Wednesday, March 28, 2007

How Were People in the Old Testament Saved?

Dr. Couch, could you tell me how people were saved in the OT? Were they saved by the blood of Christ? 
    ANSWER:  The apostle Paul quotes the faith of Abraham found in Genesis 15:6 as the great example of trust for salvation. one can extrapolate back to others before Abraham who likewise believed in the Lord. Their object of belief was simply in God, or in what He said. In the case of Abraham, he was told he would have an innumerable company of descendants—and he believed this promised. Therefore, his faith was accounted (accredited, imputed) to him for righteousness. He was seen in God’s positional viewpoint as righteous as God. This is the only way anyone can come into His presence. 

    Paul writes something in Romans 3:25, something that is often overlooked. He says that the Lord displayed Christ publicly as a propitiation (an object of satisfaction, object of mercy), in His blood through faith. "This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the patience of God He passed over the sins previously committed." 

    Ryrie adds, "The death of Christ also paid fully for sins committed before He died." The great old scholar Charles Hodge writes, "The words "that are past" seem distinctly to refer to the times before the advent of Christ … the remission of sins committed under the former dispensation … and also the remission of sins at the present." In my commentary series on the NT, in which Woodrow Kroll wrote on Romans, he says, Christ was atoning for "present and future sins as well as past sins." 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

What About Lordship Salvation?

Dr. Couch, help me out on the issue of Lordship salvation. Can you refute my thinking on the subject? 
    ANSWER:   I do not have enough hours in the day to take the time to refute the mistakes in that first "book" that came out about Lordship salvation! The "author" consistently does not tell the truth, takes cheap shots and uses faulty logic. He sets up straw men and misrepresents the issue. On one hand, he says salvation is by grace alone, and then he turns around and adds works to getting saved. 

    I will give just two illustrations where his reasoning is so bad! He writes:
  1. Saving faith is more than just understanding the facts and mental acquiescing. He writes this because he tries to charge those who do not believe his view of lordship salvation that they only argue for "mental acquiescing" of the gospel only! Where did he get that? I have never heard any Evangelical argue that all one does is just "agree with the facts about salvation" in order to be saved! One must appropriate the work of Christ at the cross and believe "He died for me personally!"

  2. He then writes The [anti-lordship people] assume that because Scripture contrasts faith and works, faith must be incompatible with works. Here this author uses smoke and mirrors. He has just fooled the reader. Works ARE incompatible with saving faith, works follow saving faith; they are not the cause of salvation! The way he said this is intellectually dishonest! He then adds: The lordship people set faith in opposition to submission, yieldedness, or turning from sin, and they categorize all the practical fruits of salvation as human works. I have never heard anyone in all my years of ministry that would agree with him! When I trusted that Christ died for all my sins, I was TURNING FROM SIN! After POSITIONAL SANCTIFICATION comes EXPERIENTAL SANCTIFICATION. Submission, yieldedness, turning from sin in the walk, always SHOULD follow the profession of faith in Christ. But it usually does not in an absolute way because there is the growing up that the believer goes through in learning to walk with Christ.
    Again, this author sets up a false reasoning. (Works have no place in salvation. And "all practical fruits of salvation are human works!" What is he talking about?) When one says he believes that Christ died for his sins, he means all of his sins. At that moment there is certainly a salvation "submission," "yieldedness," and a turning from sin. I have never seen anyone do anything else! But this author is not saying what I am saying. He believes that Lordship salvation will mean that almost all Christians will walk nearly perfect in their Christian experience. one second after belief in Christ, the issue is making and living for Christ as the Lord! But this author writes:
  • "True salvation wrought by God will not fail to produce the good works that are its fruit." Oh, really? Does he mean "Never fail" in the absolute sense? If he does not he needs to explain himself, but he does not! What about all of the verses in Paul’s letters that speak of the believer’s walking carnal? Did I miss something? Who wants to say they are living perfectly? If they don’t does this mean that were not "truly saved"?
    I have 200 hundred misquotes by this author all dog-eared in his book. His writing is a sham and illogical, if you read it slowly and carefully. He wrote one of the poorest "biblical" books I have ever seen. 

    I do not understand why there is confusion about this issue. Take a concordance and look up "faith, believe, belief, trust," just in the book of John! I believe the count is about forty verses that say something like: salvation by faith only. 

    Thanks for asking. 
     Dr. Mal Couch

Monday, March 26, 2007

'Younger Smarter' Faculty?

Dr. Couch, I have noticed in the past you mentioned that "big" (buh-ig) seminary in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. They clearly have taken a swipe at support for Israel, and, they have moved into an aberrant view of dispensationalism. on their website is posted the article where they seem to be turning against the nation of Israel. What do the "younger-smarter" faculty there think of the great blessed giants of the past who taught so faithfully Bible prophecy?
    Thank you for your question. 

    We know for certain that most, but not all, of the faculty have turned against their heritage. Many of them have graduated from the "big" liberally accredited seminaries abroad, or some of the more infamous ones here in the states. (One of those accrediting agencies support "lesbian women in theology".) Many of the young faculty worship "academia" as a philosophy. (The more obscure you can teach the better!) I was told just recently from the president of one of the few "GOOD" seminaries left, about a discussion he had with one of the teachers at that "big" school. When asked about the aberrant view of dispensationalism he held, the man could not give a clear answer about what he believed. He simply went brain dead, sputtered, and hung his head. And that was shared with me from a president of another institution. We are in trouble, but few know it! 

    I hope this helps, and, thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Is The Church Small Compared to the Those in the Thousand Year Kingdom Period?

