7/31/15

From Mark Copeland... "THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT" The Fruit Of The Spirit - Goodness

                       "THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT"

                   The Fruit Of The Spirit - Goodness

INTRODUCTION

1. At this point in our study on "the fruit of the Spirit", we are 
   examining those graces which relate especially to our dealings with
   our fellowman...
   a. Longsuffering, defined as "that quality of self-restraint in the
      face of provocation which does not hastily retaliate or promptly
      punish." (VINE)
   b. Kindness, defined as "the sympathetic kindliness or sweetness of
      temper which puts others at their ease, and shrinks from giving
      pain" (PLUMMER)
   c. And now we come to goodness...

2. The Greek word is agathosune {ag-ath-o-soo'-nay}...
   a. This word is perhaps the most difficult to define, for it is so
      general in nature
   b. The difficulty is seen in that the word "goodness" takes it 
      meaning from its context
      1) E.g., we might say "that is a good animal", or "he is a good man"
      2) But good in what way?  The context defines the sense...
   c. The problem with its use in Ga 5:22 is that there is little in
      the context to guide us

3. But there may be at least two ways we might be able to come to a
   proper understanding of this word...
   a. Comparing it to the words "just" and "evil"
   b. Considering two examples in the New Testament of "good" people

[Let's begin by...]

I. COMPARING "GOODNESS" TO THE WORDS "JUST" AND "EVIL"

   A. THE GREEKS OFTEN COMPARED "GOODNESS" WITH "JUSTICE"...
      1. BARCLAY writes of how the Greeks compared these words:
         a. "Justice, they say, is the quality which gives a man what
            is due him;"
         b. "...goodness is the quality which is out to do far more 
            than that, and which desires to give a man all that is to
            his benefit and help."
      2. Again, BARCLAY writes:  "The man who is just sticks to the
         letter of his bond; the man who is good goes far beyond it."
      -- This suggests that the primary idea of goodness is "generosity"

   B. IN THE NT, THE WORD FROM WHICH "GOODNESS" COMES IS OFTEN
      CONTRASTED WITH "EVIL"...
      1. In a few places, the words "evil" and "good" have particular meanings
      2. In the parable of The Laborers (Mt 20:15), "evil" means 
         "envious", while "good" is used for "generous"
      3. In Mt 6:19-23...
         a. The context speaks of an "evil" (or "bad") eye which is 
            begrudging and ungenerous - cf. Pr 28:22
         b. In contrast to the eye that is "good" which lays up 
            treasure in heaven (by being generous to others, cf. 1Ti 6:17-19)

   C. NOW WE CAN BEGIN TO DEFINE "GOODNESS"...
      1. The person who displays goodness is not like the person who is
         simply just...
         a. The person who is simply just gives only to another what he
            has earned
         b. Whereas the person who is good is generous to give what was
            not deserved
      2. The person who displays goodness is not like the person who is evil...
         a. The person who is evil begrudges everything he has to give
         b. The person who is good is open-hearted and open-handed, 
            i.e., generous

[It has been said that goodness "is easier to recognize than to 
define".  With that in mind, consider...]

II. TWO EXAMPLES OF "GOOD" PEOPLE

   A. BARNABAS WAS A "GOOD" MAN - Ac 11:24
      1. He was generous with his possessions
         a. Cf. Ac 4:32-37
         b. This is consistent with our definition above, that one who
            is good is generous to give to others what is not deserved
      2. He was happy to see the progress of others; i.e., he was not
         envious
         a. Cf. Ac 11:23
         b. Again this is consistent with our definition; he was not
            begrudging another's success
      3. Barnabas was an encourager of others
         a. Cf. Ac 11:23
         b. He was liberal with his good words, which is how he got his
            name - cf. Ac 4:36

   B. DORCAS WAS A "GOOD" WOMAN - Ac 9:36
      1. She was "full of good works and charitable deeds"
      2. Even in her death, her goodness was being felt
         a. Cf. Ac 9:39, where the widows were showing tunics and 
            garments she had made
         b. I doubt they were praising her ability to sew, but rather
            her charity in making such clothes for others (such as the widows)

CONCLUSION

1. All those who are truly led by the Spirit of God will produce the
   quality of "goodness" - cf. Ep 5:8-9

2. That is, doing kind things beyond what is expected or required
   a. Such was the case of Barnabas and Dorcas
   b. Paul was confident such was true of the brethren in Rome - Ro 15:14
   -- Would he have written the same of us?

