Clinton: No Creation of Embryos for Research by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=350

Clinton: No Creation of Embryos for Research

by	Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

In June of 1993, a Democrat-dominated Congress lifted former President Ronald Reagan’s 1980 ban on federal support for research on human embryos. Previously, scientists had to use private funds if they wanted to study “spare” embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. This effectively curtailed laboratory experimentation on fertilized eggs. With the legal roadblocks removed, Uncle Sam, in the guise of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), now can pick up the tab for such research.
During 1994, a special NIH panel met to formulate funding guidelines. Following the lead of several other countries, the panel gave the green light for work on embryos until the fourteenth day. Embryos could come from IVF procedures, or could be produced specifically for research purposes. Either approach creates serious ethical problems, because it is extremely unlikely that the embryos in these experiments will be implanted after the two-week limit; they will die in the lab.
Fortunately, thirty-five congressmen, led by Rep. Robert Dornan (R-Calif.), have taken the initiative in challenging NIH policies. “Congress has not examined these initiatives,” they reminded NIH Director Harold Varmus in a June 16 letter, “and the American people are largely unaware that the NIH is even contemplating using their tax dollars to fund such bizarre experiments on living human embryos.” In particular, many conservatives were incensed that human embryos could be created specifically for research.
Apparently these concerns, bolstered by a change of guard on Capitol Hill, spurred President Bill Clinton to action. On December 2, 1994—only hours after the NIH accepted its panel’s guidelines—Clinton announced the following: “I do not believe that federal funds should be used to support the creation of human embryos for research purposes, and I have directed that NIH not allocate any resources for such research.”
Thankfully, also, the panel advised against support for research on more advanced embryos, and ruled twinning and nuclear cloning unacceptable. However, comments from various panel members suggest that they did not base their decisions on ethical absolutes. Rather, they weighed pragmatic considerations against the feelings of people “out there,” to use the words of panelist Pamela Davis. The scope of eligible research may change when feelings change. Further, the policies adopted by NIH are guidelines, not laws or rules, and are limited to federally funded projects.
Even this is no guarantee of compliance. In early December, National Public Radio revealed the results of an inquiry by George Washington University into the controversial cloning work of Robert Stillman and Jerry Hall. Although not conducted with federal funds, Stillman and Hall’s project had not received timely approval from a review board, and they did not obtain informed consent from embryo donors. Clearly, there is no room for complacency.

Behemoth: A Tail Like a Cedar? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4145

Behemoth: A Tail Like a Cedar?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

