From Jim McGuiggan... IS sin inevitable?

IS sin inevitable?

I love it when the kids turn out to be glorious men and women of God. Is there anything more precious to Christian parents than that? I can’t think of it. And how they beam—these parents—when someone turns to them and says something like, "You two have done a wonderful job with the children." And why wouldn’t they beam? That is a great job you’ve done with that garden, fence, extension or whatever! That pleases us so why would anyone imagine that we wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) be ecstatic about our kids and grateful that we didn’t get it all wrong? Certainly we realize we didn’t do it alone. There were our parents or friends, Sunday school teachers and preachers that helped shape us and so blessed our children. Rejoice in this, I can hear John saying (see 2 John 4 and 3 John 4).

All this joy assumes that our input matters! All this assumes that the nature of our input matters. We think—and why wouldn’t we?—that nurturing children in the good is vitally important. Is there anyone anywhere that thinks differently? Even behaviorists like B.F. Skinner and bio-ethicists like E.O. Wilson would agree with that. Nurturing people in the good helps them to be good. It doesn’t guarantee that the child will be good in later life because there are other influences operating but to deny that someone raised in a loving, warm and disciplined home where righteousness matters and Jesus is Lord isn’t helped toward faith is nonsense! If a child raised in such a home grows into a fine Christian man or woman we shrug with joy (not presumption) for we more than half expected it. If a girl raised in such a home became a vicious serial killer we’d be astonished precisely because it runs against expectation. Even Christ marveled when he met unbelief in Capernaum (it might have been Nazareth—see Mark 6:1-6). And why did he marvel? Guess!

All this is so obviously true! And what about the other side of the coin? What other side? The child is raised in a house of garbage! He’s nurtured in moral filth and stink. He is taught bitterness by the two leading figures in his life and knows how to mistreat a woman and how to get even when you lack physical strength. He is shaped by cruel peers, bullied by people in power, fed moral muck in movies, books and cyberspace. And how will he turn out? Well, in point of fact we know many young people who beat all that junk and grew to be glorious people. Of course, praise God! But weren’t we amazed with a glad amazement? Didn’t we shake our heads in happy disbelief? And why is that? Guess!

So move beyond the individual to the family and then the community and then the city and ask what we expect of people raised in moral and spiritual gloom. Haven’t we said things like, "Well, wadaya expect in Miami (or New York or London or Belfast or San Francisco)? Move from there to nations and ask about expectations? And then ask yourself about the human family. Do you really think we will grow to manhood without sin? When Jesus both holds us responsible for our offenses and says they’re "inevitable" we need to affirm both truths. See Matthew 18:7 and 1 Corinthians 11:18-19. This inevitability is not something laid down in eternity on the basis of some flaw in the nature of something. It is an existential inevitability. In the light of how the world is, in light of how the Corinthians were occasions of sin and division are inevitable. They "must needs be". It’s for this reason that John in his epistle says that anyone who says he/she doesn’t sin is not only kidding themselves, they walk in darkness.

There was one Adam and one Eve and when they sinned they set something in motion that swept the world and swept the human race up in it. Since they introduced sin to us the world has never been the same. The idea that we are born into the same world they were is foolishness. The notion that our situation is like theirs is nonsense! We don’t inherit their sin but we are born into a human family that has been twisted like a corkscrew by ceaseless sinning that has affected structures as well as individuals. We are born into a planet shrouded in moral pollution and we breathe that junk until we too become sick and start coughing up our own configuration of pollution into the moral atmosphere. (I’ve developed this a little in a thing called The Dragon Slayer. You might find that helpful.) None of us growing to adulthood gets out of life without sinning. Say that we are responsible but insist also that what Jesus said is true—sinning is inevitable. If we have difficulty affirming both truths the right response is not to deny one or the other but to work to integrate them both.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D. ... Simultaneous Causation