3. That we should be "full of goodness" is only natural...
   a. For God who is our Father demonstrated His own "goodness"
   b. This He did by giving His Son to a sinful world undeserving of 
      such grace - Tit 3:3-7
   
Have you submitted to His saving mercy, that "washing of regeneration and
renewing of the Holy Spirit"? - cf. Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16; Ac 2:38

If not, then why not do so today, and then heed Paul's call to "goodness"...

   "This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm
   constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful
   to maintain good works.  These things are good and profitable to
   men." (Tit 3:8)

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

Jesus, Rudely Interrupted by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2827

Jesus, Rudely Interrupted

by  Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

Criticism of the Faith is nothing new. Whether big-budget documentaries, bestselling books, or blockbuster movies, the media is glutted with criticism aiming to overturn the faith of millions. It seems that every year a new angle emerges during the seasons when people step back to reflect upon their faith. As believers consider the truths of Christianity, hostile criticism attempts to revamp, revise, and rewrite what Christians have believed for two millennia. Christmas and Easter are perennial target release dates for books, articles, and television documentaries promising to reveal secrets that will turn Christianity upside down.
One of the most recent contributions of New Testament scholar and textual critic Bart Ehrman is a book entitled, Jesus, Interrupted. Released in 2009, this book picks up where his earlier work, Misquoting Jesus, leaves off. Ehrman continues his assault on the Christian Faith, assuring believers that his criticism does not controvert Christianity, but informs it. Since this information started him on the journey to agnosticism, it is easy to see how his assertions could be construed as disingenuous.

