9/30/14

From Jim McGuiggan... Deism: Ancient & Modern (1)


Deism: Ancient & Modern (1)

Once upon a time it became fashionable to believe that humans evolved out of non-living materials and inch by painful inch they moved through protoplasm to organisms to sea creatures to amphibians to land mammals to full-blown humans. At first scientists rejected the idea but then (with a little help from stupid and insolent religious leaders) the notion took off. The theory of evolution—the transmutation of species—prevailed; but there were those who thought that God somehow guided the process upward. But as time went by that wasn’t received well in scientific quarters because there was nothing of a scientific nature that could prove it. The non-theists insisted that as far as science was concerned there wasn’t a God in sight.

You understand, they weren’t saying there was no God, only that if there was, there was no scientific reason to believe he was acting in the evolutionary process. As far as they could tell it was happening on its own. Scientists had begun to explain that the most amazing things were nothing more than "the way things worked". They spoke of "natural laws" and they were able to explain about orbits and magnetic fields, geological formations and the paths of comets, what infection was and the astonishing nature of "white" light. The persuasive power of their explanations increased when they were able to predict things (how did they know when Haley’s Comet would appear in the sky?) and they were able to demonstrate other things before your very eyes. They modestly insisted that they were only uncovering the truth about how things worked. They were demonstrating that physical reality included things too small to be seen with the eye but with it all they were demonstrating that you didn’t need God to sustain or guide the physical universe. The physical "laws" do quite well without his supernatural interference. Believers would say, flowers can’t make themselves and non-theist scientists would reply that that was the only thing they saw. Flowers kept making themselves.

Some very influential religious leaders took that seriously and then argued that it made perfectly good sense. The universe was like a giant clock and God was the clockmaker. A good clockmaker doesn’t have to keep messing with his clock to make it run right—he makes it, steps back and lets it tick away and it functions perfectly well without him. This became the view of many leading thinkers and it had real advantages. For example, your religion and your belief that God exists never came under threat. No one that owned a splendid grandfather clock expected to wake in the night to find that the clockmaker had sneaked into the owner’s house to adjust it. Just so, no one should expect God to sneak into his clock universe to tinker with it. No need to worry then that we couldn’t find proofs of his existence in the physical universe. It was all very simple and satisfying. Well...not quite!

That view of God put a real strain on the notion of prayer. Exactly how would that work if God does absolutely nothing in the world? What’s the point of praying if the clockmaker never "interfered" or adjusted things or related to the praying one?

It certainly put a strain on the notion of "miracles". If God created the raw material (including its "laws" which are part of raw material) and had nothing further to do with its operation, then he certainly didn’t come around tinkering with it, a miracle here, a supernatural nudge there, or a suspension or transcending of "natural law" elsewhere. He didn’t do that, so miracles had to go! Ooooh, but what of the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the resurrection, exaltation and coming again of the Christ? They all had to go!

And what of the Bible? Did God write that through humans? No, that idea had to go as well because that would be divine interference. And why not get rid of that notion, it was a troublesome matter anyway. More than that, given the clockmaker religion, it made good sense that the doctrine of divine inspiration should be dumped. Look, if man evolved then his intellect, views, culture, religion and values all must have evolved with him. The Hebrew-Christian Bible is the product of evolving humans and we can hardly expect those ancients to speak with the knowledge of Enlightenment scientists and thinkers. The Bible is pre-scientific and its religious claims and proposals reflect man’s general ignorance as well as his growth. So we can't depend on the Bible. When it tells us of a divinely guided history (say, from the election of Abraham through Israel’s election and on up to Jesus Christ) we have to recognise it for what it is—the beliefs of a pre-critical age that sometimes (not always!) talked nonsense. The cosmic clockmaker doesn’t do anything in the world so all talk about divinely guided history or divinely inspired Bibles is just so much ignorance.

And the claims that God produced floods, earthquakes, destroying winds, droughts and famines are all nonsense. Everyone now knew that God in his sovereignty (whatever that meant exactly) didn’t do such things. These were random events, just mindless happenings, they simply happened; no one caused them—least of all God.

Besides, as if more proof were needed, take a look at some of the claims the Bible makes. God ordered the slaughter of innocent children and their grandmothers? Who can believe that? What kind of God would take away a child’s grandmother—its favourite babysitter and playmate? Who would order the slaughter of witches and homosexuals and adulterers? What kind of God would claim he was raising up a fierce warrior nation to slaughter his (allegedly) elect people because they had grown tired of him and wanted to worship someone else? No, the Bible had to go and that was that.

For pity’s sake, we have to dump the Bible? Well...that was a hard pill for most people to swallow but what could they do? They wanted to hold on to Jesus Christ (or Moses) but there was nothing for it but to shape him in light of the established truth of religion and science. He became merely the finest man, a lovely human that cared for the oppressed and promoted gentleness and self-sacrifice even to the point of patiently enduring an unjust execution. And, of course, he's still dead. But his teaching was glorious—he taught us all to be nicer to each other and he confirmed what every gentle-woman or man knew in his/her bones was right and good—and knew it without divine revelation. But as far as the dogmas about him went, well they had to go. His astonishing claims, his insistence that only through him can the world have life, that he would judge the world—all that sort of stuff—that’s what his ignorant disciples claimed. He probably didn't make those claims; the disciples made them up.

So our clockwork religious leaders took from the Bible what they approved of and dumped the rest. The Bible wasn’t the judge of their views, they became the judges of the Bible. Of course they said the Bible was still the massive and throbbing centre of everything—especially since it was there that they came across Jesus Christ.

But when you insist on taking only what you think is worthwhile, people soon recognise who you really think is the massive and throbbing centre of everything.