In His description of behemoth, God states emphatically that the creature “moves his tail like a cedar” (Job 40:17). Yet many commentators have insisted that behemoth is to be identified as either the elephant, or more likely, the hippopotamus (cf. the NIV footnote at Job 40:15: “Possibly the hippopotamus or the elephant”). Since both of these animals have farcically tiny tails, the comparison of behemoth’s tail with a cedar must be explained in some way.
One explanation is to claim that the term “tail” (zah-nahv) refers to a general appendage and so may refer to an elephant’s “trunk” (e.g., Harris’ note in Harris, et al., 1980, 1:246). Of course, this position logically surrenders the view that behemoth was a hippopotamus. In either case, however, no linguistic evidence supports this speculation, as Hebrew lexicographers uniformly define the word as the “tail” of an animal (Brown, et al., 1906, p. 275; Holladay, 1988, p. 90; Davidson, 1850, p. 240; Gesenius, 1847, p. 248; Hebrew-English…, n.d., p. 75). Further, a simple perusal of the use of the term elsewhere in the Old Testament confirms this definition. Occurring 11 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament (Wigram, 1890, p. 389), the word is used one time to refer to the tail of a snake (Exodus 4:4), 3 times in Judges 15:4 to refer to fox tails, 4 times in a figurative sense to refer to persons of lower rank in society in contrast to the “head,” i.e., persons of higher rank (Deuteronomy 28:13,44; Isaiah 9:14; 19:15; see Barnes, 1847, 1:197-198,336-337), one time in a figurative sense to indicate the contemptible, lying prophet in contrast with “the elder and honorable” (Isaiah 9:15), and once in Isaiah 7:4 to refer figuratively to King Rezin of Syria and King Pekah of Israel as the tail ends of smoking firebrands (wooden pokers—Gesenius, p. 18). The final occurrence is the reference to the tail of behemoth in Job. Obviously, like the foxes of Judges 15 and the snake of Exodus 4, the tail of behemoth refers to the animal’s literal tail.
Another explanation suggests that only a branch of the cedar is being compared to behemoth’s tail. On the face of such a suggestion, it is difficult to believe that God would call Job’s attention to the tail of the hippopotamus, as if the tail had an important message to convey to Job. In essence, God would be saying to Job: “The behemoth is such an amazing creature—it has a tail like a twig!” Since the context of Job 40 indicates God’s words were intended to impress Job with his inability to control/manage the animal kingdom, such a comparison is meaningless, if not ludicrous.
The Hebrew term rendered “cedar” (eh-rez) refers to a tree of the pine family, the cedrus conifera (Gesenius, 1847, p. 78), more specifically and usually, the cedrus libani—the cedar of Lebanon (Harris, et al., 1980, 1:70). The tree and its wood are alluded to frequently in the Old Testament (some 72 times—Wigram, 1890, p. 154). The renowned cedars of Lebanon grew to an average height of 85 feet, with a trunk circumference averaging 40 feet, and branches that extended horizontally as long as the height of the tree itself (Harris, et al., 1:70). Indeed, the branches themselves were tree-like in size. King Solomon made extensive use of the cedars of Lebanon in his construction projects. The House of the Forest of Lebanon which he built was 45 feet high (comparable to a four-story building today), with its top horizontal beams situated on rows of cedar pillars (1 Kings 7:2-3). No longer the prolific trees they once were, in antiquity they grew in abundance (cf. 1 Chronicles 22:4; Ezra 3:7; Psalm 92:12; 104:16).

“Prodigious Bulk”

Even as Ophir was renowned for the unique quality of its gold (e.g., Isaiah 13:12), the allusions in the Bible to cedars make it clear that the tree was distinguished for its mammoth size, height, and stability. Respected biblical lexicographer John Parkhurst alluded to its “prodigious bulk” (1799, p. 678). In his 1878 book Bible Lands, Henry Van-Lennep observed that the cedar was known as “the image of grandeur and glory” (p. 146). In his Bible Lands Illustrated, Henry Fish described its majesty:

[T]heir massive branches, clothed with a scaly texture almost like the skin of living animals, and contorted with all the multiform irregularities of age, may well have suggested those ideas of regal, and almost divine strength and solidity which the sacred writers ascribe to them…. How natural that Hebrew poets selected such…colossal trunks as emblems of pride, and majesty, and power (p. 685-686, emp. added).

The cedar stands out from all other trees alluded to in the Bible in terms of its size, including the olive, fig, sycamore, pomegranate, almond, acacia, terebinth, myrtle, tamarisk, and even the oak (Padfield, 2011; “Trees in the Land…,” 2011; Baker, 1974).
The cedar is often used metaphorically in the Bible to accentuate these qualities in the object of comparison. For example, consider Isaiah’s prediction of the coming Day of the Lord, which would be a day in which everything that is “high and lifted up” would be brought low—beginning with the cedars of Lebanon, but also including high mountains, high towers and fortified walls, the large and seaworthy ships of Tarshish, and most certainly, man’s pride and haughtiness (2:12-18). Similarly, God pronounced judgment on the mighty Assyrian king Sennacherib because he dared to reproach the Lord and boast: “By the multitude of my chariots I have come up to the height of the mountains, to the limits of Lebanon; I will cut down its tall cedars and its choice cypress trees; I will enter its farthest height” (Isaiah 37:24, emp. added; cf. 2 Kings 19:23).
God declared through the prophet Amos that it was He who enabled the Israelites to occupy the land of Canaan by clearing Palestine of the Amorite “whose height was like the height of the cedars” (Amos 2:9, emp. added). God instructed Ezekiel to speak a parable to his fellow citizens that described how a great eagle “came to Lebanon and took from the cedar the highest branch” (Ezekiel 17:3), i.e., the highest official (King Jehoichin), but one day God would take from the highest branches of the cedar a great replacement, i.e., the Messiah (vs. 22-24). Consider God’s instructions to Ezekiel concerning the speech he was to make to the Egyptian Pharoah:

Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his multitude: “Whom are you like in your greatness? Indeed Assyria was a cedar in Lebanon, with fine branches that shaded the forest, and of high stature; and its top was among the thick boughs. The waters made it grow; underground waters gave it height….Therefore its height was exalted above all the trees of the field; Its boughs were multiplied, and its branches became long because of the abundance of water, as it sent them out” (Ezekiel 31:2-5, emp. added).

When King Amaziah tried to goad King Jehoash into armed conflict, Jehoash sent a parable that portrayed Amaziah as a measly thistle in contrast to Jehoash the cedar (2 Kings 14:9). Ezekiel compared Tyre to a mighty ship whose mast was made from a cedar from Lebanon (27:5). Zechariah pronounced disaster on those who attack Israel, comparing their downfall to the falling of the “mighty” (“glorious”—ASV/ESV) cedar of Lebanon (11:2).
In all these references, size and height are inherent in the comparison between the cedar trees and their moral or spiritual counterpart. What’s more, though the cedar tree, and especially the cedar of Lebanon, was considered mammoth in its strength and size, the psalmist assures us that the Lord’s voice alone can easily break, splinter, and crush the mighty cedar (Psalm 29:5). So for God to bring to Job’s attention the tail of behemoth, comparing it to a cedar, most certainly means that God intended to dazzle Job with the sheer magnitude of even the creature’s tail (let alone the rest of him!). This creature’s brute strength and size were such that Job would not even consider attempting to subdue or control it. God’s point? The same as it was for describing leviathan: “Who then is able to stand against Me?” (Job 41:10).
How intimidated would Job have been—what weight would God’s argument have carried with Job—if God compared behemoth’s tail merely to a twig or branch? How powerful and effective would God’s argument have been in Job’s mind if God were referring merely to the tail of an elephant, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, or even a wooly mammoth? The argument would have fallen flat. An elephant or hippo’s tail would be better likened to a short, pliable whip or cord that swishes quickly from side to side—not the movement of a cedar which sways slowly due to its enormity. Even the purpose of a hippo’s tiny, stump-like tail is hardly noble: “The hippo’s flat, paddle-like tail is used to spread excrement, which marks territory borders and indicates status of an individual” (“Hippopotamus,” n.d.). No, God had to be referring to a creature, with which Job was fully familiar, that was so gargantuan and possessed such strength that even its tail was beyond human control. What other land creature on Earth possesses a tail that merits being compared to a tree? There is no such creature—except a dinosaur.