PARDON THE INTERRUPTION

Raised in a “fundamentalist” Christian home, Ehrman graduated high school and attended the conservative Moody Bible Institute. He continued his studies at Wheaton College in Illinois, and later received his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary under the watch of Bruce Metzger, one of the foremost textual scholars of the 20th century. Somewhere along the way, he became increasingly disenchanted with the Christian Faith. Although he was a denominational minister during his time in graduate school, Ehrman has now left his Christian upbringing far behind. He now considers himself a “happy agnostic” (2005, p. 258). Jesus, Interrupted goes farther than his previous work, claiming not only that the Bible is full of scribal errors, but that the gospel accounts are fraught with contradictions and late inventions. In this sense, according to Ehrman, the story of Jesus—the historical man—was “rudely interrupted” by late insertions into the text. Though it has been well received on the popular level, Ehrman’s work has not met with approval from those best quipped to evaluate his claims. In his blog, respected New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III critiques Ehrman’s book, saying,
It is mystifying however why he would attempt to write a book like Jesus, Interrupted which frankly reflect [sic] no in-depth interaction at all with exegetes, theologians, and even most historians of the NT period of whatever faith or no faith at all. A quick perusal of the footnotes to this book, reveals mostly cross-references to Ehrman’s earlier popular works, with a few exceptions sprinkled in.... What is especially telling and odd about this is Bart does not much reflect a knowledge of the exegetical or historical study of the text in the last thirty years. Even in a work of this sort, we would expect some good up to date bibliography for those disposed to do further study, not merely copious cross-references to one’s other popular level books.... The impression is left, even if untrue, that Ehrman’s actual knowledge of and interaction with NT historians, exegetes, and theologians has been and is superficial and this has led to overly tendentious and superficial analysis (2009, emp. added).
Ehrman spends a great deal of time demonstrating what he considers to be problems with the gospel accounts. The discussion includes the nature of authorship, supposed inconsistencies and contradictions, and the idea that the gospel accounts present different accounts of events in Christ’s life. This includes the assertion that no one knows who wrote the gospel records. It was not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as tradition claims, because Jesus’ disciples consisted of “[l]ower-class, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking peasants from Galilee” (2009, p. 106). Someone else far removed from the original historical setting must have written them.
Ehrman overplays the old chestnut that the gospel accounts were written anonymously. They are considered formally anonymous because none ever identifies their author. John’s gospel account gives the “Beloved Disciple” as the one responsible for its writing, and many believe that Mark mentions himself as the young man who runs away while Jesus is arrested (cf. Mark 14:51). Authors in the ancient world often referred to themselves indirectly in their work, and this is as close as any of the gospel accounts come to identifying their authors.
While the evangelists did not sign their work, this is a far cry from not knowing who wrote the gospel accounts. There was virtually no dispute in the early church over who wrote each one. If they had truly been written anonymously, there would be no end to the debate. In one sense we could compare the book of Hebrews to the gospel accounts. Like the gospel records, it, too, is formally anonymous. However, no one really knows who wrote it, and no less than a half dozen possibilities are cited as potential authors. If the gospel accounts were truly in the same category, the debate over their authorship would have continued to the present.
Ehrman notes that, “[s]tories were changed with what would strike us today as reckless abandon.... They were modified, amplified, and embellished. And sometimes they were made up” (2006, p. 259). He never explains why he chooses to believe that the stories concerning Jesus are legendary or fictitious. Biography, legend, and fiction are different genres, each with its own distinguishing characteristics. This is common fare for Christianity’s critics: to announce the Bible as fiction, legend, myth, or fairy tale without justification or supporting evidence. Ehrman notes:
For nearly twenty-five years now I have taught courses on the New Testament in universities, mainly Rutgers and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In all this time, the lesson that I have found most difficult to convey to students—the lesson that is the hardest to convince them of—is the historical-critical claim that each author of the Bible needs to be allowed to have his own say, since in many instances what one author has to say on a subject is not what another says. Sometimes the differences are a matter of stress and emphasis; sometimes they are discrepancies in different narratives or between different writers’ thoughts; and sometimes these discrepancies are quite large, affecting not only the small details of the text but the very big issues that these authors were addressing (2009, pp. 98-99).
One of the episodes Ehrman cites as a bona fide “error” in the gospel records is Christ’s cleansing of the Temple. John locates this event in the Passion Week, while the Synoptics present the incident early in Jesus’ ministry. So which is it? Which one made the mistake? Actually, it never would have crossed the minds of the ancient audience. The ancients did not insist on chronological accuracy in the same way moderns do. Ancient authors often arranged their material chronologically, but they also arranged it topically, and, in the case of the gospel accounts, theologically. To force an ancient work written in another culture to conform to modern Western standards is scholastic arrogance at its worst.
Many moderns put the Bible under a literary microscope, analyzing every chapter, every verse, every word. In the eyes of hostile critics, even the tiniest difficulties balloon into monumental testaments to the inaccuracy and unreliability of the Bible. Ben Witherington makes an interesting point in this regard. He says that we can think of the authors of the four gospel accounts much like painters. Each painted a portrait of Jesus based on his own perspective, as well as the purpose and rationale intended by the Holy Spirit. They selected the material to include in their work, a selectivity that is individualistic in nature. That the gospel writers would highlight different events, or give different angles on the same events, is expected. Modern biographers work the same way. Critics expect the authors to record the life of Jesus with a high-resolution, all-seeing lens. Rather than holding the biblical books to the same standards in use during the time they were produced, critics insist on modern standards in a way that is as unreasonable as it is irrational. To force the ancient text to conform to modern standards is bad interpretive method. It is a fundamental building block of reading ancient literature—the Bible included, of course—that one must seek to understand the context in which the literature is written. One cannot read ancient Greco-Roman literature by modern standards any more than one should read a modern newspaper with the same frame of mind as a citizen of ancient Rome. To continue Witherington’s analogy, this would be like criticizing Leonardo Da Vinci for not using a digital camera to photograph the Mona Lisa.
To point out one supposed contradiction highlighted in Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman argues there is an irreconcilable difference concerning the death of Judas as recorded in Matthew and Acts. Matthew says that Judas hanged himself and the place became known as the Field of Blood because it was purchased with blood money (Matthew 27:3-9). In Acts, Luke claims that the Field of Blood is called that because, as Ehrman puts it, Judas burst open and bled all over the place. The reading in Acts is not as different as Ehrman suggests. Both accounts agree that the property is purchased with Judas’ money. Luke is ambiguous as to why the field was named the Field of Blood, while Matthew is explicit. Ehrman barely gives a passing nod to suggested attempts to reconcile the two, and downplays them accordingly. It is highly likely that Judas hanged himself, and after death, when the immune system is no longer working, bacteria began to multiply and produced gases that bloated Judas’ body. If the rope broke or Judas’ body fell when others were taking him down, Judas’ body would have ruptured upon striking the ground. This is not imaginative speculation, but the practical stuff of elementary biology.
Another problem in Jesus, Interrupted is the absence of comparative data concerning manuscript evidence from other ancient sources. Other Greco-Roman sources ranging from Greek philosophers to Roman government officials demonstrate far less attestation than the New Testament. The average classical author may have a work represented in only a couple of dozen manuscripts. The oldest copy of these works is often many centuries after the original date of writing. For instance, in the cases of Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, their most famous works are represented by a handful of manuscripts dating to the medieval period. Comparing the New Testament to these writings, the Bible has well over 5,700 copies. Roughly a dozen date to within a century of the original authors, and about four dozen exist that date to within two centuries. The earliest copy of a New Testament text is P52, otherwise known as the John Rylands papyrus. Housed in the British Library, this fragment of John’s Gospel dates to approximately A.D. 115-135. The contrast between the textual evidence of the New Testament and the manuscript evidence from the classical world could not be more vivid. The noted historian F.F. Bruce recounts the words of Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum: “The interval between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence [is] so small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed” (Bruce, 1972, p. 20).

