8/2/17

"THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS" Not Seeking My Own Profit (10:31-33) by Mark Copeland

                 "THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS"

                  Not Seeking My Own Profit (10:31-33)

INTRODUCTION

1. In his writings, the apostle Paul often offered himself as an
   example...
   a. To the brethren at Philippi - Php 3:17; 4:9
   b. To the brethren at Corinth - 1Co 11:1

2. His call to imitation in 1Co 11:1 has reference to his attitude
   mentioned in the previous chapter...
   a. To do all things to the glory of God - 1Co 10:31
   b. To give no offense to Jews, Greeks, or to the church of God 
      - 1Co 10:32
   c. To not seek one's own profit, but rather the salvation of others
      - 1Co 10:33

[We find in these verses (1Co 10:31-33) a principle that governed
Paul's actions in dealing with others. To fully appreciate that
principle, it helps to first understand...]

I. PAUL'S MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION

   A. THAT ALL MEN MIGHT BE SAVED...
      1. Mentioned in 1Co 10:31
      2. As expressed to the brethren at Colosse
         a. His desire and labor to present every man perfect in Christ
            - Col 1:28-29
         b. His anguish for the spiritual growth of all men - Col 2:1-7

   B. COMPASSION PROMPTED BY HIS SAVIOR...
      1. For Paul was allowing Christ to live in Him - Ga 2:20
      2. And Christ was certainly one who had compassion for the lost
         - Mt 9:35-38

[Thus Paul developed a Christ-like obsession of concern for others,
which in turn motivated him to apply the magnificent principle in his
dealings with others...]

II. PAUL'S MAGNIFICENT PRINCIPLE

   A. AS EXPRESSED IN OUR TEXT...
      1. "not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they
         may be saved" - 1Co 10:33
      2. This is not to say that Paul would compromise on matters of truth
         a. E.g., his stand for truth regarding circumcision - Ga 2:3-5
         b. E.g., his stand for truth regarding the truth of the gospel
            - Ga 2:11-14
      3. But he would not allow his personal feelings, preferences, or
         opinions hinder...
         a. The salvation of souls outside of Christ
         b. The spiritual progress of brethren weak in faith

   B. AS EXEMPLIFIED IN OTHER TEXTS...
      1. In regards to eating meats sacrificed to idols - 1Co 8:7-13
         a. Paul makes clear the possible consequence of abusing one's
            liberty
         b. Thus the application of his magnificent principle ("not
            seeking my own profit")
      2. In regards to reaching the lost - 1Co 9:19-22
         a. He had made himself a servant to others, that he might save
            some
         b. Again, applying his magnificent principle ("not seeking my
            own profit")
      3. In regards to brethren whose faith was weak - Ro 14:13-23
         a. Making every effort not to put stumbling blocks in a
            brother's way
         b. Again, applying his magnificent principle ("not seeking my
            own profit")

   C. AS EXPLAINED IN OTHER TEXTS...
      1. To the brethren at Rome - Ro 15:1-3
         a. The strong should bear with the scruples of the weak
         b. We should seek to please our neighbor for his good
         c. We should follow the example of Christ Himself
      2. To the brethren at Corinth - 1Co 10:23-24
         a. It is not enough that a matter be lawful; does it also edify
            (build up)?
         b. We should not seek our own, but one another's well-being
      3. To the brethren in Galatia - Ga 5:1,13
         a. We may be free in Christ (free from the Law, from sin, etc.)
         b. But we must use our liberty to serve one another in love!

