From Mark Copeland... "THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST AND THE PROBLEM OF SIN" The Gospel's Answer To The "Result" Of Sin (The Gift Of Eternal Life)

              "THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST AND THE PROBLEM OF SIN"

               The Gospel's Answer To The "Result" Of Sin
                       (The Gift Of Eternal Life)

INTRODUCTION

1. The purpose in this series of lessons has been to help us understand
   and appreciate how the gospel of Christ is indeed God's power to save
   us - Ro 1:16-17

2. We have examined various aspects of the problem of sin, and then how
   the gospel of Christ with its commands and promises effectively
   addresses the problem of sin

3. To summarize thus far...
   a. When the command to believe is obeyed, the love of sin is addressed
   b. When the command to repent is obeyed, the practice of sin is dealt with
   c. When the command to be baptized is submitted to, the state of sin is changed
   d. When we have obeyed these commands, we receive wonderful  promises...
      1) Remission of sins, which removes the guilt of sin
      2) The gift of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to deal with the power of sin

4. In this final lesson, we shall examine another promise which deals
   with the result of sin:  the promise of eternal life - Ro 6:23

[In the first lesson, we touched briefly on the result of sin; we shall
now examine it more carefully...]

I. THE "RESULT" OF SIN

   A. ONE RESULT OF SIN IS "SPIRITUAL DEATH"...
      1. The death referred to by God when He warned Adam & Eve - Gen 2:15-17
         a. Note:  "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
            shalt surely die."
         b. They did not die "physically" in the day they ate of the
            forbidden fruit, but they did die "spiritually" in that day
      2. "Spiritual" death is "separation from God"
         a. Death of any sort involves the idea of "separation"
         b. Just as physical death is the separation of body and spirit
            - Jm 2:26
      3. "Spiritual" death is what occurs when all sin - Ro 5:12
         a. It occurs when we reach that "age of accountability" where
            we know the difference between right and wrong, and then
            violate God's law - cf. Ro 7:9
         b. This is the "death" referred to in Ep 2:1-3
            1) All who are outside of Christ are "dead in sin"
            2) Those who are "dead in sin" are separated from God and
               all the blessings that would otherwise come from union
               with Him - cf. Isa 59:1-2

   B. ANOTHER RESULT OF SIN IS "PHYSICAL DEATH"...
      1. Because of their sin, Adam and Even lost access to the "tree of
         life" - Gen 3:22-24
      2. Because access to the "tree of life" was lost, all mankind is
         subject to "physical" death - "in Adam all die" (1Co 15:22a)

   C. THE FINAL RESULT OF SIN IS THE "SECOND DEATH"...
      1. This death is referred to in Re 21:8
      2. This "death" involves eternal separation from God!
      3. This "death" Jesus often spoke of and warned about - Mt 10:28; 25:41-46

[Truly, in more than one sense, "the wages of sin is death" (Ro 6:23);
but the same can be said about "the gift of eternal life"!  No matter
what the result of sin, the promise of eternal life more than makes up for it!]

II. THE GIFT OF ETERNAL LIFE

   A. THE GOSPEL PROMISES EVEN NOW "ETERNAL LIFE"...
      1. John speaks of this "life" as a present possession in 1Jn 5:
         11-13
      2. This is "eternal life" in the sense of knowing God and Jesus in
         a special way, having fellowship with them - cf. Jn 17:3; 1Jn 5:20
      3. With this type of "eternal life"...
         a. One is no longer "dead in sin"
         b. One is no longer "separated from God"
         c. The emphasis is on the quality of life, not quantity - cf. Jn 10:10
      4. "Eternal life" in this sense begins when we rise from the
         watery grave of baptism
         a. "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:
            that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory
            of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of
            life." - Ro 6:4
         b. This is because in baptism...
            1) Our sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ - cf. Ac 2:38; 22:16
            2) We enter into a new relationship with God, having put on
               Christ - Ga 3:26-27
      5. We who were once dead "spiritually", are now "made alive"!
         - cf. Ep 2:1,4-9

   B. THE GOSPEL PROMISES "THE HOPE OF THE RESURRECTION"...
      1. Jesus spoke of this "hope" in Jn 5:28-29
      2. Paul wrote of this wonderful "hope" in 1Co 15:20-23,50-58
      3. This hope of the resurrection we have is based upon our
         conviction that Jesus Himself was raised from the dead - 1 Pe 1:3
      4. With such hope, "physical" death has lost much of its sting
         - 1Th 4:13-18

