7/2/15

From Mark Copeland... "FAITH IS THE VICTORY!" In Overcoming Discontent



                        "FAITH IS THE VICTORY!"

                        In Overcoming Discontent

INTRODUCTION

1. I trust that as we are making our way through this series that the 
   value of faith in Jesus is becoming ever more apparent...
   a. In overcoming sin
   b. In overcoming anxiety, boredom, depression, and despair
   -- I.e., "Faith Is The Victory!" in overcoming the world with its
      many ills - cf. 1Jn 5:4-5

2. Another ailment that afflicts many people is "discontent"...
   a. It appears to be closely related to "boredom"
   b. Just as "anxiety" and "despair" are closely linked

3. In my study on the subject of "discontent", I found what seems to be
   conflicting views...
   a. Some describe discontent as evil:  "A man's discontent is his 
      worst evil." (George Herbert, 1593-1633)
   b. Others speak of it as something good:  
      1) "Discontent is the first step in the progress of a man or a 
         nation." (Oscar Wilde, 1854-1900)
      2) "Restlessness and discontent are the necessities of progress."
         (Thomas Alva Edison, 1847-1931)
      3) "Show me a thoroughly satisfied man - and I will show you a 
         failure." (Edison)

[Is it wrong to be "discontent"?  Or is it necessary for progress?  The
problem may be one of semantics, so let's start with seeking to 
understand exactly what it is we are talking about...]

I. UNDERSTANDING DISCONTENT

   A. DISCONTENT DEFINED...
      1. According to the American Heritage dictionary:  Absence of 
         contentment; dissatisfaction;  a restless longing for better
         circumstances
      2. There appears to be two different kinds of "discontent"...
         a. "There are two kinds of discontent in this world: the 
            discontent that works, and the discontent that wrings its 
            hands. The first gets what it wants, and the second loses
            what it has." (Gordon Graham)
         b. It is the discontent that "wrings its hands" that we are 
            discussing in this lesson
            1) It is the absence of contentment as a result of 
               covetousness
            2) It is that dissatisfaction which is often accompanied by
               grumbling and complaining

   B. THE DANGER OF DISCONTENT...
      1. It affects our relationship with God!
         a. When we are discontent because of covetousness, we become
            idolaters! - cf. Ep 5:3-5; Col 3:5
         b. When we are discontent because of dissatisfaction with what
            we have, are we not being ungrateful for what God has given
            us?
            1) "Whenever you find yourself disposed to uneasiness or 
               murmuring at anything that is the effect of God's 
               providence, look upon yourself as denying either the 
               wisdom or goodness of God." (William Law, 1686-1761)
            2) "Complaining about our lot in life might seem quite 
               innocent in itself, but God takes it personally." (Erwin
               W. Lutzer)
      2. It hurts ourselves!
         a. Contentment is a virtue that is highly praised and valued:
            1) "He is richest who is content with the least."
               (Socrates)
            2) "He who is content can never be ruined." (Chinese 
               proverb)
            3) "The contented man is never poor, the discontented never
               rich." (Unknown)
            4) "...godliness with contentment is great gain." - 1 Ti 6:6
         b. But discontentment hurts those who possess it:
            1) "Those who want much are always much in need." (Horace,65-8 B.C.)
            2) "It is not the man who has too little, but the man who
               craves more, who is poor." (Seneca, 4 B.C.-65 A.D.)
         -- We only make ourselves unhappy by being discontent
      3. Those discontented also hurt others!
         a. When we are discontent, we become grumblers and complainers
            1) Affecting our friends, families, and brethren
            2) Ruining not only our own selves, but those closest to us
         b. Nothing destroys a friendship and congregation quicker than
            the grumbling and murmuring of those discontent
            1) "Grumbling is the death of love." (Marlene Dietrich)
            2) Which may be why such complaining is condemned in the 
               Scriptures - 1Co 10:10; Php 2:14-15

[So much unhappiness is the result of discontent in our own lives.  If 
we wish to overcome discontent, we must look to the One who helps us 
overcome the world...]