THE OTHER SINS OF EHRMAN

Ehrman plays his hand with considerable calculation. In his The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, he asserts, “there is not a single reference to Jesus or his followers in pagan literature of any kind during the first century” (2008, p. 41). While technically correct, it is somewhat misleading. Josephus is Jewish—and therefore not pagan—yet he mentions Christ in two passages in his Jewish Wars at the end of the first century, references which are undisputed among scholars specializing in Josephan studies. If we were to include the first two decades of the second century, we would have to include several pagan authors: the Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus, along with Pliny the Younger, governor of the Roman province of Bithynia.
The assertion that no references to Jesus and His followers exist in the first century has one important qualification that Ehrman seems to have omitted deliberately. While there are no extant references to them known to scholars today, Suetonius and Tacitus would have needed historical records or official documents in order to produce their biographies of the Roman emperors. While these documents no longer exist today, first-century records seem to have been readily available to historians. In other words, these documents did exist, but have perished with the passing of time. Ehrman’s rather misleading statement should have read, “there are no surviving references to Jesus or his followers in strictly pagan literature during the first century A.D. known to scholars presently.”
New Testament scholar Robert Yarbrough points out in Ehrman’s work the  “traditions of (much later) noncanonical gospels are consistently privileged vis-à-vis their canonical counterparts; the assumption is that we must treat their assertions as potential historical fact even though the assertions were not written down for a century, at least, after their putative origin” (2000, p. 366). Ehrman tends to elevate the non-canonical gospel records over those of the New Testament even though they were written centuries after the life of Christ. The constant claim that the gospel accounts cannot be trusted because they were written decades later than the events they describe vanishes, and the non-canonical gospels are considered relatively trustworthy despite the fact that the amount of time that separates them from the events they purport to describe is not decades as with the gospel accounts, but centuries.
As an example of his approach, Ehrman notes that the Gospel of Peter features “[a] giant Jesus and a walking, talking cross,” adding, “It’s hard to believe that this Gospel was ever lost” (2009, p. 209). He seems to think that Christianity was like any other religion, accepting the fantastic with little regard for reality. Many of the extracanonical gospels Ehrman prizes demonstrate the same features. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas has a number of odd miracle stories. The author appears to enjoy telling fantastic stories of weird happenings during the fictional childhood of Jesus, and the more bizarre the better. This provides a vivid contrast with the canonical gospel accounts, which record the happenings of Jesus’ life in sober fashion. It should be no wonder why the Christians dismissed the tall tales of gospels like Peter and Thomas. They preferred believable biographies to other “gospels” that were the ancient equivalent of science fiction.