   C. THE GOSPEL PROMISES "THE HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE"...
      1. In this sense, "eternal life" is still a future hope (and not
         a present possession)...
         a. Jesus spoke of "eternal life" in this sense, in Mt 25:46; Mk 10:29-30
         b. Paul spoke of "eternal life" as a future hope in 2Ti 1:1; Tit 1:2
      2. This "eternal life", which is yet to be realized by those who
         are in Christ...
         a. Comes after one has:
            1) Been set free from sin (which occurs in baptism - Ro 6:3-7)
            2) Become a slave to God (which occurs when we present our
               selves as servants of righteousness - Ro 6:17-19)
            3) Produced the fruit of holiness - Ro 6:22
            -- Note carefully what Paul says: "...and the end
               everlasting life."  Everlasting life comes at "the end"
               of a life that has borne fruit unto holiness! It is a
               gift, yes (Ro 6:23), but in the text Paul is speaking
               about a gift that one receives at "the end" of the
               Christian's faithful life!
         b. Comes after the resurrection and judgment - Mt 25:31-34,46
         c. Comes to those who patiently do the will of God! - Ro 2:4-7
         d. Offers honor, peace and glory to those who receive it - Ro 2:8-11
         e. Is beautifully described by the apostle John in Re 21:1-7;
            22:1-5

CONCLUSION

1. This is how the gospel addresses the result of sin; in response to:
   a. "spiritual death" (where our sins separate us from God) there is
      "eternal life" (in the sense of knowing the Lord, which begins at
      one's conversion)
   b. "physical death", there is "the resurrection from the dead" (which
      occurs at the coming of Christ)
   c. The "second death" (eternal separation from God), there is
      "eternal life" (in the sense of eternity with God and Christ,
      which begins after the Judgment)
   -- Thus the gospel of Christ effectively deals with the result of sin!

2. I hope that we better understand the wonderful grace of Christ; why
   Paul calls it "the gospel of the grace of God" (Ac 20:24)...
   a. Even the commands to be obeyed involve God's grace:
      1) We must believe in Christ, if we are to stop the love of sin;
         yet by grace God's Word produces such faith! - Ro 10:17
      2) We must repent, if we are to end the practice of sin; yet it is
         God's goodness (i.e., by grace) which leads us to repentance
         - Ro 2:4
      3) We must be baptized into Christ, if we are to change the state
         of sin; yet, even in this, it is by grace (for God is the one
         who is at work in cleansing our sins and regenerating us anew)
         - Col 2:12
   b. How much more are the promises of the gospel indicative of God's
      marvelous grace!
      1) The remission of sins removes the guilt of sin
      2) The gift of the Holy Spirit helps us to overcome the power of sin
      3) Eternal life is God's gracious gift in response to the result of sin

Have you accepted the grace of God by obeying the gospel of Christ?  If
not, may the words of Paul encourage you do so today...

   We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to
   receive the grace of God in vain. For He says: "In an acceptable
   time I have heard you, And in the day of salvation I have helped
   you." Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of
   salvation. - 2Co 6:1-2

If I can be of any assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.  May
God be with you!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

 

Seeing God “Face to Face” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2682

Seeing God “Face to Face”

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the Kyle Butt/Dan Barker debate, Dan Barker alleged that He “knows” the God of the Bible cannot exist because “there are mutually incompatible properties/characteristics of the God that’s in this book [the Bible—EL] that rule out the possibility of His existence” (2009). One of the supposed contradictions that Barker mentioned was that God claims invisibility, yet has been seen. (His assertion is found 10 minutes and 55 seconds into his first speech.) Since biblical passages such as Exodus 33:20-23, John 1:18, and 1 John 4:12 teach that God cannot be seen, while other scriptures indicate that man has seen God and spoken to him “face to face” (Exodus 33:11; Genesis 32:30), allegedly “the God of the Bible does not exist.”