Dr. Couch, you write about the "key" people in heaven (the church’s destiny) and the "key" people on earth during the kingdom, the Jews. It seems that the seven years that the church is in heaven is small compared to the thousand year kingdom period, in which the church will be serving with Christ on earth. How do you answer? 
    You are focusing on the issue of destiny and the issue of "time." The seven years is shorter than the 1000 years. This is still not the point. God has a purpose, program, and function for the two groups, the church and Israel, which are different. Again I urge you to read carefully and slowly Jeremiah 30-33. Try to squeeze a purpose, program, even plan, and specific function for the church in these chapters. To help you out I will do some quoting:
  • Specific days are coming (the regathering and restoration), 30:3.
  • I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel AND Judah, v. 3.
  • I will bring them back to the land I gave their forefathers, v. 3.
  • They shall possess it, v. 3.
  • The words the Lord spoke concerning Israel and Judah, v. 4.
  • The birth pangs, v. 6.
  • They shall serve the Lord and David their king, p. 9.
  • Fear not O Jacob, v. 10.
  • I will save you from afar, v. 10.
  • Jacob shall return, v. 10.
  • He will be at ease, v. 10.
  • I will restore you to health, v. 17.
  • I will restore the fortunes of Jacob, v. 18.
  • I will rebuild the cities and palaces, v. 18.
  • I will honor them, v. 19.
  • Their congregation will be established before Me, v. 20.
  • I will be the God of the families of Israel, 31:1.
  • I have [will] draw you with an everlasting love, v. 3.
  • You shall plant on the hills of Samaria.
  • "Let us go up to Zion," v. 6.
  • Time of Jacob’s distress, v. 7.
  • I will bring you from the North country, from the remote places of earth, v. 8.
  • I am a Father to Israel, v. 9.
  • He who scattered Israel will gather him, v. 10.
  • Israel shall be radiant over the bounty of the Lord, v. 12.
  • They shall return from the land of their enemy, v. 16.
  • There is hope for Israel’s future, v. 17.
    I stopped here, but I could go on and on with hundreds if not thousands of verses to quote. Now what is the point I am making? These verses are all about Israel. Let’s focus on these great passages about Israel—this is what the prophets do! And I rejoice with these promises that, even though the church "will be there," they have to do first and foremost will Israel. Don’t be afraid to say the word: Israel, Israel, Israel! For some reason I suspect there is a slight anti-Semitism going on. Certain Christians are just plain tired of praying for Israel. They are "embarrassed" about Israel and all that is taking place now in the Holy Land! The way to crowd out Israel in our thinking is to bring the church forward in its importance in the kingdom. Israel will then be overshadowed! I have several sayings when I find people who "protesteth too much." They have an agenda, "what is their bottom line," etc. 

    I hope this helps, and, thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Heavenly Destiny vs Earthy Destiny

Dr. Couch, I am still confused about the issue of the "heavenly destiny" of the church vs. the "earthly destiny" of the nation of Israel in the kingdom period. Can you help? 
    ANSWER: Those who do not like this distinction have not read their Bibles very well. But too, remember they have an agenda to meld together somewhat the church and Israel. Thus they attempt to downplay the rapture and the fact that this is the next great event for the church. one of the "big" Progressive Dispensational teachers says that in his opinion the rapture is way down the list of important doctrines. With all due respect, there are over thirteen identifiable rapture passages in the NT! This does not make the doctrine a minor issue! (I have published a technical Greek booklet dealing with these passages of Scripture.) 

    The word "destiny" is possibly misleading. The words purpose, program, and function are best used to describe what is going on with the church and Israel. God has a distinct purpose and program for the church now. He has a distinct purpose, program, and function for Israel in the kingdom, even though the church will be there with the Lord. 

    This is a "big" subject that cannot be dealt with in this limited column. However, I urge you and every one reading this to study carefully: Acts 1:6-7; 3:18-on; 1 Thessalonians 1:10, and especially all that is written in Jeremiah 30-33. Observe, observe, observe. What does God say about the regathering of the Jews? What does He have for them in the kingdom? What is the kingdom all about? 

    Part of the problem today is that we have few scholars who will take the time to study with specific intensiveness to see what the Bible is saying. I just reread the first book published on Progressive Dispensationalism, and I am shocked at misquotes of Scripture. The quotes do not match up with what the authors are saying! 

    I hope this helps, and, thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Friday, March 23, 2007

What Are The "Seven Spirits" of Revelation 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6?

Dr. Couch, what are the "seven spirits" of Revelation 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6? 
    Answer: This was an abbreviated way of saying the seven aspects of the Holy Spirit as mentioned and prophesied in Isaiah 11:2. "The (1) Spirit of the Lord will rest on Him [the Messiah], the (2) Spirit [related to wisdom] and the (3) Spirit [related to understanding], and the (4) Spirit [related to council] and the (5) Spirit [related to strength], and the (6) Spirit [related to knowledge], and the (7) Spirit [related to the fear of the Lord]. 

    Unger writes about this in his OT commentary: "The Holy Spirit in all His sevenfold fullness and blessing (Matt. 3:16; Rev. 1:4), because seven is the number of fullness and perfection, would rest upon [the Messiah] permanently, not merely come upon Him for temporary ministry." 

   I hope this helps, and, thanks for asking.

   Dr. Mal Couch

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Good Workbook to Teach Eschatology?

Dr. Couch, I am teaching a Sunday school class on Eschatology from the biblical perspective, which of course means biblical dispensationalism. I am using as a base Dr. Pentecost’s Things to Come, but I would like some kind of workbook that would have questions to facilitate discussion. Do you have any ideas? 
    Unfortunately, no, not exactly what you are looking for. I might suggest some other volumes that have questions at the end, though not all of the books I am mentioning do. I highly recommend the book of my good friend Dr. Paul Benware, Understanding End Time Prophecy. Also, my The Gathering Storm that is really selling well. (You can get copies through me.) I know many people are using Lewis S. Chafer’s Major Bible Themes. It has a lot of chapters dedicated to prophecy with questions at the end.
    For people to really understand prophecy they need to know that there is being fought a hermeneutical battle. The allegorists and amillennialists study with forked tongue, taking half the prophecies in Scripture literally, and the other half allegorically. My book Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics gets this all straightened out. Don’t stop studying "deeply." Most Sunday schools devote, emote, blab, and thinly pretend to be studying the Word of God. At our church the adult Sunday school is no different from the church service. Both services put forth the "teaching" of the Word and not the syrupy "preaching" that is going on today. People are tired of sermonettes for christianettes! 