THE HERMENEUTIC OF SUSPICION

As a text critic, Ehrman is quite good. As an interpreter he is abysmal. He insists on a rigidly literal interpretation of the text that does not allow for nuances or for passages from one book to complement those from another. In some cases, individual authors may state components of a biblical doctrine individually, but Ehrman forces them into different camps. It seems almost as if his method aims to pit the biblical authors against one another rather than allowing them to work together. In this way, Ehrman is able to create contradictions where none actually exist. In some places, he appears to deliberately distort the theological viewpoint of the biblical authors in order to manufacture divergent viewpoints. He typically notes that scholars have attempted to reconcile these positions, unsatisfactorily as far as he is concerned. After explaining what appear to be perfectly legitimate and convincing solutions to each problem he discusses, Ehrman then reverts to an unorthodox reading of the text and pronounces the difficulty unsolvable.
For Ehrman, the ultimate reason why more people do not know about these supposed contradictions is because the population is largely ignorant—the very problem he seeks to remedy. In his view, scholarship has not written popular-level books, and seminary-trained ministers are unwilling to share this information with their church members. When discussing his view that most of the New Testament books were not written by the actual authors, he asks with incredulity, “why isn’t this more widely known? Why is it that the person in the pew—not to mention the person in the street—knows nothing about this? Your guess is as good as mine” (2009, p. 137). It never seems to cross his mind that seminary-trained ministers and biblical scholars who know about these views find that they fail to agree with the evidence.
Yarbrough makes a powerful point about the cavalier attitude Ehrman takes toward the biblical text: “the early Christians who supposedly invented stories about Jesus...and then believed them were not deconstructionists engaged in teaching careers in comfortable university positions but tradesmen and professionals who knew the daily struggle for survival and were willing to die for their convictions” (2000, p. 370). For those living in the first century, the Christian faith was not a detached system of belief that could be adopted or discarded without consequence. Mistrust, discrimination, and even persecution ever loomed above the heads of the early Christians. Making the choice to follow Christ was a genuine commitment that had real—and often highly unpleasant—consequences.
The reader of Jesus, Interrupted must be careful to sort through Ehrman’s arguments. He is an accomplished textual critic, but allows preconceptions and personal bias to color his conclusions. Rarely, if ever, does Ehrman engage the opposing viewpoint. He seems to delight in manufacturing biblical contradictions and then refuses to allow them to be solved. His work makes it seem as if he has uncovered a secret hoard of biblical knowledge previously denied to all others. To those who are academically equipped to evaluate the truthfulness of Ehrman’s claims, this treasure trove of trade secrets is nothing more than fool’s gold.

REFERENCES

Bruce, F.F. (1972), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press).
Ehrman, Bart (2005), Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco: HarperSanFransicso).
Ehrman, Bart (2006), Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (New York: Oxford University Press).
Ehrman, Bart (2008), The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (New York: Oxford University Press).
Ehrman, Bart (2009), Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them) (New York: HarperOne).
Witherington, Ben (2009), “Bart Interrupted—A Detailed Analysis of ‘Jesus Interrupted’ Part 1,” [On-line], URL: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-detailed-analysis-of.html.
Yarbrough, Robert (2000), “The Power and Pathos of Professor Ehrman’s New Testament Introduction,” Perspectives in Religions Studies, Winter, 27[4]:363-370.

God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3716

God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

The Law of Cause and Effect states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. The mass of a paper clip is not going to provide sufficient gravitational pull to cause a tidal wave. There must be an adequate cause for the tidal wave, like a massive, offshore, underwater earthquake (“Tsunamis,” 2000, p. 1064). Leaning against a mountain will certainly not cause it to topple over. Jumping up and down on the ground will not cause an earthquake. If a chair is not placed in an empty room, the room will remain chairless. If matter was not made and placed in the Universe, we would not exist. There must be an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause for every material effect. Perhaps the Law of Cause and Effect seems intuitive to most, but common sense is foreign to many when God is brought into the discussion.

CAUSALITY AND HISTORY

The Law of Cause and Effect, or Law/Principle of Causality, has been investigated and recognized for millennia. In Phaedo, written by Plato in 360 B.C., an “investigation of nature” is spoken of concerning causality, wherein “the causes of everything, why each thing comes into being and why it perishes and why it exists” are discussed (Plato, 1966, 1:96a-b, emp. added). In 350 B.C., Aristotle contributed more to the causality discussion by stipulating that causes can be “spoken of in four senses”: material, formal, efficient, and final (Aristotle, 2009, 1[3]). Moving forward two millennia in no way changed the established fact pressed by the Law of Cause and Effect. In 1781, the renowned philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote concerning the Principle of Causality in his Critique of Pure Reason that “everything that happens presupposes a previous condition, which it follows with absolute certainty, in conformity with a rule.... All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect” (Kant, 1781). Fast forwarding another 350 years, our understanding of the world still did not cause the law to be discredited. In 1934, W.T. Stace, professor of philosophy at Princeton University, in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, wrote:
Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate canon of the sciences, the foundation of them all. If we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to dust. In every scientific investigation this truth is assumed (1934, p. 6, emp. added).
The truth of causality is so substantiated that it is taken for granted in scientific investigation.