The Age of Accountability by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1202

The Age of Accountability

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Calvinistic teaching claims that all humans have inherited a corrupt spiritual nature due to the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden. Due to this marred and perverse nature, the human heart is desperately deceitful, and man’s nature is evil. This doctrine generally is referred to as “total depravity.” Calvinists insist that “[e]vil pervades every faculty of his [man’s—DM] soul and every sphere of his life. He is unable to do a single thing that is good” (Palmer, 1972). He cannot do, understand, or desire the good: “[t]he corruption extends to every part of man, his body and soul” (Steele and Thomas, 1963, emp. in orig.).
Calvinism further maintains that, due to this inherited spiritual depravity, babies are born with a corrupt nature. Babies, therefore, are born depraved and, by definition, are in a “lost” state. The only way for babies to be saved is for them to be one of the elect—a predetermined few whom God arbitrarily decided to save while condemning all others. Hence, free will does not enter into the question of salvation. The Calvinist maintains that people cannot choose to receive salvation from God. They are in a lost condition due to their corrupt spiritual nature, and do not have the ability even to desire salvation, let alone to attain it.
While several lines of argumentation from the Bible can be advanced to refute the Calvinist’s viewpoint with regard to depravity, one in particular merits notice: the Bible’s teaching regarding the spiritual condition of children. Long ago, the prophet Ezekiel, after contrasting the behavior of a father with his son, stated unequivocally: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son” (18:20; cf. vss. 2-19). Jesus, Himself, demonstrated the spiritually safe condition of children when He stated: “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3). Adults must become like children if they wish to be saved! Children hardly can be spiritually depraved! Christ followed up this declaration with a comparable observation: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14).
Since all people are the “offspring of God” (Acts 17:29), they come into this world innocent of sin. That is why Paul, in pointing out that God preplanned to bring Christ into the world through Jacob rather than Esau, stated that the decision was made prior to the birth of the boys: “[F]or the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil” (Romans 9:11, emp. added). Likewise, God declared that the King of Tyre, like everyone else, had come into the world guiltless, but had become sinful due to his own choices: “You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you” (Ezekiel 28:15). If, at conception, God “forms the spirit of man within him” (Zechariah 12:1), why would anyone wish to insist that man’s spirit is, nevertheless, corrupt?
Another interesting realization is gleaned from Paul’s argumentation in Romans—a book unquestionably designed to expound the foundational premise of salvation available in Christ through the Gospel. In chapter seven, Paul contrasts the pre-Christian condition of the sinner with the post-cross availability of full forgiveness. The Law of Moses was, in fact, a tremendous law. It was authored by God Himself. It was specifically designed for the perpetual good of the people to whom it was addressed, i.e., the Israelites (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13). Like all law from God, it enabled people to recognize sin as sin (Romans 3:20; 7:7). In short, the law was “holy, and the commandment holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12). However, law did/does not contain within itself the ability to absolve those who violate its precepts. An outside force, one that is above and beyond the law, is necessary to rectify the effects of law infractions (i.e., sin). The Bible refers to this force as “propitiation” (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10) or “atonement” (Romans 5:11, KJV). Of course, this propitiation is the blood of Jesus.
As Paul expounded these spectacular spiritual realities, he imparted a significant truth regarding the innocence of children, i.e., their non-depraved status. Paul stated: “For apart from the law sin was dead” (Romans 7:8). He meant that prior to him becoming subject to the law, he was not guilty of any sin. He continued: “I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died” (Romans 7:9). When was Paul “alive once without the law”? The only time in a person’s life when he or she is spiritually alive in the absence of law is before he or she is a responsible, accountable adult. A person is not subject to the law of God until he or she is mature enough to understand and to be responsible for behavior. Here is the “age of accountability” to which so many have made reference over the years. Paul was saying that at the time he was a child he was “alive,” i.e., spiritually safe. But when he reached adulthood, and had to face the law’s assessment of his adult decision-making, sin “revived,” i.e., it sprang into existence in his life (see Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 53), “began to live and flourish” (Alford, 1852, 2:380), and he “died,” i.e., he became spiritually dead in sin. This “age of accountability” is not pinpointed in Scripture as a specific age—for obvious reasons: it naturally differs from person to person since it depends upon a variety of social and environmental factors. Children mature at different rates and ages as their spirits are fashioned, shaped, and molded by parents, teachers, and life’s experiences.
It is imperative that every person of an accountable mind and age realize the responsibility that exists. Current culture is characterized by a tendency to evade responsibility for one’s action. Lawbreakers blame parents, genes, and society for their actions. But if the Bible teaches anything, it teaches that every single accountable human being will one day stand before God and give account for his or her own actions. “For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ” and “each of us shall give account of himself to God” (Romans 14:10,12).

REFERENCES

Alford, Henry (1852), Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).
Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Palmer, Edwin (1972), The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Steele, David and Curtis Thomas (1963), The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

From Mark Copeland... Two Kinds Of Food (John 6:27)

                          "THE GOSPEL OF JOHN"

                        Two Kinds Of Food (6:27)

INTRODUCTION

1. Among the miracles of Jesus that attracted great attention was the
   feeding of 5000 with five loaves of bread and two fish - Jn 6:1-13
   a. Many came to believe in Him as the Prophet to come - Jn 6:14; cf.
      Deut 18:15
   b. Some wanted to take Him by force and make Him king - Jn 6:15
   c. People sought to follow Him - Jn 6:22,24-25

2. Jesus, who knew the hearts of men (Jn 2:25), perceived their selfish
   motives...
   a. They were interested only in the food, not what the miracle
      indicated - Jn 6:26
   b. Prompting Jesus to warn them about the food for which they labor
      - Jn 6:27

[The words of Jesus in our text (Jn 6:27) reveal there are "Two Kinds Of
Food", one that perishes and another that endures.  As we seek to apply
Jesus' admonition to our own lives, let's consider...]

I. THE FOOD WHICH PERISHES

   A. WHAT FOOD IS THIS...?
      1. Literally, it is the food we eat
         a. It quickly perishes, even with the benefit of preservatives
         b. It fails to satisfy for long, soon we are hungry and thirsty
            again - cf. Jn 4:13
      2. Figuratively, there are other "foods" which soon perish
         a. The food of human wisdom
         b. The food of folly
         c. The food of mirth and pleasure
         d. The food of great wealth and industrious labor
         -- Which Solomon found to provide no lasting fulfillment - cf.
            Ec 1:17; 2:1-2,3-11

   B. DO NOT LABOR FOR SUCH FOOD...
      1. This does not mean we are to make no effort to supply our needs
         a. A Christian is to provide for his family - 1Ti 5:8
         b. If a man does not work, neither should he eat - 2Th 3:10-12
      2. But that we not do so to the neglect of food which endures
         a. The "food" which perishes should not be our priority in life
            - cf. Mt 6:33
         b. A lesson that Martha needed to learn - Lk 10:38-42

[Sadly, many people expend much time, energy, and money for "food" which
soon perishes.  Jesus would have people direct their life's efforts
toward...]