Although in modern times words are regularly used in many different senses (e.g., hot and cold, good and bad), Barker, like so many Bible critics, has dismissed the possibility that the terms in the aforementioned passages were used in different senses. Throughout Scripture, however, words are often used in various ways. In James 2:5, the term “poor” refers to material wealth, whereas the term “rich” has to do with a person’s spiritual well-being. In Philippians 3:12,15, Paul used the term “perfect” (NASB) in different senses. Although Paul had attained spiritual maturity (“perfection”) in Christ (vs. 15), he had not yet attained the perfect “final thing, the victor’s prize of the heavenly calling in Christ Jesus” (Schippers, 1971, 2:62; cf. Philippians 3:9-11). Similarly, in one sense man has seen God, but in another sense he has not.

Consider the first chapter of John where we learn that in the beginning Jesus was with God and “was God” (1:1; cf. 14,17). Though John wrote that Jesus “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14), he indicated only four sentences later that “no one has seen God at any time” (1:18; 1 John 4:12). Was Jesus God? Yes. Did man see Jesus? Yes. So in what sense has man not seen God? No human has ever seen Jesus in His true image (i.e., as a spirit Being—John 4:24—in all of His fullness, glory, and splendor). When God, the Word, appeared on Earth 2,000 years ago, He came in a veiled form. In his letter to the church at Philippi, the apostle Paul mentioned that Christ—Who had existed in heaven “in the form of God”—“made Himself of no reputation,” and took on the “likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6-7). Mankind saw an embodiment of deity as Jesus dwelt on Earth in the form of a man. Men saw “the Word” that “became flesh.” Likewise, when Jacob “struggled with God” (Genesis 32:28), He saw only a form of God, not the spiritual, invisible, omnipresent God Who fills heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:23-24).

But what about those statements which indicate that man saw or spoke to God “face to face”? Jacob said, “I have seen God face to face” (Genesis 32:30). Gideon proclaimed: “I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face” (Judges 6:22). Exodus 33:11 affirms that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” First, although these men witnessed great and awesome things, they still only saw manifestations of God and a part of His glory (cf. Exodus 33:18-23). Second, the words “face” and “face to face” are used in different senses in Scripture. Though Exodus 33:11 reveals that God spoke to Moses “face to face,” only nine verses later God told Moses, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live” (33:20). Are we to believe (as Barker and other critics assert) that the author of Exodus was so misguided that he wrote contradictory statements within only nine verses of each other? Certainly not! What then does the Bible mean when it says that God “knew” (Deuteronomy 34:10) or “spoke to Moses face to face” (Exodus 33:11)? The answer is found in Numbers 12. Aaron and Miriam had spoken against Moses and arrogantly asked: “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” (Numbers 12:2). God then appeared to Aaron and Miriam, saying: “If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the Lord” (Numbers 12:6-8, emp. added). Notice the contrast: God spoke to the prophets of Israel through visions and dreams, but to Moses He spoke, “not in dark sayings,” but “plainly.” In other words, God, Who never showed His face to Moses (Exodus 33:20), nevertheless allowed Moses to see “some unmistakable evidence of His glorious presence” (Jamieson, 1997), and spoke to him “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (33:11), i.e., He spoke to Moses plainly, directly, etc.

The Bible does not reveal “mutually incompatible characteristics of God” as Barker has alleged. His assertions in no way prove that the God of the Bible does not exist or that the Bible is unreliable. In truth, Barker’s comments merely reveal that he is a dishonest interpreter of Scripture. If Barker can work “side by side” with a colleague without literally working inches from him (Barker, 2008, p. 335), or if he can see “eye to eye” with a fellow atheist without ever literally looking into the atheist’s eyes, then Barker can understand that God could speak “face to face” with Moses without literally revealing to him His full, glorious “face.”

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Schippers, R. (1971), “Telos,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

It Takes Intelligence to Design a Human—oid by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2681

It Takes Intelligence to Design a Human—oid

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

On Monday, March 16 the world was introduced to HRP-4C, a female, humanoid robot designed and created by developers at Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (Ama, 2009). This 95-pound technological wonder wowed onlookers with her animated facial expressions, lifelike walk, and human-like responses. Designers created her to be a fashion model. They hope that future models will be able to help “with daily chores or work side by side with people.” But Hirohisa Hirukawa, one researcher who worked on the robot, said concerning this dream: “Technologically, it hasn’t reached that level” (Ama, 2009). For all the money, man-hours, and technology applied to the field of robotics, robots simply cannot perform standard tasks that an average human does with little thought or exertion.