   D. AS EMPLOYED IN OUR LIVES...
      1. It requires that we possess Paul's magnificent obsession
         a. That is, to save souls (both the lost and the spiritually
            immature)
         b. Otherwise there will be insufficient motivation to sacrifice
            personal preferences, opinions and feelings, our liberty to
            save and serve others!
      2. It requires prayerful evaluation and discernment
         a. We must examine ourselves honestly
            1) Regarding our impact as individuals in daily contact with
               others
            2) Regarding our influence as a congregation in our work and
               worship
         b. We must consider whether or not our actions...
            1) Keep people from becoming Christians
            2) Hinder brethren from their spiritual growth in Christ
            3) Destroy the peace and unity that ought to exist in the church
      3. It requires understanding the parameters of our conduct
         a. We must never compromise the truth of the gospel
         b. We must be willing to refrain our personal liberty in Christ
            - cf. 1Co 8:13; Ro 14:21
      4. Some modern-day circumstances that call for Paul's magnificent
         principle
         a. You may thinking nothing of certain recreational activities;
            but if you know it would cause a brother to stumble, what do
            you do?
         b. You may think your ideas for a congregation are better; but
            if you know it might cause division, what do you do?
         c. You may have different ideas as to what constitutes modest
            apparel; but if you know it might encourage lust in others,
            what do you do?

CONCLUSION

1. We know how Paul would respond...
   a. "Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the
      things by which one may edify another." - Ro 14:19
   b. "It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by
      which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak." 
      - Ro 14:21
   c. "Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again
      eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." - 1Co 8:13

2. Or as he summarized it in our text...

   "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all
   to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the
   Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in
   all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that
   they may be saved." - 1Co 10:31-33

We know that Paul's attitude ("Not Seeking My Own Profit") was because
he imitated Christ (1Co 11:1).  Are we willing to do the same for the
sake of saving and serving others...?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 

Charles Taze Russell by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=371

Charles Taze Russell

by Brad Bromling, D.Min.


Not all religious groups claim to foretell the future. Those that do can be exposed as false if they fail a simple test. If their prophecies fail, God has not spoken through them (Deuteronomy 18:22). Hence, they are of human origin.
In his six volumes, Studies in the Scriptures, Charles Taze Russell (founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses) made many predictions that were tied to specific dates (e.g., 1878, 1910, 1915). As these volumes were reprinted, some of the dates were changed because the original dates passed without the predictions being fulfilled. In time, all of the dated prophecies failed and the movement had to reinterpret the predictions or ignore them altogether.
One example (of many) is striking. In Volume II, Mr. Russell predicted:
In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished near the end of 1915. Then the prayer of the Church, ever since her Lord took his departure—“Thy Kingdom come”—will be answered; and under that wise administration, the whole earth will be filled with the glory of the Lord—with knowledge, and righteousness, and peace (Psa. 72:19; Isa. 6:3; Hab. 2:14); and the will of God shall be done “on earth, as it is in heaven” (p. 101, emp. in orig.).
Realizing that even as late as 1995 (when this article was written), the world still does not know the peace promised in this “prophecy,” the Jehovah’s Witnesses have had to “spiritualize” what Russell plainly intended to be taken literally. But, say what they will, an objective observer must conclude that this prophecy failed and that the prophet was false.
[See related article: “Prophecies—True and False”]

Atheist Parenting Book by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2223

Atheist Parenting Book

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the July 16, 2007 issue of Newsweek, Lisa Miller informed readers about a new and different parenting book, titled Parenting Beyond Belief. Edited by Dale McGowan, this volume “aims to help folks who are raising their kids without religion deal with the sticky questions that come up about Santa Claus and heaven, and it raises more serious concerns about how to bring up ethical, confident, non-believing kids in a culture saturated with talk about God” (Miller, 2007, p. 10). According to McGowan’s Web site, Parenting Beyond Belief “is the first comprehensive parenting book by a major publisher on raising children without religion” (2007). McGowan added: “We hope it isn’t the last” (2007).
Included in Parenting Beyond Belief is discussion about a new summer camp for children of atheists. Camp Quest: The Secular Summer Camp, which operates in six different locations in North America, claims to be “the first residential summer camp in the history of the United States for the children of Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists, Brights, or whatever other terms might be applied to those who hold to a naturalistic, not supernatural world view” (Camp Quest, n.d., emp. added).
It seems as if atheists are more determined than ever to indoctrinate children with godless materials and ideologies. In the end, Dale McGowan’s hope of seeing more atheistic materials for families ultimately fails to provide reasonable, not to mention comforting, answers to life’s biggest questions. Imagine the child who ponders his origin for the first time: “Mom, why are we here?” “Ricky,” mom replies, “we’re here because, by chance, billions of years ago a tiny ball of matter exploded. Eventually Earth was formed, life emerged from lifeless matter, and millions of years later humans evolved from lower animals.” “So we’re here by accident?” Ricky asks. “That’s one way of looking at it,” says his mother. Parenting Beyond Belief and Camp Quest no doubt help atheistic parents explain origins and ultimate destinations to their children in a more creative way. However, the bottom line is, children will learn that life ultimately is meaningless because their existence is accidental and there is no life beyond death.
The key to an abundant life, both in the present and in the afterlife, is found only through Christ Jesus (John 10:10). May God help us to teach our children this truth, as well as reach out to those reared by atheists, who may never have heard the answers that Jesus and His Word can provide.