II. THE FOOD WHICH ENDURES

   A. WHAT FOOD IS THIS...?
      1. In other texts, it is the Word of God
         a. By which man truly lives - cf. Mt 4:4
         b. Which Job treasured more than necessary food - Job 23:12
         c. Which David valued more than gold and fine food - Ps 19:10;
            119:72,103,11
         d. Which Jeremiah found to be the rejoicing of his heart - Jer 15:16
         e. Which causes rebirth, and endures forever - 1Pe 1:22-25
      2. In our text, it is Jesus, the Word of God
         a. Jesus, the Logos (Word) of God - Jn 1:1,14,18
         b. He is the true bread from the Father in heaven - Jn 6:31-35
         c. He is the bread of life who offers everlasting life  - Jn 6:
            47-51

   B. LABOR FOR THIS FOOD...
      1. Jesus must be the primary focus of our labors, in which we
         strive:
         a. To believe in Him, for therein is everlasting life - Jn 6:
            28-29,40
         b. To follow Him, for He has the words of eternal life - Jn 6:
            66-69
         c. To know Him, for that is eternal life - Jn 17:1-3
         d. To obey Him, for to those who obey He is the author of
            eternal life - He 5:9
      2. Are we laboring for the food which endures to everlasting life?
         a. Let Paul's attitude be our example - Php 3:7-15
            1) Seeking to know the Lord more and more
            2) Never content with our current understanding, always
               pressing further
         b. Let Peter's exhortation to diligence in growing in the
            knowledge of Jesus Christ set the standard - 2Pe 1:5-8;
            3:18
            1) Seeking to become like the Lord more and more
            2) Always abounding, always growing in grace and knowledge

CONCLUSION

1. Dear friends and brethren, for what "food" do you labor...?
   a. Is your focus in life on that which is temporary?
   b. Do you strive for that which cannot truly satisfy?
   -- If so, consider what Isaiah wrote 700 years before Christ came
      - Isa 55:1-4

2. Jesus is the true bread of life, the living water, who truly
   satisfies...
   a. He alone provides the hope of eternal life - Jn 6:40
   b. He alone offers the abundant life even now - Jn 10:11

Though written by Isaiah, these words may serve as the invitation Jesus
offers to all...

   "Why do you spend money for [what is] not bread, And your wages
   for [what] does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat
   [what is] good, And let your soul delight itself in abundance.
   Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live;
   And I will make an everlasting covenant with you - The sure mercies
   of David." (Isa 55:2-3)

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Gary... The reality of a rainbow...

From the NASA picture of the day...  http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
 
A Full Circle Rainbow over Australia
Image Credit & Copyright: Colin Leonhardt (Birdseye View Photography)
 
Explanation: Have you ever seen an entire rainbow? From the ground, typically, only the top portion of a rainbow is visible because directions toward the ground have fewer raindrops. From the air, though, the entire 360 degree circle of a rainbow is more commonly visible. Pictured here, a full circle rainbow was captured over Cottesloe Beach near Perth, Australia last year by a helicopter flying between a setting sun and a downpour. An observer-dependent phenomenon primarily caused by the internal reflection of sunlight by raindrops, the 84-degree diameter rainbow followed the helicopter, intact, for about 5 kilometers. As a bonus, a second rainbow that was more faint and color-reversed was visible outside the first.

Today is a day of humility for me. For something like 15 years, I have been going to the NASA website and viewing their picture of the day. I would estimate that I have viewed probably a thousand or more pictures of astronomical nature, but never, ever something like this. Frankly, I had no idea that rainbows were really ROUND!!!!  So, this picture is an eye-opener!!!!  As a frail representative of the human race, I think I know a few things and over time become convinced that some things are absolutely correct. And I am NOT ALONE IN THIS!!!  Consider Job: righteous in his own eyes and suffering, most of the book that bears his name concerns itself with arguments between human beings over the reasons WHY Job is suffering so.  But not all, for in the later part of this tale, Job interacts with God HIMSELF!!!  The following is a an excerpt from the exchange....
 
Job 38:1-41 NASB
(1)  Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
(2)  "Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?
(3)  "Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
(4)  "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding,
(5)  Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it?
(6)  "On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,
(7)  When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
(8)  "Or who enclosed the sea with doors When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;
(9)  When I made a cloud its garment And thick darkness its swaddling band,
(10)  And I placed boundaries on it And set a bolt and doors,
(11)  And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop'?
(12)  "Have you ever in your life commanded the morning, And caused the dawn to know its place,
(13)  That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it?
(14)  "It is changed like clay under the seal; And they stand forth like a garment.
(15)  "From the wicked their light is withheld, And the uplifted arm is broken.
(16)  "Have you entered into the springs of the sea Or walked in the recesses of the deep?
(17)  "Have the gates of death been revealed to you, Or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
(18)  "Have you understood the expanse of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.
(19)  "Where is the way to the dwelling of light? And darkness, where is its place,
(20)  That you may take it to its territory And that you may discern the paths to its home?
(21)  "You know, for you were born then, And the number of your days is great!
(22)  "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
(23)  Which I have reserved for the time of distress, For the day of war and battle?
(24)  "Where is the way that the light is divided, Or the east wind scattered on the earth?
(25)  "Who has cleft a channel for the flood, Or a way for the thunderbolt,
(26)  To bring rain on a land without people, On a desert without a man in it,
(27)  To satisfy the waste and desolate land And to make the seeds of grass to sprout?
(28)  "Has the rain a father? Or who has begotten the drops of dew?
(29)  "From whose womb has come the ice? And the frost of heaven, who has given it birth?
(30)  "Water becomes hard like stone, And the surface of the deep is imprisoned.
(31)  "Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, Or loose the cords of Orion?
(32)  "Can you lead forth a constellation in its season, And guide the Bear with her satellites?
(33)  "Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, Or fix their rule over the earth?
(34)  "Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, So that an abundance of water will cover you?
(35)  "Can you send forth lightnings that they may go And say to you, 'Here we are'?
(36)  "Who has put wisdom in the innermost being Or given understanding to the mind?
(37)  "Who can count the clouds by wisdom, Or tip the water jars of the heavens,
(38)  When the dust hardens into a mass And the clods stick together?
(39)  "Can you hunt the prey for the lion, Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
(40)  When they crouch in their dens And lie in wait in their lair?
(41)  "Who prepares for the raven its nourishment When its young cry to God And wander about without food?