A few decades later, the Law of Cause and Effect still had not been repealed. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Richard Taylor wrote, “Nevertheless, it is hardly disputable that the idea of causation is not only indispensable in the common affairs of life but in all applied sciences as well” (1967, p. 57, emp. added). Even today, when scientific exploration has brought us to unprecedented heights of knowledge, the age old Law of Causality cannot be denied. Today’s dictionaries define “causality” as:
  • “the principle that nothing can happen without being caused” (“Causality,” 2009).
  • “the principle that everything has a cause” (“Causality,” 2008).
Indeed, the Law of Cause and Effect is not, and cannot rationally be, denied—except when necessary in order to prop up a deficient worldview. Its ramifications have been argued for years, but after the dust settles, the Law of Cause and Effect still stands unscathed, having weathered the trials thrust upon it for thousands of years.

THE LAW OF CAUSALITY—A PROBLEM FOR ATHEISTS

Creationists have absolutely no problem with the truth articulated by this God-ordained law from antiquity. The Bible, in essence, articulated the principle millennia ago when in Hebrews 3:4 it says that “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” A house must have a cause—namely, a builder. It will not build itself. However, evolutionists are left in a quandary when trying to explain how the effect of the infinitely complex Universe could have come about without a cause. Three decades ago, Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, wrote:
The Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a known cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know. I would only like to present the evidence for the statement that the Universe, and man himself, originated in a moment when time began (1977, p. 21).
When Jastrow says that there is no “known cause” for everything in the Universe, he is referring to the fact that there is no known natural cause. If atheism were true, there must be a natural explanation of what caused the Universe. Scientists and philosophers recognize that there must be a cause that would be sufficient to bring about matter and the Universe—and yet no natural cause is known. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms says that “causality,” in physics, is “the principle that an event cannot precede its cause” (2003, p. 346). However, the atheist must concede that in order for his/her claim to be valid, the effect of the Universe not only preceded its cause, but actually came about without it! Such a viewpoint is hardly in keeping with science. Scientifically speaking, according to the Law of Cause and Effect, there had to be a Cause for the Universe. The only book on the planet which contains characteristics that prove its production to be above human capability is the Bible (see Butt, 2007). The God of the Bible is its author (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and in the very first verse of the inspired material He gave to humans, He articulated with authority and clarity that He is the Cause Who brought about the Universe and all that is in it.

UNCAUSED CAUSE?

Often the atheist or skeptic, attempting to distract and side-step the truth of this law without responding to it, retorts, “But if everything had to have a beginning, why does the same concept not apply to God?” Notice that this statement is based on a misunderstanding of what the Law of Cause and Effect claims concerning the Universe. The law states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. The God of the Bible is a spiritual Being (John 4:24) and therefore is not governed by physical law.

Recall also what Professor W.T. Stace wrote in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy concerning causality. “[E]verything which has a beginning has a cause” (1934, p. 6, emp. added). As mentioned above, scientists and philosophers recognize that, logically, there must be an initial cause of the Universe. [Those who attempt to argue the eternality of the Universe are in direct contradiction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see Miller, 2007).] However, God, not being a physical, finite being, but an eternal, spiritual being (by definition), would not be subject to the condition of requiring a beginning. Therefore, the law does not apply to Him. Psalm 90:2 says concerning God, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (emp. added). The Bible describes God as a Being who has always been and always will be—“from everlasting to everlasting.” He, therefore, had no beginning. Hebrews 3:4 again states, “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God,” indicating that God is not constrained by the Law of Cause and Effect as are houses, but rather, is the Chief Builder—the Uncaused Causer—the Being who initially set all effects into motion. The point stands. The Law of Cause and Effect supports the creation model, not the atheistic evolutionary model.

REFERENCES

Aristotle (2009), Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html.

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf.

“Causality” (2009), Collins English Dictionary—Complete & Unabridged, 10th ed. (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers), http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Causality?x=35&y=25.

“Causality” (2008), Concise Oxford English Dictionary, (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press), http://www.wordreference.com/definition/causality.

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kant, Immanuel (1781), The Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn (London: Henry G. Bohn), 1878 edition, http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-pure-reason.txt.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Plato (1966), Plato in Twelve Volumes, trans. Harold North Fowler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DPhaedo%3Asection%3D96a.

Stace, W.T. (1934), A Critical History of Greek Philosophy (London: Macmillan and Co.).