REFERENCES

Camp Quest: The Secular Summer Camp (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.camp-quest.org/.
McGowan, Dale (2007), “Parenting Beyond Belief,” [On-line], URL: http://www.parentingbeyondbelief.com/.
Miller, Lisa (2007), “BELIEF WATCH: How To,” Newsweek, July 16.


The Bible and Catholic Traditionalism by Moisés Pinedo

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1027


The Bible and Catholic Traditionalism

by Moisés Pinedo

The American Heritage Dictionary offers several definitions for the word “tradition,” including the following: “The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication” (2000, p. 1829). Tradition is not inherently evil; in many respects, tradition has positive effects on future generations. However, in the field of Christian theology, tradition must be subjected to the “litmus test” of the inspired Word of God. If we elevate mere human tradition to the level of apostolic tradition recorded in the inspired Scriptures, we may accept any innovation as a product of divine will. Sadly, Catholicism has been at that point for centuries.
The Catechism declares that “[a]s a result the [Catholic—MP] Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence’” (1994, 82, emp. added). Other Catholic authorities have declared: “It is an article of faith from a decree of the Vatican Council that Tradition is a source of theological teaching distinct from Scripture, and that it is infallible. It is therefore to be received with the same internal assent as Scripture for it is the word of God” (Attwater, 1961, p. 41, emp. added).
Placing tradition on an equal level with Scripture or making it superior to Scripture inevitably undermines of the Bible’s authority and inspiration. Over the hundreds of years of abusing and misusing God’s Word, Catholicism has adopted this deplorable practice. Catholics allege that “[w]hereas much of the teaching of Scripture could not be determined without Tradition, Tradition would suffice without Scripture; it is the safeguard of Scripture” (Attwater, p. 42, emp. added). Moreover, “Catholic theologians maintain that as a source of truth, tradition is superior to ScriptureScripture is, after all, incomplete; it not only requires interpretation, but it required tradition in order that it might be recognized and established.... Scripture is not a textbook; in a sense, it is a dead word which must be brought to life in the living voice of tradition” (Brantl, 1961, p. 162, emp. added).
In order to prioritize human tradition above biblical revelation, someone first must discredit, undervalue, and disrespect the Bible. Calling the Scripture “a dead word” is a blatant affront to Christ, Who firmly stated that His words, which are recorded in Scripture, “are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63).
The traditions that make up the Catholic Church’s depositum fidei (deposit of faith) include the Apocrypha, the teaching of the “church fathers,” and the records of universal belief of Catholicism (Catechism..., 74-141; Brantl, p. 163). Although Catholics use these sources extensively in defending their dogmas, these writings cannot take the place of biblical inspiration.
The Catholic canon of the Old Testament has 46 books instead of 39. The Council of Trent (1546) recognized as canonical seven books that originally were rejected as part of the Old Testament. These seven, among other apocryphal books, do not bear the signs of divine inspiration, i.e., they lack prophetic authority, harmonization with revealed truth, early Christian acceptance, scriptural confirmation, and/or any direct claim of divine inspiration (see Jackson, 1999; Geisler and Nix, 1968, pp. 264-275; McDowell, 1972, pp. 33-40). As Geisler and Nix noted, “[t]he overwhelming arguments in favor of rejecting the Apocrypha as part of the canon provide convincing evidence that the books are not God-breathed” (p. 270). Therefore, these books should not be considered as the Word of God.