    Hang in and teach the Word with zeal! 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Is The Antichrist Really Brought Back to Life?

Dr. Couch, it is good to know that there is at least one good dispensational "Bible Answer Man." My question, is the antichrist brought back to life or just appears to have died, but really did not (Rev. 13:3). 
     ANSWER:  Good scholars have mixed opinions on Revelation 13:3. Some refer to 5:6 where a vision of Christ the Lamb is given "as if slain." Now we know He was indeed killed as a sacrificial lamb, and the same Greek construction is used of the antichrist in 13:3. 5:6 reads: hos esphagmenon (perf. Pass. Part.)," as having been slain." 13:3 reads in the Greek kai mian ek ton kephalon autou hos esphagmenon eis thanaton (perf. Pass. Part). In 5:6 "into death" is left out. With the participial constructions in both passages, I see something that may make a difference. In 5:6 John sees Christ as a Lamb that now is alive, though bearing the appearance, even though living, with some image or sign that He had indeed died! There is some visual reminder to John that "as if slain" He now is living! 

    In both passages (5:6, 13:3) there is the comparative language word hos translated as if, if, something like, as, it seemed to be, etc. The NAS rightly translates 13:3 about the antichrist with "as if it had been slain." Walvoord takes the view that:
"it is significant that one of the heads is wounded to death but that the beast itself is not said to be dead. It is questionable whether Satan has the power to restore to life one who has died, even though his power is great."
    I lean to the position that this is an "appearance of death" but that he does not actually die. 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Do Reformed Theologians Take the Bible in a Literal, Grammatical, Historical Sense?

Dr Couch, I have always been told that the Reformed theologians took the Bible in a literal, grammatical, historical sense. They even claim they do in the areas of Bible prophecy. Is this true? 
    ANSWER:  Unfortunately, they often speak with forked-tongue and even with a tinge of dishonesty. Read Louis Berkhof’s section on prophecy in his book Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Baker, 1990), pages 148-154. I went "wow" when I first read it; Berkhof has it right, I thought! I can agree with almost all he says about interpreting prophecy. Then I found the statements where he tries to fool his readers. He writes the prophets in their prophecies "always centered in the Kingdom of God, or the work of redemption through Christ" (p. 149). 

    Gotcha! Berkhof just revealed his narrow and limited view of prophecy as all the Reformed guys do! The Kingdom of God is always about the millennial reign of Christ as so often mentioned in the Gospels. And that Kingdom is not simply about spiritual redemption, as important as that is. The Kingdom of God is about the one thousand years reign of Christ on the Davidic throne in the Holy Land! But of course Christ is the Redeemer who has the right to rule because He was obedient all the way to the death on the cross. 

    While Berkhof does not say so in his section of interpreting prophecy, he allegorized and "spiritualized" away the literal meaning of the Kingdom of God. This is sorry and deceptive interpretation. I wish I could believe that Berkhof was ignorant of what he did, but I am afraid that the Reformed and Covenant writers know exactly what they are doing when they re-write the literalness of the actual and historical second coming of Christ. But at the same time, claiming they take all of the Bible in a literal sense. They do not! Their (often) hidden allegorical interpretation is a satanic ploy to get rid of Christ’s return, in both the rapture and in His coming to restore the kingdom to Israel. 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Should Wives Submit to Their Husbands' Leadership In The Home?

Dr. Couch, the Southern Baptist Convention a few years years ago added to their doctrinal requirement for missionaries, that they agree that wives should submit to their husbands' leadership in the home. Is this true? And what do you think about this? 
    ANSWER:  Bible doctrine is absolute and authoritative for all believers in Christ. I believe, however, that a denominational or church "doctrinal statement" should address the biblical departures of our day. (The Conservative Theological Society doctrinal statement addresses current doctrinal issues, such as feminism.) Feminism has as an evil agenda: the destruction of the home and husband spiritual leadership in that home. Male leadership of the family has never meant bullying the wife or the children, though unfortunately that has happened all too often. The scriptural directive to men has always been about loving leadership and headship. 

    The Southern Baptist leaders a few years ago saw feminism creeping into the churches. They added this statement about the roles of husband and wife to stem the tide of liberal thinking. The statement was right, and it is biblical. 

    Many SB missionaries who graduated from secular universities, and liberal seminaries, could not stomach such a biblical stance and left the mission field. In my opinion that was good. I want the people being reached for Christ to know the "full council of God" on all doctrinal issues. They left the mission field, or were dropped from the mission board. Now in Texas, the "moderates" are trying to get them back on the field and are funding this to happen. 

    Some years ago Dr. W. A. Criswell told me, that among Texas Baptists, the word "moderate" was another term for liberal! He was right. He saw all of this coming into the SB convention before he died. 

    In a big denomination the people ultimately sell their discernment souls to the devil. They compromise their beliefs for unity. Unity must be built on the plain teaching of the whole Bible. on the issue of the home and the distinct roles of husband and wife, whatever happened to the following verses of Scripture?
  • God made the woman to be "a helper suitable" for her husband (Gen. 2:18).
  • "Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the wife" (Eph. 5:22-23).
  • The "holy women" also, being submissive to their own husbands. ... Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord" (1 Pet. 3:5-7).
  • "Encourage the young women to love their own husbands, to love their children, ... being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored" (Titus 2:4-5).
    The problem is not that the Bible is not clear, it is that (1) many are not studying it, and (2) many feel its teachings are not for today. Secularism has destroyed obedience to Scripture. Some argue that the verses above were "cultural" in nature and don't fit now. A study of the contexts shows that most of the verses have a doctrinal base and not simply a cultural base. 

    I hate to be so simplistic but the issue is really about submission to Scripture. By the way, there are a ton of verses that tell how the husband is to treat his family in a positive and loving way, and, shows that he is not be a bully. 