Taylor, Richard (1967), “Causation,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Philosophical Library).

“Tsunamis” (2000), The Oxford Companion to the Earth, ed. Paul L. Hancock & Brian J. Skinner (Oxford University Press).

Butt/Barker Debate Now A Book by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3592

Butt/Barker Debate Now A Book

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

A notable debate on the existence of God was conducted on February 12, 2009 between popular atheist Dan Barker and A.P.’s own Kyle Butt. In addition to the capacity crowd of 500 and the thousands that watched over the Internet, the debate has been viewed by many more by means of the DVD released by Apologetics Press last year. buttbarkerHaving engaged in over 70 public debates, Dan Barker is widely considered among atheists to be well-qualified to articulate the atheist’s viewpoint.

Due to the brief nature of the debate, a total time of about two hours, several issues were broached that called for a more thorough treatment. While many of Barker’s atheistic contentions were answered in the main, we thought it would be beneficial to provide more comprehensive responses to his assertions. In that regard, we are pleased to announce the release of the book version of the debate, titled A Christian’s Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism, subtitled “An Expanded Study of the Butt/Barker Debate.”

This volume contains a complete transcript of the oral debate. However, it also contains an additional 200+ pages of detailed analysis and refutation of Barker’s atheistic allegations. Consequently, in addition to providing the reader with a response to Barker’s debate points, this outstanding book serves as a valuable guide to refute most modern atheistic attacks on the God of the Bible. Indeed, it offers a decisive defeat of atheism.

At a time when a tidal wave of skepticism, unbelief, and rejection of the Christian worldview is sweeping over the nation, this volume constitutes a welcome addition to the Christian arsenal in the never-ending war between good and evil. You will want this book in your library, and you will want to use it to bolster the Christian convictions of your children, grandchildren, and friends.

Does Christianity Produce “Sexual Misery”? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1726

Does Christianity Produce “Sexual Misery”?

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Even though most Christians in twenty-first-century America recognize that we live in a sex-crazed society, it seems we rarely consider how Divine regulations concerning “sexual relations” are a chief reason why unbelievers reject Christianity. It has long been understood that some unbelievers refuse to accept the Bible as a God-inspired text because it would require them to live according to a set moral standard. Now, author Chaz Bufe has specifically mentioned “sexual misery” as a negative by-product of Christianity, and one of the main reasons why Christ and His doctrine should be rejected. In a pamphlet he wrote titled 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity, Bufe listed “Christianity produces sexual misery” as reason number ten. He stated:
In addition to the misery produced by authoritarian Christian intrusions into the sex lives of non-Christians, Christianity produces great misery among its own adherents through its insistence that sex (except the very narrow variety it sanctions) is evil, against God’s law. Christianity proscribes sex between unmarried people, sex outside of marriage, homosexual relations, bestiality, and even “impure” sexual thoughts. Indulging in such things can and will, in the conventional Christian view, lead straight to hell (n.d.).
One thing that Chaz got correct is that engaging in sexual relations outside of a lawful marriage is “against God’s law” (cf. Matthew 19:1-10; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21). And, as the writer of Hebrews warned, “[F]ornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:10). But who actually are the miserable ones when it comes to sexual relations? Are those who submit to God’s laws on the matter suffering great “sexual misery,” or are the ones who live sexually promiscuous lives the actual ones who experience misery?
Truly, it is the sexually immoral who often suffer from various disorders caused by their licentious behavior. According to the American Center for Disease Control (CDC), more than 65 million people (or 22% of the U.S. population) live with one or more incurable sexually transmitted diseases (“Tracking..., 2004). Those who refuse to abide by God’s laws pertaining to sexual relations risk becoming one of these infected ones, who frequently suffer with lesions, warts, and genital inflammation, and may also experience pain while urinating or during sexual intercourse. Women with various STDs sometimes suffer with pelvic inflammation, cancer, infertility, and can even have problems with pregnancy and childbirth. Bufe contends that “Christianity produces sexual misery,” yet those who live according to God’s standards of morality are not the ones experiencing the debilitating effects of an ungodly, permissive sexual lifestyle.
Granted, the Christian life is not a walk in the park. Jesus’ way is “difficult” (Matthew 7:14). The disciple of Christ is instructed to “deny himself” sinful pleasures (Matthew 16:24) and “imitate” Jesus, the sinless One (1 Peter 2:21-22; 1 Corinthians 11:1). Sexual temptation certainly can be hard to resist, especially as an adolescent. But, the so-called “misery” that Christians go through when resisting the lust of the flesh in no way compares to the misery of the sexually immoral. Abiding by any number of laws can be difficult. One person may constantly get frustrated by having to abide by speed limits, while another may get irritated with various tax laws. People who want to lose weight must set dietary rules for themselves. Following these rules can be very trying (as most all who have tried to lose weight can attest), involving self-denial, self-control, and self-discipline. However, eventually, restricted eating habits will lead to one becoming much healthier. Similarly, the difficulties in restraining oneself sexually in order to comply with God’s laws regarding marriage can eventually lead to a great sexual relationship with one’s lawful spouse, not to mention a stronger relationship with God. What’s more, a child of God has the promise that “God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).
Without question, God’s way concerning sexual relations is the best way, and the right way. The fact that unbelievers list “sexual misery” as one of the top twenty reasons to reject Christianity simply reveals how weak their case really is against Christianity, as well as how easily they overlook problems that arise (e.g., STDs) from living lives contrary to God’s will.