DINOSAURS WITH TAILS LIKE TREES

Take, for example, Apatosaurus, whose overall body length could reach 90 feet, which included a long, prodigious tail “held together with 82 bones” (Viegas, 2011). Argentinosaurus stood 70 feet high (about the size of a six story building), weighed 100 tons, and was some 120 feet in length (three long school buses placed end to end), with over a third of that length consisting of its massive tail. Diplodocus was an enormous-tailed giant, measuring some 90 feet long, with a 26 foot long neck and a 45 foot long tail (Col, 1996a). The creature’s name derives from the Greek words diploos (double) and dokos (beam), a reference to its double-beamed chevron bones located in the underside of the tail (“Diplodocus,” 2011). Scientists think the 85-foot-long Brachiosaurus used its long, thick tail to brush away most attackers (Col, 1996b). Similarly, Supersaurus measured about 138 feet, with perhaps nearly half that length consisting of its tree-like tail also used for protection (Col, 1996c). Seismosaurus measured from 130-170 feet long with a tail that contained at least one unusual wedge-shaped vertebra that gave it a kink, again, enabling it to use its movable tail for protection (Col, 1996d). [NOTE: The word translated “moves” (NKJV/ASV), “bends” (NASB), “sways” (NIV), or “makes stiff” (ESV/RSV) is from a Hebrew verb (chah-phetz) that means “to bend down” (Brown, et al., p. 343; Harris, et al., p. 311), “to bend, to curve” (Gesenius, p. 296), “to bend, incline” (Davidson, 1850, p. 270), “let hang” (Holladay, 1988, p. 112), or “stretch out” (Botterweck, 1986, 5:92).]

THE POINT

Picture a mere human wrapping his arms around a 40-foot circumference cedar tree that is 85 feet long, and then attempting to sway or swing it back and forth like the tail of an animal. The image is laughable! And God’s point was just that poignant and penetrating. The comparison was sufficient to evoke the desired effect in Job, who humbly exclaimed: “I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You…. Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know…. Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:2-6).
The imposing intimidation of modern pseudo-science, that dominates the intellectual landscape of the world, has succeeded in pressuring many to compromise the biblical text in hopes of retaining what they conceive to be academic legitimacy and sophistication. Nevertheless, abundant bona fide evidence exists to demonstrate that dinosaurs were created by God on the same day of Creation as humans (Genesis 1:24-31), that dinosaurs and humans once cohabitated (cf. Lyons and Butt, 2008), and that the incredible creature of Job 40 was, in fact, some kind of dinosaur.

REFERENCES

Baker, Richard St. Barbe (1974), Famous Trees of Bible Lands (London: H.H. Greaves).
Barnes, Albert (1847), Notes on the Old Testament: Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005 reprint).
Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren (1986), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles Briggs (1906), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004 reprint).
Col, Jeananda (1996a), “Diplodocus,” Enchanted Learning, http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Diplodocus.shtml.
Col, Jeananda (1996b), “Brachiosaurus,” Enchanted Learning, http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Brachiosaurus.shtml.
Col, Jeananda (1996c), “Supersaurus,” Enchanted Learning, http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Supersaurus.shtml.
Col, Jeananda (1996d), “Seismosaurus,” Enchanted Learning, http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Seismosaurus.shtml.
Davidson, Benjamin (1850), The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970 reprint).
“Diplodocus” (2011), Nature: Prehistoric Life, BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Diplodocus.
Fish, Henry C. (1876), Bible Lands Illustrated (New York: A.S. Barnes).
Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Hebrew-English Lexicon (no date), (London: Samuel Bagster).
“Hippopotamus” (no date), African Wildlife Foundation, http://www.awf.org/content/wildlife/detail/hippopotamus.
Holladay, William (1988),  A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Padfield, David (2011), “Bible Times: Trees of the Bible,” http://www.padfield.com/bible-times/trees/.
Parkhurst, John (1799), An Hebrew and English Lexicon (London: F. Davis), http://books.google.com/books?id=D3pHAAAAYAAJ&pg= RA1-PA678&lpg=RA1-PA678&dq=cedrus+conifera&source=bl&ots= HfK67OCFSi&sig= n1AMTXpHWZKCyXj5qev3h3g_jpU&hl=en&ei=1YSsTdvMH4_AgQfdkO3zBQ&sa= X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum= 2&ved= 0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=cedrus%20conifera&f=false.
“Trees in the Land of the Bible” (2011), Jewish National Fund, http://www.kkl.org.il/kkl/english/ main_subject/education/education/ trees%20in%20the%20land%20of%20the%20bible.x.
Van-Lennep, Henry J. (1875), Bible Lands: Their Modern Customs and Manners (New York: Harper).
Viegas, Jennifer (2011), “Apatosaurus: The Dinosaur Formerly Known as Brontosaurus,” Discovery Channel, http://dsc.discovery.com/dinosaurs/apatosaurus.html.
Wigram, George W. (1890), The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).