    Mark my word, the SB convention will again move to the left. More and more men come through the pipeline of liberal universities and attend the elite seminaries that are also liberal leaning. Few seem to understand what is happening. 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Monday, March 19, 2007

Does 1 John 5:8 Have a Grammatical Problem?

Dr. Couch, it would seem that 1 John 5:8 has a grammatical problem. The words "Spirit, water, and blood" are neuter in gender, yet the pronoun and numeral "these three" is masculine. Is there a problem? Also I notice that the verse is not in the Textus Receptus. 
    Let me address the Textus Receptus issue first lest we spook a bunch of dear folks who do not know how textual work is really handled. The verse is not found in any reliable Greek manuscripts (MS) except in two very late cursives (number 162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, and number 34 cursive of the sixteenth century at Trinity College in Dublin.) The verse was not in Jerome’s Bible. A false spurious addition exists which reads: "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth." 

    Way back, a Latin scholar got a hold of Cyprian’s marginal textual notes and exegesis and embedded those notes into the Bible verses. This is how it got into the Latin Vulgate, and finally into the Textus Receptus. Erasmus then later translated the verse from Latin into Greek and inserted it into what would later be known as the Textus Receptus. (See A. T. Robertson’s discussion on this.) 

    However, to keep some from fainting who believe the biblical manuscripts are wrongly tampered with, our doctrine of the Trinity, and the work of Christ, are not in anyway destroyed by this one verse that may not be part of the inspired Word of God! 

    As to your grammatical question, if the verse should be left in our Bible, is there a problem with "these three" being masculine, with the three words being neuter in gender? No there is not. And no scholar of Greek grammar, such as myself, nor any others, would argue that there is. The Greek actually reads:

"And three [they] are the ones bearing witness continually (participle) in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three into the one (they) are."
    The participle "the ones bearing witness continually" would naturally be a masculine as part of the outflow of Greek grammar. There is no problem whatsoever in the structure. In fact, all grammarians note what is going on here and have no issue with the text.
    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Does Christ Appear on His Throne Prior to Revelation 20:11?

Dr. Couch, Acts 2:30-35 does not put Christ on His throne ruling today, does it? Is it incorrect to say that He is spiritually on the throne? Does Christ appear on His throne prior to Revelation 20:11? I am trying to get an amil friend to see the light and understand premillennialism. 
    Acts 2:35 is quoting Psalm 110:1. Christ the Messiah is now sitting at the right hand of God the Father. This is the Father’s throne in heaven. It is not the earthly millennial throne that will be set up in the Holy Land, in Zion (v. 2). Someday, from Zion, God the Father will cause Christ to rule over the nations and over His enemies (v. 2). Psalm 110:5 is interesting because, while the Lord Christ is now at God’s right hand, He will [in the future] from Zion shatter kings "in the day of His wrath. He will judge among the nations." 

    These literal concepts are repeated in Psalm 2. Christ applies all of these thoughts to Himself with His premillennial return to earth. He says: "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him. … Then the King will say, ‘Blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the earth’" (Matt. 25:31-34). 

    How could verses like this, and dozens and dozens of others, be taken in a spiritualized or allegorized way? Bible study is easy, but few are reading today and letting the text speak in a plain sense. 

    You need to get some auxiliary reference books that will help your friend put it all together. I suggest Paul Benware’s Understanding End Time Prophecy, and new book, The Gathering Storm. Quick answers, even those I give out here, will not help people put it straight. Men have to be thoroughly committed to read, study, pray over the text, and interact with good Bible students, such as yourself, in order to let the Word of God speak clearly. A simple suggestion: When looking at various Bible verses, get a yellow pad and write down all you observe in the text. Do the verses read allegorical or literal? Do other great passage back up what is being written? Men today are not studying systematically and orderly. They go brain dead when they look at passages and fail to analyze what the text is saying. I hope this helps! 

    Thanks for asking.

   Dr.  Mal Couch

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Door to Door Witnessing?

Dr. Couch, how would you interpret 2 John 10 about not receiving into your house, and greeting one who does not hold to "the teaching"? And, should Evangelical Christians do door to door witnessing? Is this today seen as "pressure" tactics? 
    Any method of spreading the gospel is legitimate, however any method may not always work, in every occasion, at all times. Times and culture change. It used to be that street evangelism would be effective but today this is not so. Some years back I was constantly begged to hold home Bible classes that were used for evangelism. They worked! I probably did over twenty years time about 200 classes in homes, with a total of many thousands who came, and with hundreds accepting Christ as their Savior. But today, you could not get ten neighbors to come to your house to hear God’s Word. I think personally the problem is a hardening of heart of our population. God is closing down America to the sound presentation of the truth. 

    I believe 2 John 10 is indeed about those who attempt to come to your house and present a "religious" message that is not about "the teaching of Christ" (v. 9). This would certainly include the cults. The point about not receiving them into your home and not giving them a greeting needs to be explained. I do not allow the cult folks into my house. The "greeting" idea is about giving one who comes to your door a warm welcome/greeting as a fellow brother. You can certainly say "hello"—that is not what John is talking about. But I then send the cult guy on his way and do not give him a hearing.

    I have tried in the past to use the moment to witness to cultic folks, but this rarely works. They come on the offensive and block out what you have to say. 

    Thanks for asking. 

    Dr. Mal Couch

Friday, March 16, 2007

What Is Your View of Genesis 6:2?

Dr. Couch, what is your view of Genesis 6:2? Do the "sons of God" refer to the fallen angels who cohabited with earthly women? And, can demons, fallen angels, take on human form? 
    In answering the first question, demons are spirits and can indwell but they do not materialize, though godly angels, the holy angels can. 

    All biblical scholarship and clear textual observation seems to go out the window on this issue of Genesis 6:2. People nearly take up pick axes to defend the fallen angel theory and cohabitation! But a look at all of the evidence is certainly called for. And the final verdict will not support the angel theory! There are two prevailing arguments: (1) the sons of God are fallen angels who cohabit with humans, or (2) they are the more godly descendants from the line of Seth (Gen. 5:6-32) as opposed to the more ungodly line of Cain (4:16-24). In Genesis 6, the two lines come together, watering down the human race spiritually and morally. This is the biblical view.

