Can Man “Know” He Was Created?

By Bob Myhan

Knowledge is based on experience and reason. We know that which we have learned through our physi­cal senses and/or mental faculties. It is by means of his physical senses that man knows of the existence of matter. He can see it, handle it, taste it, smell it, and hear the sounds made by its motions. By means of reason, man knows of the exis­tence of spirit; he knows intui­tively that he is distinct from his body.

Faith is obtained from dependable tes­timony. Jurors in a criminal trial, for ex­ample, do not know whether the defen­dant commit­ted the crime he has been charged with but have to decide—solely on the basis of the evidence—whether a verdict of guilty be­yond a reasonable doubt is warranted. What they decide is a matter of faith, rather than knowledge. That is, they either come to be­lieve that he is guilty of the crime or they have reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

An opinion is a position that is held in the absence of sufficient evidence to warrant knowledge or faith. There is no experience to evaluate, no premises from which to rea­son conclusively and no reliable testimony to consider. To con­tinue the analogy of the trial, a juror may have an opinion as to the guilt of the defendant but can neither know nor believe that he committed the crime be­fore hearing the testimony or examining the evidence.

As an example, con­sider the case of Nico­demus. I know the Bible says that he “came to Jesus by night” (John 3:1-2). I believe Nicodemus “came to Jesus by night” be­cause the Bible says so. But I do not know why he “came to Jesus by night.” Nor does the Bible pro­vide testimony sufficient for me to be­lieve he had this or that particular rea­son, though he must have had one; no one acts without a reason.

As another example, Abraham could not have known that his descendants would be as innumer­able as the stars in the sky but he believed it on the strength of God’s testi­mony.

Therefore it is of faith that it might be ac­cording to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") in the pres­ence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he be­came the father of many nations, ac­cording to what was spoken, "So shall your descendants be." And not being weak in faith, he did not con­sider his own body, al­ready dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah's womb. He did not waver at the prom­ise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to per­form. And therefore "it was accounted to him for righteous­ness" (Rom. 4:16-22).

Since the time that our first parents were expelled from the Garden of Eden it has not been possible to know God, except through faith in His tes­timony. To illustrate, no per­son “knows” [without DNA testing] the iden­tity of his biological parents. It is impossible for a newborn in­fant to know who gave birth to him or who fathered him. One is told by a certain kindly couple that they are his par­ents and accepts their testi­mony. Likewise, Adam could not have known, apart from a com­munication from God, that he was created. Indeed, if God had never re­vealed Himself, man could never have known of His exis­tence. &

Churches and Their Buildings

By Bill Hall

Burton Coffman, in his Commentary on Romans, makes the following comment concerning the church's meeting in the house of Aquila and Pricilla:

"In view of this historical fact, and the inspired evidence of it before our eyes, one may only marvel at the divisions among brethren over the question of whether or not food may be served in a church house! From the facts, as evi­denced in, the example of Priscilla and Aquila, it can safely be inferred that any­thing a Christian might do in his house could under the proper circumstances, be done in a religious meeting house, the home in fact having been the original meeting house of the apostolic church." (Page 513)

We suspect that our readers are sur­prised at such a statement. Do we really be­lieve that anything that can be done in one's home can be done appropriately in the meeting house owned by the church?

But wait! This is not the real issue in­volved in the "division" mentioned above. According to these brethren not only can churches serve meals in their meeting houses but they can build the facilities into their meeting houses that are needed for serving meals - and this from the money contributed for the Lord's work. Could we not carry brother Coffman's reasoning one step further, and say that anything a Chris­tian might build into his house can, under the proper circumstances, be built into reli­gious meeting houses? Bedrooms? Swim­ming pools? Recreation rooms? We know a family who has built a beauty shop into their house. A beauty shop in the church build­ing? And the lady gives perms and sets hair as a business in her home. Could she do this "under proper circumstances" in the church building? In fact, it is at least possi­ble that Aquila and Priscilla had a "tent-making" area in their house, for that was their occupation. A tent factory built into the meeting house with money from the treas­ury?

Besides, we have known of churches that met in YMCA's, union halls, prisons, and courthouses. Does it follow that anything a Christian might do in one of these facilities "could, under proper circumstances," be done in a religious meeting house?

The truth is a church meeting house is authorized as an aid to worship and Bible teaching, which are God-ordained church activities. Whatever is needful to facilitate these God-ordained activities should there­fore be built into meeting houses. In keep­ing with this, if God ordains social activities, recreation, and secular education as local church activities, churches should build fa­cilities, and provide food, balls, bats, rac­quets, school teachers, books, etc., that will serve as aids to these activities. But if they are not God-ordained church activities, churches have no authority to build into their buildings facilities for such. And to do that for which there is no authority is sin (II John 9; II Tim. 3:16, 17; I John 3:4). This is the real issue in this controversy. &

-via College View Columns; Florence, Alabama