Job 40:1-5 NASB
(1)  Then the LORD said to Job,
(2)  "Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it."
(3)  Then Job answered the LORD and said,
(4)  "Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You? I lay my hand on my mouth.
(5)  "Once I have spoken, and I will not answer; Even twice, and I will add nothing more."

Now, I couldn't answer all those questions of chapter 38 and I doubt anyone will ever be able to do so (let alone chapter 39).  Then God Almighty says a few more things to Job... and HE GETS IT; JOB IS INSIGNIFICANT AND CANNOT REPLY ANY FURTHER!!!!  Which is exactly the way I felt when viewing the rainbow above!!!!!  Like I said.... Today is a day of humility (and the joke is on me- and it is a joke in the ROUND!!!!). My prayer for today is that God will teach me what I really need to know- and do it GENTLY!!!

9/29/14

From Jim McGuiggan... Bible versions and ministers


Bible versions and ministers

It was in The Expository Times (1993, 105.1), in a book review, that J. R Watson said, "In earlier generations, the Bible was a living book, known and loved, familiar and treasured. I ascribe its loss not only to the secularization of our society but to other things: most obviously to the seemingly endless series of piddling new translations—New English, Jerusalem, Revised Standard, Good News, New International, Revised English—which come out of the presses year by year. Their very proliferation is self-defeating: now, instead of one text, which not everyone could understand but which everyone was able to remember, we have a polytext, which everyone can understand and no one can remember. Ichabod, as Ukridge said, Ichabod." [It took me a while to find the above but it was worth the trouble. That simply demands to be quoted.]

I think the fuss over versions is worth making and it's to our benefit that specialists, who have a genuine concern that "the word of the Lord" gets to people, speak up in critical assessment. I do get a bit exercised at those whose criticism amounts to nothing more than that the version under scrutiny doesn't support the theological views of the reviewer. There's little point in pretending that we don't know that Taylor's Living Bible and Peterson's The Message aren't much more than commentaries; but then that criticism can be levelled at all versions to some degree and some major versions to a great degree.

I would have thought that a new translation should be significantly different in certain ways from previous translations or there's little point in publishing it. If the boast of a new translation is accuracy then there's the implication that all the other versions are sufficiently wide of the mark in areas that really matter that the publishers felt compelled to bring out a new version. If the claim is that the English is "more up to date" then we have to ask ourselves if English speech has changed so radically over the past two decades that another full scale translation is required. Does anyone really believe that?

I have no special literary expertise so I'm not able to do much by way of criticism or praise of elegance or smoothness or flow or such things. I know the difference between sustained slang and chattiness and I know I prefer to read authors who know how to write recognisably good prose. But I think we can quickly make too much of a version's "majestic prose" and the aesthetic effect it can have on us. I'm not sure that the quality of expression [beyond avoiding a stiff woodenness on one end and chatty slang on the other)—I'm not sure that the quality of expression should be a major concern. Should we not want it to flow nicely, have an appealing rhythm and cadence? Yes, I would suppose we should aim for that but I think it's a secondary issue. I'm certain we'd all agree that first and foremost what we want, is to hear what Paul or Peter or Jesus or John said so we can wrestle with them and if we can get that in pleasing English, so much the better. Fine English literary qualities must surely matter but they must not be allowed to matter too much.
Still, no matter what version the people have in their hands, after that comes the matter of interpretation, proclamation and embodiment. It's possible for preachers to go on and on about the shortcomings of this or that translation after which they climb into the pulpit and paraphrase the life out of Jesus and his followers. Haven't I seen it countless times in my life? God forgive me, haven't I done it? Here's a preacher with his preferred version ("the only one worth having, one that renders the original perfectly in majestic English prose") reading the text and then "explaining" it without ever having really worked with it before he mounted the pulpit!   If a translation fell down out of heaven from God's printing press into everyone's lap we'd still be short-changed by teachers who are too lazy to develop the prophet's point or Matthew's point before enlisting them in support of his/her agenda.

I don't deny that there are hosts of us that are fervent Bible readers but I think we'd be fools not to recognise that the most of us depend on ministers of the Word for our understanding of what our preferred versions say. If scholars are depending on we the rank and file to know which version is best then their education hasn't given them a full quota of common sense. Between the word of the Lord and the rank and file stand those that minister the Word. God gave us a Bible but he also gave us teachers.

I think the quarrel over versions is a good quarrel when it's done by qualified and committed people but they can only do so much to save us from being deprived of the word of the Lord. After the preacher/teacher has given his judgement about the right version or "the best version" let him see to it that he gives the correct and faithful rendering a thorough listening to and a faithful delivery. If versions should be held accountable for delivering the word of the Lord to the people so should ministers.

I confess I have more fear of ministers than I have of versions.


The "Not" in the Devil's Tale by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1229