Fallen Angel arguments:

  1. The fallen angels "who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper abode" must mean the fallen angels crossed over from angelic form to cohabit with human women (Jude 6). They had to take on human sex form! The word "domain" is archen (arch) in Greek, meaning their "high position" and "proper abode" means in Greek there "own house-placement." My answer: This passage supports the idea that the evil angels fell from their heavenly abode but it does not support the idea that they cohabited with earthly women. The Jude text does not say this!

  2. "Sons of God, sons of daughters" (Gen. 6:2). "Sons of God" does indeed describe angels in Job 1:6. The term refers to the fact that God created the angels. They are His "sons" by creation but not in the sense of Christ who is THE SON of God by the sharing of the same attributes. In Job 1:6 they come before God "to present themselves." These must have been the good angels and not the fallen angels, though it is as if Satan came in "among them," though he was no longer of them! My answer: The argument is strong that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 could be angels, though it would stand to reason by the title that they were good angels, if angels at all! Why would good angels be cohabiting with women? A more godly line of humans (the biblical view):

The Godly Line Of Seth arguments:

  1. The sons of God "took wives" (Gen. 6:2) which has to do with long commitments, and not simply the act of having sex. Can you imagine their kids walking about saying, "Yes, my dad is a fallen angel!"

  2. The next verse (v. 3) indicates that God is not angry because there was cohabitation between so called "fallen angels" and women but because the moral and spiritual goodness of the Seth line is broken and God’s "Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh," i.e., the whole race of human beings, not half breeds! The children being born would not simply be "flesh" if there is angelic cohabitation. They would be "spirit-flesh" or half/breeds!

  3. The Cain line is described as more materialistic and evil, over the Seth line. (1) Cain fled the "presence of the Lord" and went to the land of Nod (place of wandering) (4:16). A grandson, Lemech, was the first polygamist (v. 19). This line produced those who were very technical and mechanical but not spiritual (vv. 20-22). Lamech was outspoken and very aggressive (vv. 23-24).

  4. It was with the line of Seth that men began to call upon the Lord (v. 26). Enoch had Methuselah who lived the longest probably because of his godliness (5:27). Enoch was taken directly to the Lord without experiencing death (v. 24). Noah, meaning "comfort" comes from this line of Seth because God blessed the Seth line with rest from their work (v. 29). It would make better sense then that by CONTEXT, the Seth line (the sons of God) cohabited with the Cain line (the daughters of men) and the race was polluted.

  5. The word "Nephilim" actually means from the verb "naphual" in Hebrew "to fall upon," meaning that this is an aggressive people. The word "giant" (as tall) was first used in 6:4 in the LXX and may not really reflect the meaning of the word. In 6:4, the word Nephilim does not refer to the sons of God and the daughters of men. The word Nephilim is used separately and apart from "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men."

  6. It must not be forgotten that Christ made it clear that angels could not be sexual; they are sexless (Matt. 22:30).

  7. The next time the word Nephilim is used is in Numbers 13:33. The report from the spies said that in the land there "we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight." Notice that in no way does the passage say that these men were giants in actuality. To both parties, the sons of Anak, and to the Israelite spies, they BOTH FELT like the other was overwhelming. But you ask, what about verse 32 where it says that "all the people we saw in [the land] are men of (great) size"? Does this not sound like giants? Notice it says ALL THE PEOPLE. The point is that the folks in the land appeared daunting but not simply tall! Even the Israelite spies seemed "daunting" to the people who lived in the land! one cannot make the Nephilim here the same as in Genesis. And besides, the Nephilim here in Numbers 13:33 are the children of Anak. They are not the same ones as introduced in early Genesis. If so then the Nephilim must have skipped several generations (who were a combo of angels and men) and then popped up again.

  8. Unger, who believes the Nephilim in Genesis 6 are giants and a mixture of angels and men, skips the issue in Numbers 13:32-33. He simply says "Unbelief not only occupies itself with the difficulties, but magnifies and exaggerates them, so that spiritual defeat (Rom. 7) rules out victory." (Unger, Commentary, p. 202)
    Finally: The Scofield Reference Notes, written by some of the most respected scholars, agrees with me. They write: "Angels are sexless (Matt. 22:30). The words ‘took wives for themselves’ (Gen. 6:2) signify a lasting marriage, the reference has to do with the breakdown of the separation of the godly line of Seth by intermarriage with the godless line of Cain. [This view] holds that the expression ‘sons of God’ refers to all the godly, and ‘daughters of men’ to all the ungodly, irrespective of their natural paternity." 

    Thanks for asking.

   Dr. Mal Couch

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Does Acts 2:44 Support Communism?

Dr. Couch, does the "all things in common" passage of Acts 2:44 support the Communist idea of community sharing of goods? 
    Of course not. The passage goes on and explains that they were selling their goods in order to give to those that "might have need" (v. 45). The believers were ostracized by the general society, and along with this, there were a lot of poor people who were coming to Christ who had little. This is further described in 4:32-37. They pooled their goods for the "needy" (v. 34), and sold property with the funds and then "distributed to each, as any had need" (v. 35). If someone did not have a need he did not receive help! 

    The story of Ananias and Sapphira is part of this same context (ch. 5). The couple was judged because they lied about what they received from the sale of "a piece of property," implying that they were not forced to sell all they had, but only sold a portion of what they owned. Their sin was pretending to give all! They kept back some of the price, lied about it, but brought it to the apostles as if they were giving the full amount. 

    In the Scriptures individual capitalism (if you like) was the norm. The ideal woman in Prov. 31 had her own business and generated profits. Paul tells the lazy in 2 Thess. 3:12 to "work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread," and "if anyone will not work, neither let him eat" (vv. 8-10). 

    The sharing in early Acts was for a specific moment in the early church and was not the norm. 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Does Yom (day) in Genesis 1 Really Imply a Day?