For centuries, the Catholic Church also has treated many of the writings of the “church fathers” as being inspired—even though the fathers never claimed their documents were inspired. Catholic apologists and leaders around the world have promoted these writings by claiming that they prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Catholic tradition is linked to apostolic doctrines. This point of view overlooks the reality of early apostasy. Only Christ’s apostles and New Testament prophets were guided into all truth (John 16:13). Although the “church fathers” made a great effort to maintain the purity of the New Testament, they were not inspired to speak and/or write infallibly. In many cases, their writings reflect ideologies completely foreign to the divine pattern. Jesus warned His disciples of the coming of ungodly men who would deceive, “if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24). Since there is a possibility that even the “church fathers” could have been deceived and believed false teachings (cf. 1 John 4:1), no Bible student should consider their writings as part of the “deposit of faith.” Although the writings of these men are valuable in studies of church history and other disciplines, one should keep in mind that the fathers were fallible men who were subject to error and apostasy (1 Timothy 4:1-3).
Finally, Catholicism alleges that the pope, the universal body of bishops, and the church possess infallibility in matters of faith and morals (see “First Dogmatic...,” 1870, 4.1-9). Therefore, any doctrines they adopt become part of the Catholic “deposit of faith.” But we have seen in another article (Pinedo, 2008) that many of the teachings of the popes, the episcopal councils, and the Catholic Church in general are far from infallible. In many cases, they are self-contradictory.
Man’s tendency to exalt his traditions above the Word of God is nothing new. Jesus Himself had to confront this irreverent spirit so prevalent among the Jewish elite of His day. He accused the Pharisees of transgressing the commandment of God to keep their own traditions (Matthew 15:3-9; Mark 7:6-13)—traditions that transgressed (Matthew 15:3), contradicted (Matthew 15:5-6; Mark 7:11-12), invalidated (Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:9,13), and profaned (Matthew 15:8-9; Mark 7:6-7) the commandments of God. Catholic traditions also transgress, contradict, invalidate, and profane the pure truth of the Word of God (cf. Matthew 15:9).
It is my desire that you, as a student of the Bible, will hear what the Bible says, study what the Bible says, believe what the Bible says, and keep yourself from believing another gospel (Galatians 1:6-10). The traditions of men should not supersede the commandments of God, for only the Word of God endures forever (1 Peter 1:25). Hearing and obeying the Word of God should be our ultimate goal. Jesus said, “[H]e who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life” (John 5:24, emp. added). He also added, “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48, emp. added).
One day, when we stand before the divine throne to be judged, a Book will be opened. This book will not be the writings of a man, it will not be the traditions of our fathers, nor will it be the book of “human conscience.” The Bible, which has been criticized, mutilated, and altered by many, will be opened. And, when the voices of many other books fall absolutely silent, we will hear the words of the Bible, and God will pronounce His final judgment. We should obey the Gospel of Christ that we may have eternal life in heaven after that judgment (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10).

REFERENCES

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
Attwater, Donald, ed. (1961), A Catholic Dictionary (New York: Macmillan).
Brantl, George, ed. (1961), Catholicism (New York: George Braziller).
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), (Mahwah, NY: Paulist Press).
“First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ” (1870), First Vatican Council [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6.
Geisler, Norman and William Nix (1968), A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody Press).
Jackson, Wayne (1999), “The Apocrypha: Inspired of God?,” [On-line], URL:http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_apocrypha_inspired_of_god.
McDowell, Josh (1972), Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Campus Crusade for Christ).
Pinedo, Moisés (2008), “Is the Pope ‘Infallible’?,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3844.