Feeling Design by Kyle Butt, M.A.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2360

Feeling Design

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

Those in the medical field of prosthetics (artificial limbs) are faced with a daunting task—to mimic human body parts. Experts in this field of study are quick to admit that the natural, biological human body is far superior to anything that humans can design. Yet, even though prostheses are clumsy, awkward, and inefficient when compared to human limbs, progress is slowly being made toward more human-like limbs.
One step toward better prosthetics is the ability to feel, also known as tactile sensation. “[S]cientists from Northwestern University, in Chicago, have shown that transplanting the nerves from an amputated hand to the chest allows patients to feel hand sensation there” (Singer, 2007). This new technology has the potential to enable amputees to feel sensations such as cold and hot, distinguish between surface texture such as smooth (like marble) or rough (like sandpaper), and various other sensations that biological hands can feel.
Todd Kuiken, the lead doctor in the research that was presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Kuiken, et al., 2007), said that improving and refining the technology will take time. Emily Singer, writing for Technology Review, commented on the process of creating usable, “feeling” prostheses, saying, “The task is likely to be difficult” (2007). Kuiken further noted: “Our hands are incredible instruments that can feel things with exquisitely light touch and incredible resolution; to emulate that through a device is incredibly challenging.... All we’re giving our patients is a rough approximation, but something is better than nothing” (as quoted in Singer, 2007).
Notice the necessary inference implied in this research. Humans are brilliant, creative beings. They are using existing nerves to design prostheses that have “a rough approximation” of the sense of touch that a biological hand has. Millions of dollars are being spent, thousands of hours used, and massive amounts of various other resources are being employed to make this muted sensation available. Yet, evolutionary scientists expect thinking people to believe that the original, biological limbs that have an “exquisite” sense of touch and “incredible resolution” arose due to blind processes and random chance over multiplied billions of years of haphazard accidents overseen by no intelligence? Such a conclusion is irrational. Design demands a designer. If the “rough” prostheses have a designer, the human limbs after which they are modeled must, of logical necessity, have one as well.

REFERENCES

Kuiken, Todd, et al. (2007), “Redirection of Cutaneous Sensation from the Hand to the Chest Skin of Human Amputees with Targeted Reinnervation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, [On-line], URL: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/50/20061.
Singer, Emily (2007), “Prosthetic Limbs that Can Feel,” Technology Review, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19759/?nlid=689.

How Many of Jacob's Descendants Moved to Egypt? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2744

How Many of Jacob's Descendants Moved to Egypt?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Q.

Did Stephen contradict Moses regarding the number of people who moved to Egypt?

A.

In his great speech, Stephen referred to the number of Jacob’s family members that moved down to Egypt as 75 (Acts 7:14). Yet in Genesis 46:27, Moses recorded the number as 70. Critics of the Bible claim to have found a discrepancy. If they would have only studied the matter a little more closely, they would have seen that Moses and Stephen were simply approaching the matter from different perspectives. Genesis 46:26 numbers Jacob’s children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren as 66. To that number, which does not include Jacob’s son’s wives, Moses added Jacob, Joseph, and Joseph’s two sons to arrive at the number 70. Stephen, on the other hand, did not include Joseph and his wife and two sons since they were already in Egypt and Joseph is mentioned as sending for Jacob and the relatives from Egypt. Stephen names Jacob separately from the 75 relatives. Thus Stephen’s number includes the 66 mentioned in Genesis 46:26 plus the nine wives of Jacob’s sons (Judah’s and Simeon’s wives being already deceased). The Bible harmonizes perfectly and there is no discrepancy.