Models of the HRP-4C robot will soon be on sale for about $200,000. Japanese robotics developers, who are some of the leaders in the field, believe that the market for humanoid robots will soon be in the billions of dollars. They want to be the front-runners in this technological expansion.

As exciting as HRP-4C’s debut was, however, it was not problem-free. As Ama noted:

The demonstration didn’t all go smoothly. The robot often looked surprised, opening its mouth and eyes in a stunned expression, when the demonstrator asked it to smile or look angry. Its walk was also not quite ready for the Paris Collection, partly because its knees are permanently bent. It has sensors in its feet but it lacks the sensitive balance of a real human (2009).

If we wanted to list a few other things that limit the robot’s capabilities, we could mention that it does not have light-weight, super-strong bones that heal in a matter of weeks if they are broken, it cannot turn a banana into usable energy to keep itself going, it cannot do simple jumping jacks, does not have self-cleaning eyeballs, etc. To put it mildly, the robot’s abilities are dismal when compared to a living human.

Shuuji Kajita, the leading developer of the group, optimistically noted that HRP-4C “is just the first step” (Ama, 2009). He means this is the first step toward making a robot that can come closer to human functionality. But future steps in that direction will cost billions, consume massive amounts of research time, and require input from thousands of brilliant men and women across the globe. These things do not just happen by accident, which, of course, is the point. Robots don’t happen by accident; they require intelligent designers to bring them into existence.

Only the most obstinate mind can miss the clear implication. Robots are inferior to humans and they require intelligent, personal beings for their construction. Human beings are superior to robots in functionality and complexity; therefore they must also require an intelligent, personal being for their design. As the psalmist so aptly put it some 3,000 years ago: “I will praise You [God], for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are your works, and that my soul knows very well” (139:14).

REFERENCE

Ama, Yuri Kagey (2009), “Walking, Talking Female Robot to Hit Japan Catwalk,” [On-line], URL:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090316/ap_on_re_as/as_japan_girl_robot.

Dawkins Can’t See the Forest for the Trees by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3590

Dawkins Can’t See the Forest for the Trees

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

Richard Dawkins recently penned The Greatest Show on Earth that he believes sets forth overwhelming evidence to establish the “fact” of evolution. He wrote the book because he admitted that in his previous works, he “realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap” that he “needed to close” (2009, p. vii). This self-acknowledged gap remains open, however, because the text of his newest book fails completely to state explicitly anything resembling “the evidence for evolution.”

Confirmation of the book’s failure to provide a rational case for evolution can be clearly seen in Dawkins’ discussion about trees (pp. 377-380). In his assessment of trees, Dawkins suggests that tall tree trunks are simply a waste of energy that could be disposed of “if only all the trees in the forest could come to some agreement” not to grow past a certain height. He states:

And this brings us face to face with the difference between a designed economy and an evolutionary economy. In a designed economy there would be no trees, or certainly no very tall trees: no forests, no canopy. Trees are a waste. Trees are extravagant. Tree trunks are standing monuments to futile competition—futile if we think in terms of planned economy. But the natural economy is not planned. Individual plants compete with other plants, of the same and other species, and the result is that they grow taller and taller, far taller than any planner would recommend (p. 379).

According to Dawkins, tall tree trunks are the squandered natural resources of plants that must constantly compete with other plants to capture the precious rays of sunshine that drive their nutrition production. In fact, he states that massive tree trunks “have no purpose apart from competing with other trees” (p. 379). He concludes that “the forest would look very different if its economy had been designed for the benefit of the forest as a whole” (p. 380, italics in orig.). He believes that only the idea of competition between individual trees can account for the look of a forest with massive-trunked trees filling it. In summarizing his “evidence” about trees, he states: “Everything about trees is compatible with the view that they were not designed—unless, of course, they were designed to supply us with timber, or to delight our eyes and flatter our cameras in the new England Fall” (p. 380, emp. added).

In assessing Dawkins’ conclusion about trees, it must be stressed that he has not provided any evidence by which one could conclude that “everything about trees is compatible with the view that they were not designed.” He has not shown how genetic information could spontaneously assemble itself through any known natural process that would give rise to a tree. He has not shown how genetic mutations could change one tree into another kind of tree, say an apple tree into an oak. Nor has he shown how trees could possibly share any type of ancestral relationship with animals, which he would have to do in order to defend evolution and refute creation. All Dawkins has shown is that trees have the genetic ability to grow trunks that eventually reach a certain limit of height and breadth that they cannot exceed.