The "Not" in the Devil's Tale

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Someone coined the title of this article many years ago. They were referring, of course, to the incident recorded in Genesis chapter three where Satan coaxed Eve into eating the forbidden fruit by assuring her that if she were to do so, she would become like God (3:5). Though God had previously informed her through her husband that “in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (2:17), Satan boldly disputed such a directive by inserting the word “not” in the very same statement: “You will not surely die” (3:4, emp. added). He took precisely the same sentence that God Himself had uttered, and simply inserted the three-letter word “not.”
Contemplate the gall of Satan. Ponder the absolute audacity of the devil in his willingness to pervert the Word of God by the simple insertion of such a small, seemingly insignificant word. Yet that simple three-letter insertion into the sentence articulated by God completely reversed the truth of the matter. It made it appear as if the truth was the exact opposite of what God had actually said. It countermanded God’s Word on the matter and set in its place a falsehood that was in diametric opposition to God’s will.
Besides the devil, who would dare to do such a dastardly deed? Surely not those who claim to be Christians! Surely not preachers and teachers of the Bible! Surely, only those who deny the Bible, who reject it as uninspired and a mere concoction of humans, would so tamper with God’s Word as to negate a positive, unambiguous declaration of Scripture. Yet God did warn that even from among Christians would arise those who would distort, deny, and push aside His instructions. Jesus Himself warned: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15). Peter agreed: “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies…” (2 Peter 2:1). John added his voice of caution: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Paul claimed that even from among church officials, some would rise up and speak misleading things (Acts 20:30).
In view of these forthright words of warning and anticipation, one cannot help but be utterly amazed, even shocked, that so many who claim to be Christian have rejected the God-ordained role of water baptism in His redemptive scheme. The “faith only” perspective that was expounded during the Protestant Reformation, and has since permeated Christendom, displaced water baptism from its divinely assigned position. Rather than being the line of demarcation between the sinner and the saint, as the New Testament everywhere affirms, baptism has been relegated to an after-the-fact symbol—a post-conversion “outward expression” of the forgiveness previously achieved at the point of faith.
Though many New Testament verses expound the proper role of water immersion as intended by God, thereby weaving a consistent and harmonious picture throughout inspired Writ (e.g., Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38,41; 8:12,13,16,36-38; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:15,33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:5; 5:26; Colossians 2:12; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22), one is sufficient to demonstrate the absurd lengths to which so many theologians have gone to discount the biblical treatment of baptism: 1 Peter 3:21. In this verse, Peter announced very simply: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” (KJV, emp. added). The ASV words it: “which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism.” The NKJV has it: “There is also now an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism.” The NASB words it: “And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you.”
What have the majority of commentators, theologians, and church authorities done with this verse? They have danced, twisted, and turned in every direction to evade the unambiguous import of the verse. Since they previously embraced a false theory of salvation—i.e., salvation by “faith alone” without any further acts of obedience on the part of the believer—they have had to engage in hermeneutical gymnastics and exegetical hocus-pocus to avoid the force of these verses that pinpoint the place of water baptism. In short, they have been pressured into doing precisely what Satan did in his discourse with Eve. They have had to take a very straightforward, unmistakable statement by the apostle Peter and insert the same three-letter word that Satan himself inserted: “not.” “Baptism doth also now not save us;” “There is also now an antitype which now does not save us, namely baptism;” “And corresponding to that, baptism now does not save you.” The gall and unmitigated audacity that accompanies such tampering with Scripture will surely be shown in eternity to be no different from the ploy of Satan himself.

From Mark Copeland... The Insufficiency Of The Scriptures (John 5:37-40)

                          "THE GOSPEL OF JOHN"

             The Insufficiency Of The Scriptures (5:37-40)

INTRODUCTION

1. The all-sufficiency of the Scriptures is an important doctrine...
   a. For the Scriptures are completely adequate - 2Ti 3:16-17
   b. God has provided all that we need for life and godliness - 2 Pe 1:3
   c. We do not need further revelation, we have the faith delivered
      "once for all" to the saints - Jude 3
   -- Thus we have that which is able to build us up and give us our
      inheritance - Ac 20:32

2. Yet there can come a time... when the Scriptures are insufficient...
   a. When despite its power, the Word of God is unable to save
   b. When despite diligent study, it does not benefit those who search
      through it
   -- There can be a time when the Scriptures are insufficient!

3. We find such an occasion in the gospel of John...
   a. When Jesus was confronted by unbelieving Jews - cf. Jn 5:16-18
   b. Who had rejected various sources bearing witness to Jesus - cf. Jn 5:33-36

[In what serves as our text (Jn 5:37-40), we learn when and how the
Scriptures can be insufficient, as it proved to be in the case of the
Jews...]

I. HOW THE SCRIPTURES PROVED INSUFFICIENT FOR THE JEWS

   A. THEY DILIGENTLY SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES...
      1. As indicated in our text - Jn 5:39
         a. The KJV has Jesus commanding them to search the Scriptures
         b. The ASV, NKJV, NASB has Jesus acknowledging their study of
            the Scriptures
         c. "The form here can be either present active indicative
            second person plural or the present active imperative second
            person plural. Only the context can decide. Either makes
            sense here, but the reason given 'because ye think' (clearly
            indicative), supports the indicative rather than the
            imperative." - Robertson's Word Pictures
      2. The Jews were diligent students of the Scriptures
         a. Moses was read in the synagogues every Sabbath - cf. Ac 15:
            21
         b. "Hillel used to say, 'More law, more life...He who has
            gotten himself words of law has gotten himself the life of
            the world to come' (Talmud). In their zeal for the
            Scriptures the Jews had counted every letter of them,
            expecting to find life in the laws and precepts..."
            - McGarvey's Fourfold Gospel
      -- One could hardly be a more diligent student of the Scriptures
         than the Jews!

   B. YET THE SCRIPTURES DID NOT BENEFIT THEM...
      1. They were unwilling to believe in Him of whom the Scriptures
         testified - Jn 5:39-40
      2. Failing to believe in Jesus led to the Father's Word not
         abiding in them - cf. Jn 5:38
      -- Unwilling to believe in Him of whom the Scriptures testified,
         the Scriptures proved insufficient to be the Word of life for
         them!

[How sad that many Jews who had the benefit of receiving "the oracles of
God" (Ro 3:1-2) and studied them so diligently fell short of receiving
their true benefit.  Yet the same occurs often today...]

II. HOW THE SCRIPTURES CAN BE INSUFFICIENT FOR US TODAY

   A. WE MAY BE DILIGENT STUDENTS OF THE SCRIPTURES...
      1. Indeed we should be diligent students of the Word!
         a. The gospel is God's power to save - Ro 1:16
         b. The Word of God is living and powerful - He 4:12
         c. The Word is able to save our souls - Jm 1:21
         d. The Word is able to make one born again - 1Pe 1:22
         e. The Word is able to help us grow - 1Pe 2:2
         f. The Word is able to give us that inheritance among those
            sanctified - Ac 20:32
      2. Many people are diligent students of the Word!
         a. Every denomination has its scholars, people well-versed in
            the Word
         b. People read the Bible daily, study it in church frequently
         c. Some can even quote entire sections from memory
      -- Many are like the Berean Jews in their study of the Scriptures
         - Ac 17:11

   B. YET THE SCRIPTURES WILL NOT BENEFIT US...
      1. If we do not have faith - He 4:1-2
         a. We may come short of our promised rest
         b. Like the Israelites who fell in the wilderness
      2. If we are not doers of the Word
         a. If we are only hearers, we deceive ourselves - Jm 1:21-25
         b. If we are only hearers, we will not stand in times of trial
            - Mt 7:24-27
      -- Unless we believe and obey the Word of God , it remains
         insufficient to save us!

