn, Kenneth and Gloria Copeland. I have time to give you just one example of the utter unscripturalness of this deception. Gloria Copeland's book, God's Will Is Prosperity (Ft. Worth: KCP Publications, 1978), quotes these words from Mark 10:29-30: "And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." Please listen to Gloria Copeland's application of these verses. "You give $1 for the gospel's sake and $100 belongs to you; give $10 and receive $1000; give $1000 and receive $100,000....Give one house and receive one hundred houses or one house worth a hundred times as much." She then comments: "Mark 10:30 is a very good deal" (p. 48).

 

Let me show you just how utterly ridiculous Gloria Copeland's misuse of scripture is. I heard Frederick Price say that he regularly gives $6000 to support his ministry. I do not know if he meant he gave that much weekly or monthly. Let us assume that he gives that much monthly. If he gives that much monthly, that would mean that the Lord owed Price $7,200,000 at the end of each year. If Price gives $6000 per week, he will soon make Bill Gates appear to be a pauper. Please understand that I am not denying that some people in the prosperity gospel movement do get rich. The preachers and their families get rich by bleeding their supporters. For example, Joyce Meyer boasts of owning a $10,000,000 jet aircraft, a $100,000 Mercedes Benz and a $2,000,000 house. Has the prosperity gospel been a life-changing message? It has for the people who preach it, but it has discouraged many people who are not preachers. For example, I know of a man in West Tennessee who heard one of these prosperity preachers. The man sent a substantial contribution to that ministry. Not long after he sent the money, the man lost his job and lost a child to death. Could Gloria Copeland have misinterpreted Mark 10? The prosperity gospel did not work for the man in West Tennessee.

 

I suspect you know a number of people—possibly including yourself and members of your family—whose lives have been radically altered for good because they heard the soul-saving gospel of Christ. Does the gospel really have that kind of power? Do you remember what Paul taught the Roman Christians? "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein (that is, in the gospel of Christ) is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written,  The just shall live by faith" (Rom. 1:16-17).

 

The ancient city of Ephesus in Asia Minor was devoted to occult practices, to idolatry and to immorality of virtually every kind. A very interesting story involved some exorcists, the seven sons of Sceva, a Jew and chief of the priests. These deceivers "took it upon themselves to call over them which had evil spirits the name of Jesus, saying, We adjure you in the name of Jesus whom Paul preaches." The evil spirits knew the seven sons of Sceva were pretenders and had no power, just like the television preachers who claim to have power over demons. The demon answered the sons of Sceva: "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you? The evil spirit jumped on the false teachers and prevailed against them. The sons of Sceva fled the house naked and wounded." When the people of Ephesus knew of this incident, they believed and confessed and showed their deeds. "Many of them also who used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it to be fifty thousands pieces of silver" (Acts 19:13-20). In his excellent commentary on The Acts of the Apostles: from Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2005), Wayne Jackson says the 50,000 pieces of silver would be about $35,000 in American money (p. 239). I am not suggesting that the books of people like Sylvia Browne, Shirley MacLaine and John Edwards be burned, but they really are not fit for anything else.

 

Idolatry was rampant in the city of Ephesus. The Ephesians worshipped a number of idols. The chief goddess seems to have been Artemis. The King James Version refers to her as Diana. Paul told the Ephesians that there are no gods made with men's hands. The silversmiths made their living creating silver shrines for Artemis. When they heard Paul's preaching, they were very angry and tried to stir up the multitudes against Paul. The city of Ephesus had a very wise town clerk who prevented the mob from killing Paul. He encouraged the people to seek redress from the law—not cause a riot. He even told them that Rome would hold them accountable for the day's uproar (Acts 19:23-40).

 

We do not know the full extent of the immorality at Ephesus. But we do know it was a very wicked city. Paul lists some of the sins of which the Ephesians had been guilty: sexual immorality, covetousness, uncleanness, filthiness, foolish talking and idolatry. He added: "You were sometimes darkness, but now are you light in the Lord: walk as children of light.... And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret" (Eph. 5:4-5, 8,11-12).

The members of the church at Ephesus were primarily Gentiles. Paul reminded them of their condition before they believed in Christ and obeyed the gospel. "Wherefore remember, that you being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world" (Eph. 2:11-12). Dr. William Hendriksen's commentary on Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967) summarizes the condition of the Ephesians in these appropriate words: the Ephesians were Christless, stateless, friendless, hopeless and Godless (pp. 129-131).

 

How did the lives of the Ephesians change when they obeyed their Lord in baptism (Acts 19:3-5)? We are not left to wonder. Paul explains the enormous changes that occurred in Ephesus. "But now in Christ Jesus you who were sometimes afar off are made near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made both (Jew and Gentile) one and has broken down the middle wall of partition between us.....And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you who were afar off (the Gentiles) and to them who were near (the Jews). For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father" (Eph. 2:13-14, 16-18).

 

That same life-changing message is still in the gospel of Christ. If you have not obeyed the gospel, will you not do it today?

 

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334

Back to Home Page

Back to Transcripts Titles