II. FAITH IN JESUS HELPS US TO OVERCOME DISCONTENT

   A. JESUS PROVIDES CONTENTMENT...
      1. Through His teachings...
         a. By telling us what is truly important in life
            1) Not material abundance - Lk 12:13-15
            2) But being rich toward God! - Lk 12:16-21
         b. By telling us to lay up our treasure in heaven
            1) For earthly treasures will decay or be stolen - Mt 6:19
            2) Whereas treasures in heaven are safely guarded - Mt 6:
               20; cf. 1Pe 1:4
            -- Thus ensuring that our hearts are set upon that which 
               cannot be destroyed - Mt 6:21
      2. Through His promises...
         a. Promising to always be with us - Mt 28:20; cf. He 13:5-6
         b. Promising God's providential care - Mt 6:30-33; 7:7-11;10:29-31

   B. THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS, THE CHRISTIAN CAN BE CONTENT...
      1. Even as Paul was content - cf. Php 4:11-13
         a. It was something he learned as a disciple of Christ!
         b. It was something he had through the power of Christ!
      2. It has been said that "Contentment is the power to get out of
         any situation all there is in it."
         a. Paul had certainly made the best of his imprisonment! - cf.Php 1:12-14
         b. He saw how his circumstances enhanced that which was truly
            important - the spread of the gospel!
      3. It has also been said that "Contentment is not the fulfillment
         of what you want, but the realization of how much you already
         have."
         a. If anyone realized how blessed he was, it was the apostle Paul!
         b. For he served his God who could supply all one's needs! 
            - cf. Php 4:19
         c. Even when he knew his life was near its end - cf. 2Ti 4:18

CONCLUSION

1. "All the world lives in two tents--content and discontent."
   a. Which "tent" do you live in?
   b. Paul, as a disciple of Jesus, lived in a constant state of contentment
   c. A contentment learned and enjoyed through his relationship with
      God through Jesus Christ

2. He encourages us to follow his example, if we desire to have the 
   same relationship with God - cf. Php 4:9
   a. To learn of his "ways in Christ" which he taught in every church 
      - 1Co 4:16-17
   b. Such "ways" certainly included those taught by our Lord Himself!
      
If we desire to overcome discontent, then let's be inspired by the 
example of Paul who wrote:

   "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live,
   but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the 
   flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave
   Himself for me. (Ga 2:20)

When one can truly say they "live by faith in the Son of God", then 
"Faith Is The Victory!" in overcoming discontent!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

HEMATIDROSIS by Dave Miller, Ph.D.