Dr. Couch, does yom (day) in Genesis 1 really imply a day, a twenty-four hour day, as we now understand it? 
    Remember the two cardinal rules of Bible study that we drill into the heads of our students: Context, context, context, observation, observation, observation! As the author of Genesis, Moses used very clear language to tell us these days are what we see today. Oh yes, the revolution of the earth may have been a little different (say 23.6 hours per day) but the idea is basically a full revolution as we now know it. 

   How can we escape the obvious when it says in Genesis 1, for example, "And there was evening and there was morning, a second day" (v. 5, 8, etc.)? 

   We all have a thousand questions about the creation story that God did not wish to reveal to us. In one sense, the details are unimportant. This is why the creation story is compressed, abbreviated, with details left out. That the universe was created ex nihilo is what is most important. The Scriptures then get to the point quickly about the unique creation of man, and the story of the Fall. 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Who are the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11:3-12?

Dr. Couch, who are the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3-12? I have heard Elijah, Moses, Enoch, or simply two contemporaries at that time. What do you think? 
    Some have said they are Elijah and Moses because of the power they have to perform miracles. It is said in verse 4 that they are like two olive tress and two lampstands with this symbolism going back to Zechariah 4:3. In that context, the two olive tress represented, in the setting of Zechariah, the anointed ones: Zerubbabel and Joshua. 

    No one knows who the two witnesses are. We have to be content with the passage as is. We will find out in time their identity! 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Monday, March 12, 2007

Was Graham W. Scroggie a Dispensationalist?

Dr. Couch, was Graham W. Scroggie a dispensationalist? 
    Scroggie (1877-1958) had been an English pastor; and was trained at Spurgeon’s Pastors’ College. He taught throughout the English-speaking world. He was well known at the well-attended Keswick Conferences. His best known work in America was The Unfolding Plan of Redemption. 

    Scroggie had a good grasp of Bible history past but did little in unfolding the plan for the future. Whether he was a dispensationalist—I am sure he was not—after I reviewed his published material. He did make some positive premillennial statements such as: 

    “Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones is the graveyard of the Jewish nation. They will be returned to the land and restored to favor with God and have a restored national unity as if resurrected from the dead.” He added that Ezekiel and the book of Revelation were working towards the same center. He said, “There are many references to the Messiah King who is yet to come, and who will establish a kingdom which shall be universal and abiding.” 

    Yet on the book of Revelation he seemed confused. He saw what he wrongly thought was truth “in the preterist, historicist, and future positions.” This is of course impossible and an intellectual compromise as to how Revelation goes together. He came down on a historicist position when he wrote: “It may be that prophecy being slowly unfolded in the long course of history will be, in all its essential features, rapidly fulfilled within a strictly limited period at the end of the age.”—whatever that means! 

    You can read more in my article on Scroggie in my award winning The Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (450 pages, hardback, Kregel). You can have it sent to you and signed by me by sending a $19 donation to Scofield Ministries. It contains hundreds of articles on key Bible teachers, premillennial/dispensation subjects, and historic analyses on issues of theology and prophecy. Some fifty-six outstanding prophecy scholars contributed to this volume. Do not order this book if you are an allegorist and make mushy all of the great passages of Scripture that point to a literal rapture of the church, worldwide tribulation, and 1,000 year earthly reign of Christ in Jerusalem. You will end up a premillennialist! 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn a Christian?

Dr. Couch, was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn a Christian? 
    I believe without a doubt he was. He had been imprisoned by the Communist for years in their Siberian Gulag for speaking out against their regime. He wrote heavily when he was released. Below are some interesting quotes from his book The Solzhenitsyn Reader (1983). 

    “When I was a child I remember hearing a number of older people offer the following explanations for the disasters that fell on the Russian people [60 million died in the Russian Revolution; 20 million died in WW II]. ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why these things have happened!’ What I know of history I could not put it more accurately.”
    “Imperceptibly, through the decades of gradual erosion, the meaning of life in the West has ceased to be seen as anything more lofty than the ‘pursuit’ of happiness. People in the West consider it embarrassing to appeal to eternal concepts. Yet it is not considered shameful to make daily concessions to an integral evil. The West is ineluctably slipping toward the abyss. Western societies are losing more and more of their religious essence as they thoughtlessly yield up their younger generation to atheism.”
    He wrote this almost 25 years ago, and since, we have embalmed and buried Western civilization as we know it. We are now waiting for the wrath and the judgment to fall, as we know it will! 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Saturday, March 10, 2007

King James Only?

Dr. Couch, what is the issue behind the King James Only controversy? I often use the NASB yet the KJO crowd says this is not good. What do you think? 
    What is behind this controversy is raw ignorance and fear. They do not have a clue as to how our NT comes together. The issue is really not complicated though it would take too long to try to explain it all here.

    I was blessed to study in graduate schools under the best of Greek professors at some of the best Evangelical institutions in America at the time. We had to go through this entire issue textually and historically. Unfortunately, the KJ guys just keep propagating their ignorance and keep looking for liberals under every rock! 

    If it is still available check with the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute. Some years ago he was selling two VHSs with a panel and a debate on the subject. I knew almost all “the good and intelligent” guys. They were my personal friends. I also knew one of the KJ guys—while he is a nice fellow, he really lost badly in the discussions on the tapes. In fact the KJ guys had such bad arguments I really felt sorry for them! 

    Be prepared to fall out in the floor over the silly arguments the KJ guys come up with. Their fears and ignorance is so obvious, you will get sick laughing at what they have to say. 

    This is all I want to say except to some KJ folks: Get a life and get educated! (By the way, they will use what I just wrote against me. We who are “educated” are being fooled and are sucked in by liberal thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth!) 

    Thanks for asking.
    Dr. Mal Couch,

Friday, March 9, 2007

Is The Rapture The Second Coming?