REFERENCES

Bufe, Chaz (no date), 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity (Tucson, AZ: Sharp Press), [On-line], URL: http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html#numberten.
“Tracking the Hidden Epidemics 2000” (2004), Center for Disease Control, [On-line], URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/news/RevBrochure1pdfintro.htm.

From Gary... Amazed?

I didn't know the answer to this one- did you?  Question: what does it take to AMAZE YOU???  We see many, many things during the course of our lifetime- what does it take to amaze you?

The following two passages show to very different groups who become amazed: I wonder, which group would you most likely identify with???

Mark, Chapter 2 (WEB)
 1 When he entered again into Capernaum after some days, it was heard that he was in the house.  2 Immediately many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even around the door; and he spoke the word to them. 3 Four people came, carrying a paralytic to him.  4 When they could not come near to him for the crowd, they removed the roof where he was. When they had broken it up, they let down the mat that the paralytic was lying on.  5 Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” 

  6  But there were some of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,  7 “Why does this man speak blasphemies like that? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 

  8  Immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you reason these things in your hearts?   9  Which is easier, to tell the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your bed, and walk?’   10  But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” —he said to the paralytic—  11  “I tell you, arise, take up your mat, and go to your house.” 

  12
  He arose, and immediately took up the mat, and went out in front of them all; so that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”

Mark, Chapter 16 (WEB)
1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.  2 Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 They were saying among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?”  4 for it was very big. Looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back. 

  5  Entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were amazed6 He said to them, “Don’t be amazed. You seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen. He is not here. Behold, the place where they laid him!  7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he said to you.’” 

  8  They went out, and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come on them. They said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid.  9 Now when he had risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.  10 She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.  11 When they heard that he was alive, and had been seen by her, they disbelieved.  12 After these things he was revealed in another form to two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.  13 They went away and told it to the rest. They didn’t believe them, either. 

  14  Afterward he was revealed to the eleven themselves as they sat at the table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they didn’t believe those who had seen him after he had risen.  15 He said to them, “Go into all the world, and preach the Good News to the whole creation.   16  He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who disbelieves will be condemned.   17  These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new languages;   18  they will take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will in no way hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” 

  19  So then the Lord, after he had spoken to them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.  


There is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of scepticism and the Scribes certainly had their fair share.  If someone came to them a claimed to be God, according to the old testament, they had every right to question that claim.  However, if that person backed up the claim with genuine miracles, they really had no choice but to be convinced.  Well, this passage (chapter 2) simply states they were amazed and I guess we will never know if any of them ever became a follower of Jesus or not. But, they were given a sign and hopefully they would have investigated further.

Later, in the same book, the two Mary's from his disciples are amazed at the news from the angels concerning Jesus' resurrection. Later still, Jesus appears to the eleven and rebukes them for their unbelief. Jesus gives them what we call "the great commission" and again  still later, was received up into heaven. 

Truthfully, any and all of the above would have amazed me!!!  Jesus wasn't a crazy person, he did work miracles and his resurrection does in fact prove who he is. Many people attested to all that Jesus said and did. Its Okay to question, but if presented with truth, we have a choice to believe or not!!!

Don't wait until the judgement day to find out that Jesus really is who he is!!! On that day, my prayer for you is that your "wow" will be an expression of joy and not of terror!!!!