https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2323

HEMATIDROSIS

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Luke, the author of the New Testament books of Luke and Acts, by profession, was a physician. His writings manifest an intimate acquaintance with the technical language of the Greek medical schools of Asia Minor. For example, of the four gospel writers, only Dr. Luke referred to Jesus’ ordeal as “agony” (agonia). It is because of this agony over things to come that we learn during His prayer “his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:44). Only Luke referred to Jesus’ sweat (idros), a much used term in medical language, and only Luke referred to Jesus’ sweat as consisting of great drops of blood (thromboi haimatos)—a medical condition alluded to by both Aristotle and Theophrastus (Hobart, 1882, pp. 80-84). The Greek term thromboi (from which we get thrombus, thrombin, et al.) refers to clots of blood (Nicoll, n.d., 1:631; Vincent, 1887, 1:425). Bible scholar Richard Lenski commented on the use of this term: “‘As clots,’ thromboi, means that the blood mingled with the sweat and thickened the globules so that they fell to the ground in little clots and did not merely stain the skin” (1961, p. 1077).
The Greek word hosei (“as it were”) refers to condition, not comparison, as Greek scholar Henry Alford observed:
The intention of the Evangelist seems clearly to be, to convey the idea that the sweat was (not fell like, but was like drops of blood;—i.e., coloured with blood,—for so I understand the hosei, as just distinguishing the drops highly coloured with blood, from pure blood.... To suppose that it only fell like drops of blood (why not drops of any thing else? And drops of blood from what, and where?) is to nullify the force of the sentence, and make the insertion of haimatos not only superfluous but absurd (1874, 1:648, italics in orig.; cf. Robertson, 1934, p. 1140).
We conclude that the terminology used by the gospel writer to refer to the severe mental distress experienced by Jesus was intended to be taken literally, i.e., that the sweat of Jesus became bloody (cf. Robertson, 1930, 2:272).
A thorough search of the medical literature demonstrates that such a condition, while admittedly rare, can and has occurred. Commonly referred to as hematidrosis or hemohidrosis (“Hematidrosis,” 2002; Allen, 1967, pp. 745-747), this condition results in the excretion of blood or blood pigment in the sweat. Under conditions of great emotional stress, tiny capillaries in the sweat glands can rupture (Lumpkin, 1978), thus mixing blood with perspiration. This condition has been reported in extreme instances of stress (see Sutton, 1956, pp. 1393-1394). During the waning years of the twentieth century, 76 cases of hematidrosis were studied and classified into categories according to causative factors (Holoubek and Holoubek, 1996). Acute fear and intense mental contemplation were found to be the most frequent inciting causes. While the extent of blood loss generally is minimal, hematidrosis also results in the skin becoming extremely tender and fragile (Barbet, 1953, pp. 74-75; Lumpkin, 1978), which would have made Christ’s pending physical insults even more painful.
From these factors, it is evident that even before Jesus endured the torture of the cross, He suffered far beyond what most of us will ever suffer. His penetrating awareness of the heinous nature of sin, its destructive and deadly effects, the sorrow and heartache that it inflicts, and the extreme measure necessary to deal with it, make the passion of Christ beyond comprehension.

REFERENCES

Alford, Henry (1874), Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).
Allen, A.C. (1967), The Skin: A Clinicopathological Treatise (New York: Grune and Stratton), second edition.
Barbet, P. (1953), A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image Books).
“Hematidrosis,” (2002), Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, [On-line], URL: http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands. jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd _h_05zPzhtm.
Hobart, William K. (1882), The Medical Language of St. Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1954 reprint).
Holoubek, J.E. and A.B. Holoubek (1996), “Blood, Sweat, and Fear. ‘A Classification of Hematidrosis,’ ” Journal of Medicine, 27[3-4]:115-33.
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Lumpkin, R. (1978), “The Physical Suffering of Christ,” Journal of Medical Association of Alabama, 47:8-10.
Nicoll, W. Robertson, ed. (no date), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Robertson, A.T. (1930), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
Sutton, R.L. Jr. (1956), Diseases of the Skin (St. Louis, MO: Mosby College Publishing), eleventh edition.
Vincent, M.R. (1887), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 reprint).

Don’t Bank Your Bucks in Big Bang Theory by Eric Lyons, M.Min.