Dr. Couch Is Hebrews 9:28 about Christ appearing a second time discussing the rapture of the church or His coming to reign? I am having trouble with this passage. 
    First of all many confuse what the message of Hebrews is all about, and too, who the audience is. Without question the letter was sent to a group of Christians, but the purpose was to use the letter as a polemic or an apologetic document for the Jews who knew of Christ but had not accepted Him as their Messiah and Savior. There is no way the book was written to keep wayward Jews from falling back! This won’t fly. Why do you think the early church called the book "The Letter to the Hebrews!"? And why do you think it was accepted late in the canon? Because the early church could not figure the book out. They tried to make it a normal letter like those of Paul and Peter. Hebrew 9:28 reads: "So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." The "second time" is related to the "first time." The first coming was literal, actual, physical, and historical. The second appearance will have the same qualities: literal, actual, physical, and historical. In the rapture His feet do not touch the earth. The church is caught up to Him (1 Thess. 4:17). "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord." 

The rapture is not the SECOND COMING! He does not appear on earth! The word "appear" in 9:28 is the Greek word horao and it is in the Fut. Pass. Ind. verb form, translated: "He in the future will be made visible." Interestingly, the Greek simply says "He in the future will be made visible OF THE SECOND." The Jews reading this knew He had come THE FIRST. Conclusion: This is not the rapture! And, the rapture would have nothing to do with these unsaved Jews. Besides, the rapture of the church is never called "the second coming" or THE SECOND! But the author of Hebrews had thoroughly documented His first coming, and its meaning, i.e., He came to save! They completely understood that His second coming was to reign! 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Thursday, March 8, 2007

What is Your View of Mother Teresa?

Dr. Couch, what is your view of Mother Teresa? 
    Only God will be the final Judge of her salvation, but from all of the evidence, it is doubtful that she trusted Christ alone as her Savior. It is a fact she taught that suffering in death for the poor opened the door for heaven. In other words, suffering was a work for redemption. Most Catholics believe Christ is a Savior, but the Church does the work of salvation for the individual. The emphasis on personal faith in Christ alone is not taught. While all can admire her work of charity, charity does not save! 

   Thanks for asking.

   Dr. Mal Couch

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Did Christ Inherit Any Physical Characteristics from Mary?

Dr. Couch, did Christ inherit any physical characteristics from Mary? Is the sin nature passed on through the man, but not the mother?
    Since Christ inherited His humanness through Mary, more than likely He had physical features from her, though the Scriptures do not tell us that. In God’s providence the virgin birth somehow played a role in the fact that Christ did not take on sin through her humanness. Maybe this would demonstrate that the sin nature is passed down through the father and not the mother! I do not believe anyone can fully explain the mechanism of how this worked. The Bible says God "made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf …" (2 Cor. 5:21). He was tempted "yet without sin (or sinning)" (Heb. 4:15), and He was a high priest "holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners" (7:26). Peter quotes Isaiah 53:9 and says He "who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth" (1 Pet. 2:22).

    The angel told Mary that within her, from the Holy Spirit, and from the Most High, was "the holy offspring (thing)" that will be called "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). "Offspring" is used though it is not a masculine in gender. The point is that there was going on a total "holy" happening in her womb which would bring forth the Son of God! Because Christ would be perfect and holy, Psalms 16 calls Him the Holy one. This is quoted by Peter (Acts 2:25-28). 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Tuesday, March 6, 2007

Does the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination Differ from the Islamic View of Predestination?

Dr. Couch, does the Reformed doctrine of predestination differ from the Islamic view of predestination? And what about Islamic fatalism? 
    The doctrine of predestination did not begin with the Reformed movement. It may have been further explained and fleshed out, but it was a doctrine of the church well before Augustine. Augustine taught it along with the sovereignty of God. Many Catholic divines of the Middle Ages, who I believe could have been born again, also expounded on it.
    Muslims get their views of the absolute sovereignty of God from both the Old and New Testaments. (Is it not strange that the Muslims believe this but many Evangelical Christians do not!) 

    Remember that the Koran is a blender full of truths and half-truths from our Bible. Islamic fatalism is different from the sovereignty of God in the Bible, in that our Scriptures speak of a plan that has distinct purposes in it. Salvation to the Muslim is very capricious and uncertain. It is based on works and an uncertain hope that Allah will be capriciously gracious—though they will never know they will get to heaven until passing through the judgment for their works. Our Bible gives absolute certainty of salvation by faith in Christ. This would be foreign to the Muslim. While some Muslim sects have animal sacrifices they are not as an expatiation for taking care of the sin issue that separates man from God. only Christianity really addresses the issue of human sin and the love of God for the sinner. 

    Our Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit "intercedes for the [Christian] saints according to the will of God" (Rom. 8:27) and that God "causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose" (v. 28). This kind of language is foreign to the Muslim. 

    By the way, some years ago I asked an Iranian engineer to tell me of any prophecies that were in the Koran. He looked puzzled and could not answer. I told him that this was one of the big differences between Islam and Christianity. Our Bible has thousands of prophecies with about half that have already come to pass. He could not name one from the Koran! 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Monday, March 5, 2007

What is the Difference Between a Pentecostal and a Charismatic?

Dr. Couch, what is the difference between a Pentecostal and a Charismatic? 
    Some of the differences have to do with practice and not doctrine. The Charismatics are "modernized" Pentecostals. The Jim Bakkers had a Pentecostal heritage but "came out of the closet" with Tammy Fay wearing make up and dressing extremely flashy. Many Pentecostals still believe in no makeup and dress in sackcloth and ashes! Doctrinally they are the same as far as I can tell. However, the Pentecostals really dislike the teaching that you can materialize what you want to just saying it. The name it and claim it thing! 

    I had a distant relative who was Pentecostal, who disliked Charismatics. He thought they were too showy. He felt if he sinned he would lose his salvation. He lived constantly in fear, studied the Bible only on the surface because he repudiated "the learning" of the Scriptures. I was influencing him and believe he was changing doctrinally. In a short time he would have given up his false tongues speaking, but he passed away before that happened. It was a terrible thing to see how shallow he was in terms of scriptural study. They all are. He had a lot of problems in his life, which they all do, though they try to deny this lest they lose their salvation. 