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=687

Simultaneous Causation

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

In 2011, the renowned atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, was given a platform to spread his atheistic perspective (“Curiosity…,” 2011). Discovery Channel aired a show titled, “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” Hawking adamantly claimed, “No.” He claimed that there is no need for God in the picture, since he believes everything in the Universe can be explained without Him (see Miller, 2011a for an in depth response to Hawking’s claims in the show).
Towards the end of the episode, Hawking asserted that “[t]he role played by time at the beginning of the Universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer and revealing how the Universe created itself” (“Curiosity…”). According to Hawking and other atheists, the initial moments of the Big Bang were supposedly similar to the nature of a black hole (see Miller, 2011a for a response to this idea). Hawking believes that due to the nature of a black hole, time would not have existed before the Big Bang. He asserts:

You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang, because there was no before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me, this means that there is no possibility for a Creator, because there is no time for a Creator to have existed…. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang. So, there is no time for God to make the Universe in (“Curiosity…,” emp. added).

So, according to Hawking, there could not have been a cause for the Big Bang since that cause had to temporally precede the effect of the Big Bang, and yet time supposedly did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Setting aside the fact that this theoretical black hole, which is speculated to have been in existence at the time of the alleged Big Bang, had to itself have a cause (according to the Law of Causality even if time did not exist before the bang), Hawking still made a blunder in supposing that a Creator could not exist if time did not exist.
It is a common mistake to oversimplify the Law of Causality, assuming that it states: “Every effect must have an adequate cause which preceded it.” In actuality, the law more correctly states: “Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause” (see Miller, 2011b for an in depth discussion of the Law of Causality). The Law of Causality as a law of natural science only applies to that which can be empirically observed—namely, the natural Universe (i.e., that which is “material”), not supernatural entities. So, it does not even apply to God. But even if it did apply to the Creator, Hawking’s belief that there’s no room for the Creator since the Law of Causality requires a previous cause—which could not be the case if time did not exist before the Big Bang—is erroneous. Philosopher William Lane Craig explains that this argument rests on a pseudo-dilemma, since the argument does not “consider the obvious alternative that the cause of the [alleged—JM] Big Bang operated at t_o, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the Big Bang” (Craig, 1994). Simply put: the Law of Causality allows for simultaneous causes.
When one sits in a seat, his legs form a lap. The effect of creating a lap occurs simultaneously with its cause—the act of sitting—though sitting is obviously the cause of making a lap. So clearly, causes can take place simultaneously with their effects. Renowned German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, in his book, The Critique of Pure Reason, under the heading, “Principle of the Succession of Time According to the Law of Causality: All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect,” explains that, “The principle of the connection of causality among phenomena…applies also when the phenomena exist together in the same time, and that cause and effect may be simultaneous” (Kant, 1787, I.3.3.2.3.3, emp. added). He then proceeds to provide two examples of simultaneous causation, the first being the scenario in which the effect of a heated room occurs simultaneous with its cause—a fire in the fireplace. He explains that, “In this case, then, there is no succession as regards time, between cause and effect, but they are simultaneous; and still the law holds good” (I.3.3.2.3.3). He then provides the example in which a lead ball lies on a cushion and simultaneously causes the effect of an indention or “hollow” in the cushion. Again, the effect occurs simultaneously with its cause. Kant explains:

The greater part of operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects, and the succession in time of the latter is produced only because the cause cannot achieve the total of its effect in one moment. But at the moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen…. The time between the causality of the cause and its immediate effect may entirely vanish, and the cause and effect be thus simultaneous, but the relation of the one to the other remains always determinable according to time (Kant, 1787, I.3.3.2.3.3, emp. added).