From Mark Copeland... "THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT" Overcoming The Conflict

                      "THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT"

                        Overcoming The Conflict

INTRODUCTION

1. We saw in our previous lesson that to prevent turning our freedom in
   Christ into opportunities for the lust of the flesh, we need to
   "walk in the Spirit"

2. We considered five reasons Paul gave to "walk in the Spirit", 
   instead of engaging in the "works of the flesh"...
   a. The Spirit and the flesh are contrary to one another - Ga 5:17
   b. If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law - Ga 5:18
   c. Fulfill the lusts of the flesh, and you will not inherit the 
      kingdom of God - Ga 5:19-21
   d. Those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh - Ga 5:24
   e. Since we live in the Spirit, we should also walk in the Spirit 
      - Ga 5:25
   -- With a sixth reason found in Ga 6:7-8 (We reap what we sow!)

3. But it is one thing to know we should "walk in the Spirit", and
   another thing to actually do so
   a. Therefore I hope to illustrate how the Christian can be
      victorious in this spiritual "conflict" between the Spirit and
      the flesh
   b. The basis for our study will once again be Ga 5:16-26

[From these verses we can glean four points related to "Overcoming The
Conflict".  I will save what I believe to be the most important point
for last, and therefore start with the idea...]

I. VICTORY COMES THROUGH AN AWARENESS OF THE CONFLICT - Ga 5:17

   A. KNOWING THE STRENGTH OF THE ENEMY IS NECESSARY TO WIN ANY WAR...
      1. Jesus understood this principle - cf. Lk 14:31
      2. Paul wants us to be aware of the strength of the enemy - Ga 5:17
         a. The flesh is in opposition to the Spirit
         b. Neither side is content with some sort of truce
         c. One or the other is going to be in control!

   B. WE MUST UNDERSTAND THE BATTLE WILL BE ON-GOING...
      1. The flesh sets it desire against the Spirit
      2. As long as we are in the flesh, there is going to be warfare!
      3. Unless, of course, we totally surrender to the flesh!

[With awareness of the conflict that exists, we are on the road to
victory.  Sadly, many people lose the battle because they assume that
whatever the flesh wants must be right.

For those who desire to win, though, it is also helpful to know 
that...]

II. VICTORY COMES THROUGH AN AWARENESS OF THE ENEMY AND THE
    CONSEQUENCES OF DEFEAT - Ga 5:19-21

   A. THE ENEMY IS "THE WORKS OF THE FLESH"...
      1. Briefly defined, the "works of the flesh" include:
         a. Sins of immorality
         b. Sins of idolatry
         c. Infractions of the law of love
         d. Sins of intemperance (i.e., excesses)
      2. Each of these we will examine more closely in future lessons

   B. THE CONSEQUENCES OF DEFEAT ARE GRAVE...
      1. In our text, we learn that they can cause one to forfeit the
         kingdom of God
      2. In Ga 6:7-8, we learn they also produce "corruption" (both
         physical and spiritual)

[Awareness of the enemy and the consequences of defeat help us to focus
our attack and to provide the motivation to attack forcefully.  
Otherwise, our attempts will be aimless and half-hearted.  Next...]

III. VICTORY COMES THROUGH HAVING THE RIGHT ATTITUDE - Ga 5:24-25

   A. NO VICTORY IS WON WITH A DEFEATIST ATTITUDE...
      1. If we approach the conflict by saying...
         a. "There is no hope"
         b. "I am too weak"
         c. "I cannot win"
      2. The battle is over before it even starts!