https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1483

Don’t Bank Your Bucks in Big Bang Theory

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

For the past several decades, untold millions of students around the world have been taught that the Universe and everything in it is the result of a tiny ball of matter exploding 13-15 billion years ago (e.g., Hurd, et al., 1992, p. 61). Immediately following this “big bang,” the exploding material supposedly expanded in less than a millisecond to cause “most of the growth” of the 14-billion-light-year observable Universe (see Coles, 2007). This expansion, called “inflation,” has purportedly been “well established as an essential component of cosmology” (Coles, 2007, p. 33, emp. added). In fact, in an article penned in 2007 titled “Boomtime,” Dr. Peter Coles recognized that the theory of “[i]nflation puts the ‘bang’ in the big bang” (p. 36). Now, however, scientists are inching closer and closer to the conclusion that “the theory seems to have failed” (Brooks, 2008, 198[2659]:31).
The journal New Scientist recently ran an article by Michael Brooks titled “Inflation Deflated” (2008, 198[2659]:30-33). In the article, Brooks admitted that “[i]nflation is arguably the most important theoretical idea in cosmology since the big bang” (p. 31). Inflationary theory has “suggested that the major problems in cosmology could be solved if the universe had blown up like a balloon, inflating faster than the speed of light in the moments after its birth” (p. 31, emp. added). Yet now, the theory first proposed nearly 30 years ago to solve “major problems” with big bang cosmology, and the theory that has been advanced in classrooms all over the world as fact, is sheepishly “starting to look a little vulnerable” (p. 31). “[T]he theory seems to have failed,” wrote Brooks. Why? First, “there is the lack of any solid scientific idea for why or how inflation might have happened” (p. 32, emp. added). Second, “satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation...seem to contradict the predictions of inflation” (p. 31). In short, although Brooks and others believe it is still “too early to say that simple inflation is definitely on the skids” (p. 33), “the theory seems to have failed” (p. 31). Atheistic cosmology’s “best theory of the early universe is starting to look a tad insecure” (p. 30, emp. added).
That must surely be a depressing thought to atheists: their “best theory” for the origin of the cosmos is “insecure,” lacking “any solid scientific idea for why or how inflation might have happened.” A better alternative to ultimate origins is found in the first verse of the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1). “For He commanded and they were created” (Psalm 148:5). So, “[l]ift up your eyes on high, and see Who has created these things” (Isaiah 40:26).

REFERENCES

Brooks, Michael (2008), “Inflation Deflated,” New Scientist, 198[2659]:30-33, June 7.
Coles, Peter (2007), “Boomtime,” New Scientist, 193[2593]:33-37, March 3.
Hurd, Dean, George Mathias, and Susan Johnson, eds. (1992), General Science: A Voyage of Discovery (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Australia's Unique Animals by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1137

Australia's Unique Animals

by  Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

Q.

How do creationists explain the origin and distribution of Australia’s unique animals in terms of a young Earth and a worldwide flood?

A.

Explaining the origin of Australia’s marsupial population, and especially its uniqueness to that one isolated southern continent, is difficult for evolutionists and creationists alike. Marsupials such as kangaroos, opossums, wallabies, and koalas seem unusual, but monotremes (i.e., the echidna and the platypus) are even more puzzling. The main difference between marsupials and most other mammals centers on the reproductive system. Marsupials give birth prematurely and allow the fetus to develop in an external pouch. In other mammals, excluding the monotremes which lay eggs, the fetus develops within the uterus and is attached to, and nourished by, the placenta.
Perhaps the most interesting fact about marsupials is that they nearly all have non-marsupial equivalents in other parts of the world (see Dobzhansky, et al., 1977, Figure 9.3, p. 267). The kangaroo has a similar role to the antelope roaming the African savanna. The wombat resembles a badger, and even has a backward-pointing pouch so that it will not fill with dirt while burrowing! There also are many small marsupials that have rodent counterparts. Evolutionists attribute such similarities to “parallel evolution” in both homology (being alike in form) and analogy (occupying a corresponding niche). That is, they believe that these marsupials and their placental peers developed independently; they share similar characteristics, but took two different paths to get there (see Simpson and Beck, 1965, pp. 499-501). A common ancestry, combined with similar forces of natural selection, evolutionists assert, will result in the same sort of changes through time. This common ancestor is thought to be the opossum because it is a marsupial and is found in other areas of the world apart from Australia.
According to evolutionary theory, the opossum was a primitive mammal living 200 million years ago on a single southern land mass called Gondwanaland. When parts of this supercontinent divided into what are now Australia and South America, the opossums were separated geographically. Over eons of time, so the story goes, the Australian descendants of the opossum developed into the various types of marsupials seen today. However, in South America, they “evolved” placentas and eventually migrated to North America and Eurasia.
These evolutionary ideas suffer from a number of problems, as listed below:
  • There are no intermediate fossils (“transitional forms”) showing the development of the various marsupials from an opossum or opossum-like ancestor. Further, to suggest that one type of mammal could arise by supposed evolutionary mechanisms is incredible enough, but the chances of having both placental and non-placental forms evolve in the same way, at the same time, and in different regions, are remote to say the least.
     