Logically, a cause can occur simultaneous with its effect. So, for Hawking to argue that a cause for the Big Bang is unnecessary and even impossible since it must precede the Big Bang, is simply incorrect. It seems to imply a shallow understanding of the Law of Causality on the part of Hawking. A proper understanding of the Law of Causality reveals that the Law does not rule out the existence of a Creator even if the Big Bang were true, since the effect of the Universe could occur simultaneous with its causal activity. That said, ultimately, even though Hawking is inaccurate in his use of the Law of Causality, it is irrelevant since the Big Bang Theory is not in keeping with the scientific evidence anyway (see Miller, 2007; Thompson, Harrub, and May, 2003 for a presentation of some of this evidence).

REFERENCES

Craig, William Lane (1994), “Creation and Big Bang Cosmology,” Philosophia Naturalis, 31[1994]:217-224.
“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.
Kant, Immanuel (1787), The Critique of Pure Reason (South Australia: The University of Adelaide Library), 2^nd edition, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn, http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kant/immanuel/k16p/.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=588&article=643.
Miller, Jeff  (2011a), “A Review of Discovery Channel’s ‘Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?’” Reason & Revelation, 31[10]:98-107, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1004&article=1687.
Miller, Jeff (2011b), “God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/3716.
Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:33-47, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=541&article=28.

From Mark Copeland... Tribulations For The Kingdom Of God (Acts 14:1-22)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

             Tribulations For The Kingdom Of God (14:1-22)

INTRODUCTION

1. Previously, we read about Paul and Barnabas at Antioch of Pisidia...
   a. Where they experienced both success and conflict - Ac 13:42-45
   b. They were eventually expelled, though leaving joyful disciples
      behind - Ac 13:49-52

2. Paul and Barnabas then went on to Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe...
   a. Cities of Phrygia and Lycaonia, in Asia Minor (Turkey)
   b. Establishing churches to which Paul likely wrote Galatians - cf. 
      Ga 1:1-2

[As with Antioch, Paul and Barnabas found success mixed with ill 
treatment (cf. 2Ti 3:11).  Paul's observation about such treatment (Ac
14:22) raises some questions, but let's first summarize...]

I. THE MINISTRY AT ICONIUM, LYSTRA, AND DERBE

   A. ICONIUM...
      1. Again the procedure was to start with the local synagogue - Ac 14:1; 17:1-2
      2. Unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles against the brethren 
         - Ac 14:2; 13:45
      3. Paul and his companions stayed "a long time", speaking boldly in
         the Lord with signs and wonders - Ac 14:3; cf. Mk 16:19-20; He 2:4
      4. It may have been during this time to which Paul had reference 
         when he later wrote to the Galatians of their reception of him 
         - cf. Ga 4:13-15
      5. The city eventually became divided between the Jews and the
         apostles - Ac 14:4
         a. Note that Paul and Barnabas are referred to as "apostles"
            - cf. also Ac 14:14
         b. Likely because they had been "sent" by the Holy Spirit - cf.
            Ac 13:2,4
         c. Not in quite the sense as used of the Twelve - cf. Ac 1:15-26; Re 21:14 
      6. An attempt to stone them forced Paul and Barnabas to flee to
         Lystra and Derbe - Ac 14:4-6

   B. LYSTRA...
      1. They preached the gospel throughout the region - Ac 14:6-7
      2. Paul healed a lame man, whom he saw had faith to be healed - Ac 14:8-10
      3. The Gentiles assumed Paul to be Hermes, Barnabas Zeus, and
         prepared to offer a sacrifice to them - Ac 14:11-13
      4. Barnabas and Paul reacted strongly, scarcely restraining them
         - Ac 14:14-18
         a. By proclaiming there is one living God, the Creator of all
            things
         b. Who bore witness of Himself through the blessings of nature
            - cf. Ac 17:24-25
      5. Jews from Antioch and Iconium persuade the multitude to stone 
         Paul - Ac 14:19; 2Co 11:25
      6. The next day Paul and Barnabas departed and went to Derbe - Ac 14:20

   C. DERBE...
      1. They preached the gospel - Ac 14:21a
      2. They made many disciples - Ac 14:21a

[Paul and Barnabas soon retraced their steps, returning to Lystra,
Iconium, Antioch (Ac 14:21).  There they strengthened the disciples and
exhorted them to continue in the faith, saying "We must through many 
tribulations enter the kingdom of God." (Ac 14:22).  This has led some
to ask...]