CONCLUSION

1. The Word of God is truly all-sufficient..
   a. To do the work God designed it do - Isa 55:10-11
   b. To bear fruit in the noble and good heart - Lk 8:11,15

2. Yet "people of the Book" (as the Koran calls Jews and Christians)
   should take heed...
   a. The Word cannot bear fruit in some hearts - Lk 8:12-14
   b. We must let the Word lead us to Him Who is the giver of life - cf.
      Jn 5:40

Indeed, "the all-sufficiency of the Word" must be understood in its
context, for the Word alone does not save.  To be saved we also need
faith (Jn 8:24), we need blood (Ep 1:7), we even need water (Ep 5:26),
the last being an allusion to baptism where the Word, God's grace,
Christ's blood and our faith comes together to provide remission of
sins! - cf. Ac 2:38; 22:16

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Gary... Blessings


While Linda and I sat drinking coffee this morning, our dogs came up to us looking for a treat.  While this is nothing new- still it made me think of something. Since they came to our home, both Linda and I laugh more; our home is a better place to live. And today I am filled with happiness; God has blessed me in so many ways, not just the physical ones, either.  You can't put a price tag on feeling positive towards the day before you, being in good health, smiling or laughing.  Life is more than the physical. And then there is the appreciation of what God has done and will do...

Matthew 6:25-34 NASB
(25)  "For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
(26)  "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?
(27)  "And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?
(28)  "And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin,
(29)  yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.
(30)  "But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!
(31)  "Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?'
(32)  "For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
(33)  "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
(34)  "So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
I thank God that for that little episode at the table this morning, and for the message of the graphic above.  More than these things, verse 33 has become even more meaningful for me along with the following verse from Ephesians...

Ephesians 1:3 NASB
(3)  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
I intend to spend some extra time in prayer today; thanking God for what HE HAS DONE IN MY LIFE.  I encourage you to do the same. Enough said!!!


9/27/14

From Jim McGuiggan... Approved or Tolerated?


Approved or Tolerated?

The Bible doesn’t supply and doesn’t pretend that it supplies every answer to every moral question we can raise. But it reveals God and comes to its greatest height when it reveals God in and as Jesus Christ. It does this in numerous rich ways and having done it the Bible urges us to work on that basis in answer to the question, "How then shall we live?" It provides the groundwork by which we can learn to "think theologically".

Leviticus 19 tells Israel to leave the edges of their fields for the poor but doesn’t define what constitutes an "edge". How are they to obey the call if they don’t know what an "edge" is? He concludes numerous verses with the motivational phrase, "I am the Lord your God!" But that’s more than motivation. It teaches them how to think of an "edge". Not with a measuring line or a dictionary. They will know what an "edge" means when they know who their Lord is. He’s the one that "brought you out of the land of Egypt." Bearing that in mind, when they come to harvesting they’ll not quibble and get as near to the edge of their property as possible. The issue isn’t settled by lexicons and logic, it’s by one’s experience with God and how that shapes our response to the neighbor.

It’s clear that the Bible tolerates things and we are seduced into thinking that that means those things are approved. To think this might not be sheer hardness of heart but it’s certainly ignorance. Pharisees saw "divorce for any cause" as approved and Jesus showed it was only tolerated and regulated. The notion that polygamy was approved in the OT is false—it was tolerated. And slavery is tolerated in both the OT and NT but it’s never approved. (More needs to be said about "slavery" and what the word means in numerous OT texts.) Concubinage is tolerated in the OT but never approved.

But since we in the West are not troubled with polygamy and concubinage we can shrug at all that. Now "slavery"—that’s another matter. It wasn’t very long ago that Western nations were using the OT to approve of slavery. (Let me repeat: in the OT, all "slavery" is not slavery.)
I want to make it clear that it simply isn’t enough to quote verses in support of our claims and conclude we have a right to practice the same or something similar.

Pharisees could quote Deuteronomy 24:1-5 and look back on fifteen hundred years of history and practice to support their divorcing their wives for what so often were trivial reasons. Jesus condemned their hearts and their behavior as "adulterous". I had a 20th century Western man argue with me his right to have more than one wife because the OT regulated (rather than outlawed) polygamy. It must have been okay because it was "regulated," he insisted.

The same thing is done to defend and support "our friend" the booze industry. Because people in the Bible daily drank intoxicating wine and because God is said to give wine as a gift to humans it’s immediately assumed that that means he would be pleased with our supporting the booze industry. [I won’t enter the discussion here about the generic nature of the biblical words rendered "wine" and "strong drink" or "beer". Another time perhaps.] But the very idea that naturally fermented wine or beer or "strong drink [as the Hebrew term is translated in English] is anything like the wines and beers or spirits the booze industry sells—that’s nonsense!

It doesn’t matter to me that tens of thousands of people can support the booze industry and themselves not get overwhelmed. Good for them! If they were all that mattered I suppose the matter wouldn't be worth discussing. But hundreds of millions of people—drinkers and those they affect—are put through purgatory by what the booze industry sells. There isn’t another "respectable" business under heaven that does the damage to a countless host of our struggling fellow-humans that comes anywhere near the ruin the booze industry generates.

We boycott all kinds of companies (from fur companies to soap to sauce) if we think they’re hurting animals or poor people in "sweat shops" and then we do what? We support and defend the worst plague on earth. And all because they drank intoxicating wine in the Bible and because Jesus made gallons and gallons of it [so we're told]. Well, there's more to it than that, isn' there! We prize our "freedom".

One of these days if we’re "lucky" we’ll come to see that the booze industry is against all we’re for and for all we’re against!

To interpret the Bible in the spirit of the Story as a whole requires more than lexicons, grammars and other exegetical tools. I understand for personal reasons that we don't always live up to what we know—my life has been littered with failures—and that's tragic. But our failure to live up to the best we know mustn't be used to lower the loving response to God that we see and hear in scripture.

God's heart, his purpose and his love for the human family seen climatically in the Lord Jesus is the best hermeneutical tool available to us [see Ephesians 5:1-2; Romans 15:1-3]. Each Christian will have to work this out within his/her own heart. But surely:

"I have the right..." [real or imagined] is not to be and will not be the last word about a host of things to those among us who reflect the heart and mind of God better than the rest of us.