  • The humble opossum has been nominated as the ancestor of all mammals because it is supposed to be so “primitive,” having a relatively small brain and no “specialized” characteristics. But the opossum has thrived virtually unchanged in many parts of the world. In general, marsupials often are considered less “advanced” because they lack the complex internal reproductive system of placental mammals. However, they possess many other characteristics that could give them an edge over their placental counterparts. For instance, a female kangaroo can nourish two young ones of different ages at the same time, providing the appropriate formula from each teat. Unlike placental mammals, marsupials can suspend or abort the embryo deliberately if adverse conditions arise. And, of course, the pouch provides a superior place of protection for the young marsupial. Yes, marsupials are different, but they are not inferior.
     
  • The distribution of marsupials is not well-answered by evolutionary theories. According to Michael Pitman, “the most diverse fossil assemblies have been obtained from South America and, later (Pliocene), Australia” (1984, p. 206). That is, according to the fossil record, the marsupials already were well-defined as a distinct group before the separation of Australia from other continents. Thus, geographic separation cannot be as significant to their development as evolutionists like to think. An alternate, biblically based model is as follows:
    1. It is reasonable to suggest that God created the various kinds of marsupials. Hence, the many varieties of opossums, kangaroos, wallabies, and so on, most likely have arisen since the time of creation.
       
    2. There could be any number of reasons that God created both placental and non-placental forms. One possibility is that marsupials were created for a specific environment. For example, on the African savannas or North American plains, animals migrate to different areas according to the seasons, and range over huge tracts of land in search of better grazing. However, vegetation patterns in Australia do not allow such flexibility. The unique characteristics of marsupials that allow them to survive in a tough environment are indicative of good design, not blind evolution.
       
    3. Representatives of marsupial kinds went into the ark and were carried through the Flood. Any other varieties not in the ark became extinct with the Flood (and now exist only as fossils).
       
    4. After the Flood, marsupials may have migrated to Australia across land connections or narrow waterways. Perhaps there is a supernatural element involving the second point made above. That is, God, having created specially equipped creatures, may have directed them to settle in Australia in particular. If God can arrange for all the animals to go to Noah (Genesis 6:20), then He very well could assist and direct them in their migration from Ararat once they left the ark (Genesis 8:17).
       
    5. There is no need to postulate long periods of time for whole-scale movement of animal kinds over the Earth. Initial studies by Richard Culp show that there are minimal differences between many North American, European, and Asian varieties of certain plant and animal species (Culp, 1988). The lack of dissimilarities, and the occurrence of unique animal or plant assemblages in various parts of the world (not just Australia), may be evidence for a rapid resettlement in relatively recent times. This would be consistent with the Genesis account.

    REFERENCES

    Bartz, Paul A. (1989), “Questions and Answers,” Bible-Science Newsletter, 27[7]:12, July.
    Culp, G. Richard (1988), “The Geographical Distribution of Animals and Plants,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, 25[1]:24-27, June.
    Dobzhansky, Theodosius, F.J. Ayala, G.L. Stebbins, and J.W. Valentine (1977), Evolution (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman).
    Pitman, Michael (1984), Adam and Evolution (London: Rider).
    Simpson, G.G. and W.S. Beck (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World), second edition.