II. MUST ALL CHRISTIANS SUFFER TRIBULATION FOR THE KINGDOM?

   A. THE APOSTLES CERTAINLY DID...
      1. As Jesus said they would - Mt 10:22
      2. As Paul mentioned of others and himself - 1Co 4:9-12; 2Co 4:8-10; 11:23-29
      3. Indeed they all died as martyrs, with the exception of John who
         suffered exile

   B. MANY EARLY CHRISTIANS DID...
      1. The church in Jerusalem - Ac 8:1,3
      2. The churches in Thessalonica and Philippi - 1Th 1:6; 2:14;
         3:2-4; 2Th 1:4-6; Php 1:29-30
      3. As Jesus warned those of Smyrna - Re 2:10

   C. BUT NOT ALL EARLY CHRISTIANS DID...
      1. There were periods of peace among the churches - Ac 9:31
      2. Jesus promised the church at Philadelphia they would be spared
         - Re 3:10
      3. Why pray for peace /aspire for quiet lives/ if tribulation is 
         inevitable? - 1Ti 2:3-4; 1Th 4:11

   D. HOW DO WE RECONCILE PAUL'S STATEMENTS...?
      1. Which sound as though all Christians must suffer - e.g., Ac 14:22; 2Ti 3:12
      2. Consider the context:  To whom and when did he say such things?
         a. Was it to those who would be given the privilege to suffer? 
            - cf. Php 1:29-30
         b. Living at a time and in a place where persecution might 
            arise?
      3. It seems that some of the early Christians were permitted to
         suffer
         a. To confirm the testimony of those early witnesses of the 
            faith
         b. But not all Christians suffered the persecutions of others
      4. But Christians were not told to seek out persecution
         a. They were permitted to flee persecution -  Mt 10:23
         b. As Paul did on one occasion - Ac 9:23-25; 2Co 11:32-33 
      5. If they were persecuted for the cause of Christ...
         a. They were told to glorify God - 1Pe 4:16
         b. They were told to rejoice for the honor - 1Pe 4:14; Mt 5:10-12

CONCLUSION

1. When Paul and Barnabas suffered tribulation for the kingdom of God...
   a. They did not give up preaching the gospel
   b. It did not hinder the growth and development of the church

2. We may not suffer the persecution they did...
   a. Ours may in the lesser form of ridicule, or being ostracized
   b. But we must always be prepared to suffer should it become our lot

Are we preparing ourselves with the proper mindset should persecution
come our way?  Willing to suffer for Christ?  Quick to forgive those
who persecute us?  Steadfast in the proclamation of the gospel of
Christ...?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

From Gary... Feel like "playing"???

 The Troggs: "Wild Thing"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hce74cEAAaE&feature=kp

OR

PLAY THE GAME

Which-song-was-actually-written-about-you

Today, while I was on Facebook, I actually followed the link about a song "..written about you.."

that you see above.  This song just happened to be a favorite of mine when it came out in 1965 and I have enjoyed it ever since.  Now that I think about it, I played the game for a bit of self-discovery. I am a strong advocate of re-discovering life (on a daily basis), so it was quite a "normal" thing for me to do this. Then, I thought- When was the last time I thought about re-discovering Jesus and what HE means to me?  A good place to start seems to be with this verse from Luke...

Luke, Chapter 9

Luk 9:20  And He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."

Peter responds with a statement about Jesus and that is quite true.  But, its not just what we say, its also what we do that counts.  I am quite sure that the song "wild thing" will be on my mind today, but will Jesus be as well?? The outcome of this will say more about me than any song ever could!!!  Want to come out of your shell and PLAY?  Who knows, you might find out something about yourself if you try?????