   B. CHRISTIANS CAN APPROACH THIS CONFLICT WITH OPTIMISM...
      1. Because they have "crucified the flesh with its passion and 
         desires" - Ga 5:24
         a. As we saw in the previous lesson, that occurred when we 
            were crucified with Christ through baptism into His death 
            - Ro 6:3-8
         b. They are therefore not "indebted to the flesh" - Ro 8:12
         c. This is not to say the conflict with flesh ceases to exist,
            but that in Christ the conflict can be overcome!
      2. Because they "live in the Spirit" - Ga 5:25
         a. The Spirit has given us new life in Christ! - Tit 3:5-6; 
            cf. Ro 8:2, 11
         b. Living in the Spirit, it now becomes possible to "walk in 
            the Spirit"

[This leads to the last and perhaps most important point when it comes
to "Overcoming The Conflict", which is found toward the beginning of our
text...]

IV. VICTORY COMES THROUGH "WALKING IN THE SPIRIT" - Ga 5:16

   A. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO "WALK IN THE SPIRIT"?
      1. The term "walk" suggests one's conduct, or manner of life
      2. The phrase "in the Spirit" (or "by the Spirit", ASV) suggests
         two possibilities:
         a. That one's conduct be in accordance to the Spirit - Ro 8:1
         b. That one's conduct be aided by the Spirit - Ro 8:11-13
         -- Since both of these are supported by Paul in his writings,
            I assume that "walking in the Spirit" involve both concepts
      3. "The entire life of the believer is to be lived 'by the 
         Spirit', under His guidance and direction, by His aid and help
         and power.  If a man so lives, he will not yield to the sinful
         desires of the flesh." (Charles R. Erdman)
      4. To use another phrase of Paul's, to "walk in the Spirit" is 
         the same (or at least the consequence) of being "led by the 
         Spirit" - cf. Ro 8:14
   
   B. HOW DOES ONE "WALK IN THE SPIRIT"?
      1. Do we "walk in the Spirit" (or are "led by the Spirit")through...
         a. Listening to some "small still voice"?
         b. Heeding some subtle influence or intuition?
         c. Following some overwhelming compulsion?
      2. The answer is "No!", and fortunately so...
         a. Otherwise, there would be the problem of determining 
            whether it was the Holy Spirit or just wishful human spirit
            that was seeking to lead us in some direction
         b. The Bible warns about the dangers of trusting the 
            impressions of the heart or mind to guide us - Pr 14:12;Jer 10:23
         c. God has graciously given us an objective (as opposed to 
            subjective) means to direct us - cf. Ps 119:133
      3. We "walk in the Spirit" (or are "led by the Spirit")...
         a. First, when we "set our minds on the things of the Spirit"
            - cf. Ro 8:4-5
            1) Just as those who "set their minds on the things of the
               flesh" walk according to the flesh
            2) What are the "things of the Spirit"?
               a) Those things that the Holy Spirit was sent to reveal
                  - cf. Jn 14:25-26
               b) I.e., the revealed Word of truth - cf. Jn 16:12-13
            3) Therefore, whenever one is setting their mind on the 
               Word of God (the "things of the Spirit"), and seeking to
               walk thereby...
               a) They are "walking in the Spirit"
               b) They are being "led by the Spirit"
         b. But also, when we are "strengthened by the Spirit" - cf. Ro 8:12-14
            1) In conjunction with our own efforts to walk according to
               the "things of the Spirit (i.e., the Word of God), we 
               are aided by the Spirit of God
               a) As Paul explained to the Philippians, when we seek to
                  "work out our salvation", God is also at work in us 
                  - Php 2:12-13
               b) The instrumental agent by which God strengthens us is
                  His Spirit - Ep 3:16
            2) Prayer is a key element in receiving this wonderful strength
               a) Just as Paul prayed for the Ephesians that God would
                  so strengthen them - Ep 3:16
               b) And so we are taught to go to God's throne of grace
                  when we need "grace to help in time of need" - He 4:16
      4. To "walk in the Spirit", then, involves living a life where 
         one is under the Spirit's direction and aided by His power
      5. We can ensure that we "walk in the Spirit" by...
         a. Diligently setting our minds on the "things of the Spirit"
            (i.e., the Word of God)
         b. Fervently praying for the strength God gives through His 
            Spirit as we endeavor to live according to His Word
      6. The Word of God and prayer are therefore crucial to 
         "Overcoming The Conflict" between the flesh and the Spirit!