    Two of the best Bible teachers in America were charismatic, whom I will not name. They both have authored many, many books. You would know the names right off if I mentioned them. Before I met them they had given up their tongues speaking. I asked them why and they answered, "Because of the study of the Word of God. They saw what we were doing was wrong, was emotional and not biblical!" Sitting around the dinner table they would "speak" in tongues to show how they could turn it off and on at will! 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch,

Sunday, March 4, 2007

Are the Arabs Descendants of Ishmael?

Dr. Couch, Are the Arabs descendants of Ishmael? 
    The Arabs in the Middle East today are a mixture of many peoples, but there are three groups that play heavily on the biblical texts. Yes, they would include far descendants of Ishmael (Gen. 17:20-27), but also the sons of Esau (25:24-on) and Abraham’s later sons from his wife Keturah and his many concubines (25:1-6). Nearing death, Abraham became guilty and fearful about the many sons from the concubines. The Bible says that "Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the east" (v. 6). 

    All of these children were not of the covenant through Isaac and Jacob and his sons. This is partly why there is war today in the Middle East over the Jews, and over the Promised Land. Abraham’s family mistakes have to a degree brought about competition, envy, and jealousy. 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Saturday, March 3, 2007

Same Sex 'Romantic Love'?

Dr. Couch, I saw on this website comments about homosexuality and wondered if you consider all things 'same sex' a sin, even same sex romantic love? 
    The Christian authority on all moral and spiritual matters is God’s Word, not the word of man. The Bible is the authoritative Word from the God of creation. It is He who says that homosexual relations are immoral and constitute aberrant behavior. The homosexual community likes to talk about different life styles. Homosexuality is not a different life style. All humans exist pretty much the same. Homosexuality is about a foreign and different sex style that violates even basic biology, much less the commands of God. 

    Sex, man to man or woman to woman, is not romance, and it is God who determines what true romance is, not human beings. It is God who has said, "a man (not a woman) shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife (not a him); and they (male and female) shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24-25). "Become one flesh" is more than romance and emotion, it is the union between two who are sexually interactive, not sexually the same. 

    All the men of Sodom, young and old, wanted to have "relations" with the two angels who came to Lot. The city, "this place," was polluted by the immorality of the people. The angels said, "the Lord has sent us to destroy" the city. The entire region was destroyed because it had become so spiritually tainted (Gen. 19). The Mosaic Law too, given by God, is against homosexuality. 

    The authoritative word from the Lord is that He is against the man who plays the feminine role in the homosexual relationship, the one who is "effeminate" (the soft one) and against the homosexual who plays the male part, the one who takes another man to bed (1 Cor. 6:9). The Greek word for homosexual is "arsenokoital" which means "man/bed." No more vivid description could be given! 

    It does not matter what the world, the culture, tells us is okay. It is God who sets the standard. And it is God why says we are all sinners, straights and homosexuals, who need a Savior. Christ died for all of our sins, and we can be liberated by just trusting in His sacrifice at the cross for our evilness. God loves all people, but all must be honest about their sins, and accept the painful death of Christ in place of us, the sinners! 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Friday, March 2, 2007

Evidence for Inerrancy?

Dr. Couch, what do you think is the greatest evidence for the inerrancy of the Bible? 
    That is easy! What the Bible says of itself, and the fact that there is prophecy (The telling of the future) from God Himself in almost every book. The Bible on the average of every page, says three times something parallel to: "This is the Word of God!" And fulfilled prophecy is also a sign of God’s inspiration but also inerrancy in that exactly what He said came to pass. If the Bible is inspired it is inerrant. God would not give us a lying message or faulty prophecies. He cannot lie! 

    Inerrancy means that the original message is without error. Some wrongly argue, "Well, we don’t have the original Bible." The best of NT scholars say we have (what was copied and re-copied) about 99% of what was written by the apostles, and about 97% of what was written by the OT prophets. 

    Remember that inerrancy extends to both the larger message but also to the parts, to every single word in Scripture. The Lord told Jeremiah to write "all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. Do not omit a word" (Jer. 26:2). He said to Israel, "Listen to the words (plural) of My servants the prophets" (v. 4). Again: "And I will bring upon that land all My words (plural) which I have pronounced against it, all that is WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK, which Jeremiah prophesied against the nations" (25:13). 

    Inerrancy is one of my favorite subjects. My Th.M. thesis was on inerrancy! 

   Thanks for asking.

   Dr. Mal Couch,

Thursday, March 1, 2007

What About the Lost?

Dr. Couch, how should we respond to those who ask, "What about those who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ?" 
    We should answer scripturally. Before the lost person one is witnessing to, the issue is "Have you trusted Christ as your personal Savior?" Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. It is our responsibility to present the gospel; it is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring whom He pleases to saving faith! This is His world and His work. He is in charge! 

    Now deeper spiritual truth from Scripture will tell us why men do not accept the gospel, and why God has not sent the message to the entire world, which He has not! The world is in denial of God even by the evidence in nature (Rom. 1:18-32). Men are depraved (v. 28), never ever seeking after God (3:9-17), are children of wrath by nature (Eph. 2:3), followers of Satan (v. 2) and dead in their trespasses (vv. 1, 5). Dead men cannot get up and walk! And besides, the sin of Adam has been imputed to his entire race (Rom. 5:12-19). 

    Thus the lost who have never heard the name of Jesus will not be judged on the basis of their rejection or acceptance of Christ, but on the fact that they suppressed the truth (1:18), denied the evidence of Him (v. 19), and are now without excuse for their lostness (v. 20). They refuse to honor God (v. 21) and have become fools (v. 22). They refuse "to acknowledge God any longer" (v. 28). They practice the sins they see and "give hearty approval to those who practice" such sins (v. 32). 

    Remember what I just wrote above, your eyes may not wish to accept because you may be into humanism (wimpy sentimentality) and not strong virile hard truth that comes from the rock of Scripture! 

    You need my book Fundamentals for the 21st Century that has chapters on depravity.

    Thanks for asking. 
    Dr. Mal Couch