The Assumption of Mary by Moisés Pinedo

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2696

The Assumption of Mary

by  Moisés Pinedo

The “Assumption of Mary” is one of Catholicism’s newest dogmas. Proclaimed by Pope Pius XII in 1950, in the papal bull Munificentissimus Deus, it is one of the most ambiguous, changeable, and confusing teachings of Catholicism. In fact, nobody can say exactly what Mary’s condition or circumstances were prior to her “assumption.” Soon after the introduction of this new doctrine, serious disagreement arose between Mariologists and Pius XII over whether or not Mary died, was resurrected, and then ascended to heaven, or simply ascended to heaven without dying. In spite of the Catholic claim that the pope speaks with “infallibility,” there is not yet consensus concerning the details of this dogma. Therefore, its advocates have taken the liberty of adjusting the details to better fit their developing ideas and traditions, and to make it more attractive to believers.
Although you may find many versions of Mary’s alleged assumption into heaven, one common idea, supported by Catholic tradition, is represented by the following description:
One day, when Mary, according to her custom, had gone to “the holy tomb of our Lord” to burn incense and pray, the archangel Gabriel announces her approaching death, and informs her that, in answer to her request, she shall “go to the heavenly places to her Son, into the true and everlasting life.” On her return home she prays, and all the Apostles—those who are already dead and those still alive—are gathered to her bedside at Bethlehem.... [T]he Apostles, carrying the couch on which “the Lady, the mother of God,” lay, are borne on a cloud to Jerusalem. Here Christ appears to her, and in answer to her request, declares: “Rejoice and be glad, for all grace is given to thee by My Father in heaven, and by Me, and by the Holy Ghost....” Then, while the Apostles sing a hymn, Mary falls asleep. She is laid in a tomb in Gethsemane; for three days an angel-choir is heard glorifying God, and when they are silent, all know that “her spotless and precious body has been transferred to Paradise” (Hastings, 1906, 1:683).
Many Catholics believe that Mary died before going to heaven (see “Did Mary Die?,” 1997, p. 11), but others consider her death an open question (see Mischewski, 2005). They have advocated that
Concerning Mary’s death the dogma is non-committal. It only says: “when the course of her earthly life was completed.”... As it stands now both opinions are acceptable and accepted: Mary’s death, resurrection and glorification as well as glorification at the end of her life without death (Roten, 2006, emp. added).
This doctrine is so “flexible” that it can work either way. However, this produces a dilemma since it is said that
the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, clearly and repeatedly refers to the death of the Virgin Mary. In no less than seven separate paragraphs this Apostolic Constitution refers, in one way or another, to the death of the Virgin Mary (Conte, 2006).
It is interesting that, according to some Catholics, the declaration of a supposedly infallible pope can be interpreted in two completely opposite ways. So, who has the final word concerning this and other Catholic topics? Who can say, with any degree of confidence, what one should believe?
The very fact that interpretations of this doctrine are so “flexible” makes it unreliable and incredible. In contrast, the Bible is very clear about those who left behind their earthly existence without experiencing death. Enoch “was taken away so that he did not see death” (Hebrews 11:5; cf. Genesis 5:24). Of Elijah, the Bible says that a “chariot of fire” took him without him seeing death (2 Kings 2:11). Equally clear details are given about Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (1 Corinthians 15:3-4; Acts 1:9). There is neither ambiguity nor the slightest hint that these historical facts are open to various interpretations.
A second reason why we should reject this Catholic dogma is its opposition to statements of Christ Himself. Speaking to Nicodemus, Jesus said: “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man” (John 3:13, emp. added). This includes everyone who has died, as well as those who were taken by the Lord and did not taste death. Again, Jesus taught that those who die go to a place called hades—a place of waiting for the Final Judgment (Revelation 20:13-15) that is independent from heaven and hell (Luke 16:19-23). In John 14:3, Jesus promised His disciples, “And if I go [to heaven] and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” When the time comes for His return, Jesus will keep His promise and open the doors of heaven for all those who have obeyed Him (cf. Matthew 25:31-46). But, since He has not yet returned, we conclude from the Scriptures that none of His disciples have been taken to heaven, not even Mary.
A third reason why we should reject the dogma of Mary’s assumption is its opposition to other related biblical doctrines. Concerning the Second Coming of Christ, Paul wrote that the resurrection of the dead will occur “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:52, emp. added). In contrast, the doctrine of Mary’s assumption into heaven implies that she has already undergone a transformation of her body into a glorious state. It should be obvious that it is impossible to reconcile the Catholic tradition of Mary’s assumption with the biblical doctrine of resurrection.
A fourth reason to reject this doctrine is that the New Testament does not record the ascension of Mary. Some Catholics have proposed that it is implied by the Bible since Mary’s death is not recorded. This reasoning fails to acknowledge that the Bible does not record the deaths of many people, including John, Mark, Paul, and even Pilate. Does this mean that these people (and many others whose deaths are not recorded in the Bible) ascended to heaven? To argue in this way is to argue from the silence of Scripture. To establish a historical, biblical truth, we should turn our attention from what the Bible writers did not record, to what they did record.
By the time the New Testament books were written, the alleged Assumption of Mary would have occurred. However, not one New Testament writer gives even a hint of this event’s occurrence. If this doctrine is so important (as Catholicism claims), why was it excluded from the New Testament? If Jesus promised that the apostles were going to be guided into all truth and were going to declare all of the truth of God (John 16:13), why did they not record this “significant truth” about Mary? If the Bible records the “ascensions” of Enoch and Elijah, why does it not also record Mary’s? The simple answer is that the “Assumption of Mary” never occurred; it was created by minds focused on traditions, not truth.
The papal bull of 1950 further declared that “if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined [the “Assumption of Mary”—MP], let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith” (Munificentissimus Deus, 45, emp. added). But if this dogma is so important—to the point that those who do not believe it are condemned—how do Catholic clergy and theologians explain the fact that most mainstream Catholics lived for approximately 1,400 years in ignorance of this dogma? Were the Catholics, including the popes, who lived before its declaration by Pius XII (1950), saved in their ignorance of the “Assumption”? If they did not need this “truth” for salvation prior to 1950, why do they need it now?
There is no doubt that Mary was a special woman, but just like every other human being, she lived in a world regulated by an established principle that affects all of us: “It is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27, emp. added). Mary, at the end of her earthly journey, crossed the path from life to death and met all those who “sleep” in Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:13-14). Like them, and us, she is waiting for the Final Judgment, when the doors of heaven will open for all those who have done the will of the Father (Matthew 25:31-46).