Furthermore, Dawkins admits defeat, at least in his discussion of trees, when he acknowledges that a Creator could have in mind other things besides forest economy. Dawkins acknowledges that tree trunks would make perfect sense if they were designed to provide humans with timber or beauty. Yet that is precisely why the Bible explains God created the world—to be inhabited by man: “For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18). Not only that, but also to show the glory of God (cf. Psalm 19:1 and Isaiah 6:3). Dawkins’ obvious mistake is that he refuses to accept that the Creator of the world might have a more involved agenda than Dawkins is willing to allow or can even conceptualize. Why would Dawkins waste at least three pages of his book on “explicit evidence” supposedly proving evolution, only to admit that everything he just said about trees is not evidence of evolution “if” the Designer had humans in mind? Simply because this is the only kind of “evidence” that can be marshaled for evolution—the kind that can rationally be refuted when a correct interpretation of the facts is made available.

REFERENCE

Dawkins, Richard (2009), The Greatest Show on Earth (New York: Free Press).

How To Offend God by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=314

How To Offend God

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Americans have their daily concerns just as all human beings: food, clothes, housing, transportation, employment, etc. Most people give some thought everyday to such concerns, along with the broader issues that occupy national attention—the economy, foreign enemies, etc. But how many Americans ever give any thought whatsoever to whether the God of the Universe is offended by their conduct? How many contemplate the idea that the Great Ruler of Nations would actually punish an entire country for its citizens’ violations of His will? Should this consideration be of any concern to society? Should the U.S. Congress discuss this question? Should state legislatures across the country give any time or attention to such a matter?

The Founders of the American Republic most certainly shared this greater concern (Miller, 2009). They repeatedly expressed their conviction that the successful establishment of the nation was dependent on the approval of God. They insisted that it was imperative that Americans not be guilty of offending Him or earning His displeasure, lest their entire national enterprise fail. For example, four months before officially declaring independence from Great Britain, the Continental Congress issued a proclamation to the entire country:

In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered…, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly [sic] to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger…. Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God’s superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprises [sic], on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life,appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance…. (Journals of…, 4:208-209, emp. added).

Subsequent proclamations contained similar sentiments regarding the wrath of God, including such phrases as: “to acknowledge GOD in all his Ways, and more especially to humble themselves before him when evident tokens of his Displeasure are manifested” (Journals of…, 10:229-230, emp. added); “that so he might turn from his Wrath” (Journals of…, 13:343-344, emp. added); “humbling ourselves before him, and turning from every evil Way to avert his Anger and obtain his Favour” (Journals of…, 16:252-253, emp. added; cf. 19:284-286).

Who, today, believes the perpetuation of a blessed America depends on appeasing God’s righteous displeasure over the sins of Americans? How many Americans are actually and vitally concerned about offending God? Perhaps a key indicator was the number one concern of the vast majority of Americans during the last presidential election—the economy, not morality (“Economy Top Issue…,” 2010)! Since the Bible is proven to be the only book on the planet that conveys the will of God (Butt, 2007), what does it say about offending God? How are Americans offending God today, and consequently endangering the existence of the Republic? The Bible delineates a number of such offenses that merit divine displeasure, but please consider three.

When Harry Reid invited a Hindu priest to open a session of the U.S. Senate with a Hindu prayer, neither he nor a host of others apparently gave the slightest thought to whether such an action was an offense to the God of the Universe. After all, political correctness demands that all religions and ideologies be celebrated and treated as equally authentic. To fail to do so would be “intolerant” and “judgmental”—the only ultimate evil in the minds of many. But to give credence or credibility to pantheistic religion (“God” inside the Earth, sky, etc.; see Miller, 2007b) that advocates belief in thousands of “gods” and that cow-killing is a sin, while rejecting the one true God of the Bible, would be unthinkable in America in 1776. It was equally unthinkable for most Americans until the last 40-50 years. The politically correct climate now enshrouding America literally is suffocating the moral and religious sensibilities of society. The nod to Hinduism follows closely on the heels of the election of a Muslim to the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the first atheist in Congress (see Miller, 2006; Miller, 2007a).