Choosing Who Has To Die by Kyle Butt, M.A.




https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1014

Choosing Who Has To Die

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

Imagine an armed soldier walking into a kindergarten class, followed closely by a doctor. In a gruff voice, the soldier demands that the 18 five-year-olds line up in single file. The scared children do as they are told. Starting with the first in line, the doctor inspects each child for genetic defects. Those who have asthma are removed from the line. Those with poor eyesight come out of the line. The little girl with scoliosis is taken aside. The Down syndrome boy is yanked from the line. After the inspections are finished, only five children pass the examination. They are given an official certificate from the soldier that says they can live. The other 13 are taken outside, shot in the head, and thrown in the dumpster. Does this sound like the plot from a horror movie, or one of the heinous crimes of Hitler and his henchmen? Do you think our “civilized” society is above such gruesome brutality? Think again.
In her article, “Picking the Best Embryo from the Bunch,” Emily Singer describes new testing methods that can be used on embryos that are created during in vitro fertilization. In a nutshell, in vitro fertilization is the process by which several eggs from a woman are fertilized in a lab. Medical personnel then screen the embryos for genetic health and viability. A few of the most promising embryos are implanted in the mother-to-be’s womb. Other “healthy” embryos might be frozen for future implantation, while the remaining “unhealthy” embryos are discarded. Disposed of. Basically, flushed down the drain.
So what characteristics do these genetic screening methods attempt to identify? Why are some embryos discarded? Singer explains: “Such embryos are less likely to lead to successful pregnancies—they either fail to implant or miscarry, or if they do come to term, they can produce babies with disabilities such as Down's [sic] syndrome.” Notice that Singer implies that a non-successful pregnancy would include one from which a Down syndrome baby is born. Also notice her subtle, but false, differentiation between an embryo and the babies “they can produce.” The truth of the matter is that an embryo is a baby. Sly semantic tactics cannot change that fact. An embryo does not produce a baby. It simply grows into maturity, just as a child does not produce a teenager, but grows into one (for a more complete discussion of this point see Harrub, 2002; Miller, 2006). In reality, then, these genetic screenings are little more than a doctor’s examination to see which babies “deserve” to live and which ones are not “normal” enough to get a chance—because they might be Down syndrome babies, or “defective” in some other way.
Have we forgotten the inspired words of the wise man: “These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood...” (Proverbs 6:16-17)? Just because we have acquired the ability to detect “normal” babies at their earliest stages does not give us the right to exterminate all others that might have “less of a chance” of survival, or might survive but have Down syndrome. Who gave us the prerogative to play God in such a vicious fashion? Hitler and his ilk tried to play God and were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet our society has become so insensitive to the value of human life that those who frequently destroy thousands of babies in embryonic stages are decorated as scientific overachievers. As the prophet of old warned: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20-21). May God give us the wisdom and the courage to stand against the brutal holocaust that is being carried out in the name of Science!

REFERENCES

Harrub, Brad (2002), “The Inherent Value of Human Life,” Reason and Revelation, July 22[7]:49-55, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/132.
Miller, Dave (2006), “Embryos are People,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2995.
Singer, Emily (2007), “Picking the Best Embryo from the Bunch,” Technology Review, January, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=18027.

From Gary... Press on!!!





This morning, over breakfast, I thought of something I would do differently - something I now regret. However, the past is just that- THE PAST!!! I wonder, how would you answer the question above? And, then I thought of Paul - How would HE answer that question?

Philippians, Chapter 3 (WEB)
 1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not tiresome, but for you it is safe.  2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision.  3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh; 4 though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If any other man thinks that he has confidence in the flesh, I yet more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the assembly; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless. 

  7  However, what things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ.  8 Yes most certainly, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and count them nothing but refuse, that I may gain Christ  9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;  10 that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed to his death;  11 if by any means I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.  12 Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect; but I press on, if it is so that I may take hold of that for which also I was taken hold of by Christ Jesus. 

  13  Brothers, I don’t regard myself as yet having taken hold, but one thing I do. Forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before,  14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.  15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, think this way. If in anything you think otherwise, God will also reveal that to you. 

I think he would say "press on" (from verse 14a, above).

I would say the same thing!!!