REFERENCES

Conte, Ronald L. (2006), “A Summary of the Doctrine of the Dormition,” [On-line], URL: http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/dormition-summary.htm.
Hastings, James, ed. (1906), A Dictionary of Christ and the Apostles (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Mischewski, Dean (2005), “The Assumption of Mary into Heaven,” [On-line], URL: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_assumption.html.
“Did Mary Die?” (1997), Catholic News, August 13, [On-line], URL: http://www.catholic.org.sg/cn/wordpress/?p=1791&page=1.
Munificentissimus Deus (1950), [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM.
Roten, Johann (2006), “What about Mary’s Death?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.catholicweb.com/media_index.cfm?fuseaction=view_article&partnerid=48&article_id=2768.

From Mark Copeland... All Should Honor The Son (John 5:16-30)

                          "THE GOSPEL OF JOHN"

                   All Should Honor The Son (5:16-30)

INTRODUCTION

1. The ministry of Jesus was not without controversy...
   a. One reason was because He healed on the Sabbath - Jn 5:16
   b. Another reason was because He made Himself equal with God - Jn 5:17-18
   -- Prompting the Jews to seek to kill Him

2. Yet He they sought to kill, they should have honored - Jn 5:22-23
   a. Even as one should honor the Father
   b. For failing to honor the Son, they did not honor the Father who
      sent Him
   -- Indeed, all should honor the Son!

[Do we honor the Son today?  Truly honor the Son?  We certainly should,
and in our text we note several reasons why Jesus should be held high in
our estimation of Him...]

I. WHY WE SHOULD HONOR THE SON

   A. THE SON WILL RAISE THE DEAD...
      1. Among the "greater works" Jesus would do included raising the
         dead! - Jn 5:20-21
      2. We have record of Jesus raising three people from the dead
         a. The daughter of Jairus - Mk 5:21-43
         b. The son of the widow of Nain - Lk 7:11-17
         c. The brother of Mary and Martha, Lazarus - Jn 11:1-44
      3. One day, Jesus will raise all from the dead! - Jn 5:28-29
         a. Those who have done good, to the resurrection of life
         b. Those who have done evil, to the resurrection of
            condemnation
      -- Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive!
         - cf. 1Co 15:22

   B. THE SON WILL JUDGE THE WORLD...
      1. The Father has committed judgment to His Son - Jn 5:22
         a. Jesus has authority to execute judgment, because He is the
            Son of Man - Jn 5:27
         b. Jesus will exercise righteous judgment, because He seeks the
            Father's will - Jn 5:30
      2. One day, Jesus will judge all mankind! - cf. Ac 10:42; 17:31
         a. His words will judge us in the Last Day - Jn 12:48
         b. We will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ - Ro 14:10; 2Co 5:10
      -- Knowing we will one day stand before the Judge, should we not
         honor Him now?

   C. THE SON OFFERS EVERLASTING LIFE...
      1. To those who hear His Words, and believes in the Father who
         sent Him - Jn 5:24
         a. They shall not come into judgment (i.e., condemnation)
         b. They shall pass from death (spiritual) to life (eternal)
      2. The time for this offer is now ("the hour is coming, and now
         is") - Jn 5:25
         a. When those who are dead (spiritually) will hear the voice of
            the Son of God (via the gospel)
         b. Those who hear (obey) will live (be saved)
      3. The Son has power to give life - Jn 5:26
         a. Because the Father has life in Himself
         b. And the Father has granted the Son to have life in Himself
      -- That Jesus offers the gift of everlasting life is certainly
         reason to honor Him!

[Many other reasons to honor the Son could be given, but these certainly
suffice.  How should we honor Him?  From our text, we can glean at least
three ways...]

II. HOW WE SHOULD HONOR THE SON

   A. BY HEARING HIS VOICE NOW...
      1. One day, we will hear His voice - cf. Jn 5:28-29
         a. Whether alive or dead
         b. Whether we want to or not
         c. Either to a resurrection of life, or to a resurrection of
            condemnation
      2. How much better that day will be, if we hear His voice now
         - cf. Jn 5:24-25
         a. We can have everlasting life!
         b. We will not come into judgment (condemnation)!
         c. We can pass from death to life!
      -- Will we honor the Son by listening to His words of life?

   B. BY OBEYING HIS VOICE NOW...
      1. It is not enough to simply "hear" His Words
         a. We must be "doers" of His Words - Mt 7:24-27
         b. Otherwise, why bother to call Him "Lord"? - Lk 6:46
         c. Only by abiding in His word are we truly His disciples - Jn 8:31
      2. Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all obey Him - cf.
         He 5:9
         a. Obeying His call to believe in Him - Jn 8:24
         b. Obeying His call to repent of sins - Lk 13:3
         c. Obeying His call to confess Him before others - Mt 10:32-33
         d. Obeying His call to be baptized - Mt 28:19; Mk 16:16
         e. Obeying His call to remain faithful - Re 2:10
      -- Will we honor the Son by heeding His voice now, today?

   C. BY SEEKING THE FATHER'S WILL NOW...
      1. Jesus sought His Father's will in all that He did - Jn 5:30
         a. His "food" was to do the Father's will - Jn 4:34
         b. He came down from heaven to do the Father's will - Jn 6:38
         c. He glorified the Father by doing the work He was given to do
            - Jn 17:4
      2. Jesus wants us to do His Father's will
         a. Otherwise we will not enter the kingdom of heaven - Mt 7:
            21-23
         b. Otherwise we will not be part of His family - Mt 12:46-50
      -- We can best honor the Son by emulating His example in doing the
         Father's will!

CONCLUSION

1. All should honor the Son today...
   a. He is certainly worthy of honor - cf. Re 5:12
   b. Just as the Father (He who sits on the throne) is worthy - cf. Re 5:13

2. All will honor the Son one day...
   a. By responding to His voice at the resurrection - Jn 5:28-29
   b. Every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess - Ro 14:10-11;
      Php 2:9-11

For those willing to honor Him today by heeding His voice, they will be
honored together with Him in That Day! - cf. 2Th 1:10-12

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011