But wait! The fact is that the God of the Bible exists, He is the only one that exists, and both atheism and polytheism are an affront to His righteous character (cf. Warren and Flew, 1976; Butt and Barker,2009). Consequently, human behavior that violates His will displeases Him. Rather than being overly concerned with whether our Christian beliefs offend our misguided fellow human beings, we would do well to show greater concern for whether our behavior offends God.

Second, whereas at one time in American culture, the average citizen understood the concept that using God’s name in vain was taboo, now it is common place. Both adults and children regularly use God’s name in a flippant, thoughtless, frivolous way (“Oh, my God!”). Yet, God informed the Israelites that such disrespectful misuse of His name would bring His displeasure: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain” (Deuteronomy 5:11, emp. added). God holds guilty those who misuse His high and holy name.

Third, the gross and flagrant immorality that has blanketed American civilization, becoming commonplace and comfortable to the population, is an offense to the God of Heaven. The very actions that most Americans disdained for most of American history are now widespread, rampant, and defiantly defended or downplayed: stealing, lying, murder, covetousness, adultery, homosexuality, pre-marital and extra-marital sex, rape, gambling, intoxication, the killing of the unborn, and the list goes on and on. The Great Governor of the Universe is offended by such conduct, and historically, He will allow it to progress only so long and so far (e.g., Genesis 6:5-7; 19:24-25; 15:16; Deuteronomy 7:1-4). Legion are the nations that were destroyed for their wickedness, now lying in rubble, ruins, and the dust of antiquity (see Miller, 2005).

Writing from Mount Vernon on June 29, 1788, the Father of our country, George Washington, wrote a letter to Major General Benjamin Lincoln. In that letter, remarks were made to which every American today ought to pay earnest heed:

No one can rejoice more than I do at every step the people of this great Country take to preserve the Union, establish good order and government, and to render the Nation happy at home and respectable abroad. No Country upon Earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means, and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to, so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass. The great Governor of the Universe has led us too long and too far on the road to happiness and glory, to forsake us in the midst of it. By folly and improper conduct, proceeding from a variety of causes, we may now and then get bewildered; but I hope and trust that there is good sense and virtue enough left to recover the right path before we shall be entirely lost (1788, emp. added).

The only remedy and the only hope for America to perpetuate its national existence is to swallow the antidote prescribed by God Himself:

Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the LORD your God… But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: The LORD will send on you cursing, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the wickedness of your doings in which you have forsaken Me (Deuteronomy 28:1-2,15,20, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Butt/Barker Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist?(Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

“Economy Top Issue for Voters; Size of Gov’t. May Be More Pivotal” (2010), Gallup, October 26, http://www.gallup.com/poll/144029/Economy-Top-Issue-Voters-Size-Gov-May-Pivotal.aspx.

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Is America’s Iniquity Full?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1528.

Miller, Dave (2006), “A Muslim Now in Congress?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1999.

Miller, Dave (2007a), “First Atheist in Congress,” Reason & Revelation, 6[5]:17,20-R, May,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2140.

Miller, Dave (2007b), “Hindu Prayer in Congress,” Reason & Revelation, 27[8]:57-63, August,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=592.

Miller, Dave (2009), Christ & the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Warren, Thomas B. and Antony Flew (1976), The Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Washington, George (1788), “George Washington to Benjamin Lincoln, June 29, 1788,” George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 2 Letterbooks, Letterbook 15, Image 172 of 341, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw2&fileName=gwpage015.db&recNum=171.

From Gary... Fried chicken and the TRUTH!!!

Robin Womack put this story on Facebook today and I am glad she did. First, because it is humorous and second because it says a lot about our society today.  In America we are becoming increasingly intolerant of others. Free thought and free speech is becoming a rarity, not the norm. If you are a Christian and mention sin and the remedy for it- look out; the liberal left will want to destroy you.

Why? Because the TRUTH bothers them!!! And if an little girl's honesty can get her into "trouble", then whatever will happen when someone is confronted with the CHRIST OF GOD?

Jesus said:

John, Chapter 14 (WEB)

 6  Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.  

And if Jesus is THE truth, THE way and THE life, then whatever anyone else says DOES REALLY NOT MATTER!!! 

And YES, I like fried chicken too!!!