How Could Jesus be God if He was Seen by Man? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1404


How Could Jesus be God if He was Seen by Man?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, one of the reasons Jesus could not (and cannot) be God is because Jesus was seen by humankind. The official Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses (www.watchtower.org) indicates that “[a]s the Son of God, he [Jesus—EL] could not be God himself, for John 1:18 says: ‘No one has ever seen God’ ” (“What Does the Bible Say...,” 2000). The problem with such reasoning is two-fold.
First, it ignores the fact that man only saw Jesus (“the Word”—John 1:1) after “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). He came in a veiled form. No human has ever seen Jesus in His true image (i.e., as a spirit Being—John 4:24—in all His glory and splendor). 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). Men saw an embodiment of God as Jesus dwelt here in a fleshly form. Men saw “the Word” that “became flesh.” But no one has ever seen God’s true, complete image (as a spirit Being).
The second problem with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ denial of Jesus’ deity (based on the fact that “no one has ever seen God”) is that their argument crumbles when Jehovah God’s appearances to man are considered. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jehovah is God and “is the name of the true God only” (“Identifying...,” 2002). According to their doctrine, Jehovah, not Christ, is God Almighty. Yet, man has seen Jehovah. Genesis chapter 18 records an occasion when “Jehovah appeared” to Abraham near Mamre (vs. 1). Jehovah spoke directly to Abraham (vs. 13), and the faithful servant of God “stood before the Lord” (vs. 22). The final verse of Genesis 18 states: “And Jehovah went his way, as soon as he had left off communing with Abraham. And Abraham returned unto his place” (vs. 33). If Jehovah’s Witnesses were consistent with their argument, Jehovah could not be Almighty God because man has seen Jehovah. If John 1:18 somehow disqualifies Jesus from being God, it must also prohibit “Jehovah” from being God, because they both were seen. What Bible students must understand is that man has only seen manifestationsof God (i.e, in human flesh, or in the midst of a burning bush—Exodus 3:2, etc.); he has never seen God (the Father or the Son) in His true spirit image.
[NOTE: If you would like to read further on the subject “Has Man Seen God?” and examine the alleged contradiction between such passages as John 1:18 and Exodus 33:11, click on the following link: http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2682.] 

REFERENCES

“Identifying the True God Only,” (2002), [On-line], URL:http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1999/2/8/article_04.htm, originally appeared in Awake!, February 8, 1999.
“What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?” (2002), [On-line], URL:http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm.

“So We Make Up Stories” About Human Evolution by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2431