CONCLUSION

1. Fellow Christian, do you earnestly desire to overcome the conflict
   that goes on between the flesh and the Spirit?
   a. Where the lusts of the flesh pull you in one direction?
   b. And the Spirit of God would have you go in an opposite direction?

2. In our text (Ga 5:16-26)...
   a. We find not only the motivation (our last lesson)
   b. But also the solution to "Overcoming The Conflict" (this lesson)

3. In our next study, we shall begin taking a closer look at those
   things listed as "the works of the flesh" (remembering the 
   importance of awareness of the enemy)

4. For the time being, I encourage you to accept the challenge to "walk
   in the Spirit"
   a. It begins when you "crucify the flesh with its passion and 
      desires", and begin to "live in the Spirit" - Ga 5:24-25; cf. Ro6:3-11; 8:11-13
   b. And it continues as you are "led by the Spirit" through the means
      of the Word of God and prayer - cf. Ro 8:14

Have you responded to the command to be baptized into Christ, where you
can enjoy the blessing of the "washing of regeneration and renewing of
the Holy Spirit"? - cf. Tit 3:5-7

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Gary... The God of goodness

This looks like a rainbow to me, so I will consider it one. If not, I am quite sure someone will show me my error.  Years ago, before I ever thought of doing a blog, I always enjoyed rainbows, but now I appreciate them more and more as the years pass. And as I consider them, they remind me that God makes promises for my good. Today, this lovely picture led me to consider three passages of Scripture, each with its own angle on the goodness of God.

Genesis, Chapter 9 (WEB)

 8  God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying,  9 “As for me, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your offspring after you,  10 and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the livestock, and every animal of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ship, even every animal of the earth.  11 I will establish my covenant with you: All flesh will not be cut off any more by the waters of the flood, neither will there ever again be a flood to destroy the earth.”  12 God said, “This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:  13 I set my rainbow in the cloud, and it will be a sign of a covenant between me and the earth.  14 When I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow will be seen in the cloud, 15 and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters will no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.  16 The rainbow will be in the cloud. I will look at it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”  17 God said to Noah, “This is the token of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

Luke, Chapter 20 (WEB)

 26  They weren’t able to trap him in his words before the people. They marveled at his answer, and were silent.  27 Some of the Sadducees came to him, those who deny that there is a resurrection. 28 They asked him, “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man’s brother dies having a wife, and he is childless, his brother should take the wife, and raise up children for his brother.  29 There were therefore seven brothers. The first took a wife, and died childless. 30 The second took her as wife, and he died childless.  31 The third took her, and likewise the seven all left no children, and died. 32 Afterward the woman also died.  33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them will she be? For the seven had her as a wife.” 

  34  Jesus said to them, “The children of this age marry, and are given in marriage.   35  But those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.   36  For they can’t die any more, for they are like the angels, and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.  37  But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he called the Lord ‘The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’   38  Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all are alive to him.”  

2 Corinthians, Chapter 1 (WEB)

18 But as God is faithful, our word toward you was not “Yes and no.”  19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, by me, Silvanus, and Timothy, was not “Yes and no,” but in him is “Yes.”  20 For however many are the promises of God, in him is the “Yes.” Therefore also through him is the “Amen”, to the glory of God through us.

In Genesis, God promises not to destroy the earth with water and the rainbow is his sign.  Its display in heaven is reassurance that God plans good towards us and not evil. God created life and wants eternal life (Luke passage above) for us; now and in heaven. Lastly, God sent Jesus to be the fulfilment of his promise of redemption for all those who obey him. (just think about the importance of the word "yes" above, for a few moments. Three passages, one perfect God of GOODNESS.

PS. and the rainbow isn't bad either!!!!