“So We Make Up Stories” About Human Evolution

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Dr. Richard Lewontin is the Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Harvard University Press describes him as one of their “most brilliant evolutionary biologists.” A Harvard professor since 1973, he has impeccable academic credentials, and has gained worldwide notoriety for authoring several books, including The Triple HelixThe Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, and Biology as Ideology.
During the week of February 14-18, Dr. Lewontin was invited to speak at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting held in Boston, Massachusetts. Michale Balter, writing for Science magazine, reported briefly on Lewontin’s comments that caused quite a stir in the evolutionary community. Balter titled his article “How Human Intelligence Evolved—Is It Science or ‘Paleofantasy’?” (2008). In the first paragraph, Balter quipped that Lewontin really “knows how to grab an audience’s attention.”
What did Lewontin say that was so noteworthy and attention-grabbing? Lewontin “led off a session titled ‘The Mind of a Toolmaker’ by announcing that scientists know next to nothing about how humans got so smart. ‘We are missing the fossil record of human cognition,’ Lewontin said at the meeting. ‘So we make up stories’” (Balter, 2008, emp. added). While Balter spent the rest of his article scrambling to show that Lewontin’s conclusions are not recognized by all in the scientific community, Lewontin’s devastating blow to evolution’s long-cherished scenario of human development could not be papered over so easily.
James Randerson, science correspondent for the United Kingdom’s Guardian, wrote an article titled “We Know Nothing About Brain Evolution” in which he, too, reported on Lewontin’s speech. Lewontin titled his speech, “Why We Know Nothing About the Evolution of Cognition.” Randerson reported that, in the lecture, the eminent Harvard professor “systematically dismissed every assumption about the evolution of human thought, reaching the conclusion that scientists are still completely in the dark about how natural selection prompted the massive hike in human brain size in the human line” (2008, emp. added).
Lewontin then turned his attention to the fossil record. Randerson summarized Dr. Lewontin’s statements by saying: “The main problem is the poor fossil record. Despite a handful of hominid fossils stretching back 4m [million—KB] years or so, we can’t be sure that any of them are on the main ancestral line to us. Many or all of them could have been evolutionary side branches” (2008). Randerson continued, stating: “Worse, the fossils we do have are difficult to interpret. ‘I don’t have the faintest idea what the cranial capacity [of a fossil hominid] means,’ Lewontin confessed. What does a particular brain size tell us about the capabilities of the animal attached to it?” (2008).
Of course, Lewontin’s comments fly in the face of everything the general population has been led to believe about human evolution. The beautiful drawings showing ape-like creatures gradually evolving in a straight line into humans have been plastered on science-lab walls, in science textbooks, and in popular science magazines for the last five decades. We have been told that the hominid fossil record is so complete that it provides irrefutable evidence verifying human evolution. We have been told that our “ancestral” fossils indicate exactly when our ancient great-grandparents began to walk upright, when they evolved greater cognitive skills, and when they evolved into us.
Lewontin was not finished tearing into the standard evolutionary party line about hominid fossils. Randerson noted that Lewontin “is even skeptical that palaeoanthropologists can be sure which species walked upright and which dragged their knuckles. Upright posture is crucial for freeing up the hands to do other useful things” (2008).
What, then, did Lewontin conclude regarding the prevailing status of ignorance that pervades the scientific community regarding the supposed evolution of humans? He said: “We are in very serious difficulties in trying to reconstruct the evolution of cognition. I’m not even sure what we mean by the problem” (as quoted in Randerson, 2008).
The bombshell that Lewontin dropped on the 2008 AAAS annual meeting will leave devastating and lasting carnage in its wake in the evolutionary community. He debunked 50 years of orchestrated evolutionary propaganda. Randerson concluded his summary of Lewontin’s statements by observing: “All in all, despite thousands of scientific papers and countless NationalGeographic front covers, we have not made much progress in understanding how our most complicated and mysterious organ [brain—KB] came about” (2008).
After reviewing Lewontin’s statements and the various journal articles describing them, the writers of Creation/Evolution Headlines appropriately admonished the reader:
Remember this entry the next time you get a National Geographic cover story of a hominid with a philosopher’s gaze. Remember it when you are told stories about hominids walking upright, their hands now freed to scratch their chins and think. Remember it when you are shown a chimpanzee on NOVA performing memory tricks for a banana or smashing bugs with a rock. Remember it when a stack of erudite scientific papers on human evolution is placed on the witness table at a trial over whether students should be allowed to think critically about evolution in science class (“Paleofantasy...,” 2008).

REFERENCES

Balter, Michael (2008), “How Human Intelligence Evolved—Is It Science or ‘Paleofantasy’?” Science, 319 [5866]:1028, [On-line], URL:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5866/1028a.
“Paleofantasy: Brain Evolution is Mere Storytelling” (2008), Creation/Evolution Headlines, February 22, [On-line], URL: http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200802.htm.
Randerson, James (2008), “We Know Nothing About Brain Evolution,” Guardian, [On-line], URL:http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/02/the_distinguished_biologist _pr.html.

America’s Lost Invincibility by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=3790

America’s Lost Invincibility
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


The rapid rate of moral decay that blankets America is shocking and frightening. Americans who lived for the first 150 years of the Republic would find it difficult and appalling if they were here to witness what is happening. Abortion, homosexuality, gambling, sexual promiscuity, greed—and the list goes on and on. The incredible level of prosperity and technological achievement has lulled many Americans into thinking that America is invincible and well able to sustain its standing among the nations of the world.
The Founders thought otherwise. They insisted that America’s greatness does not lie in her achievements, material progress, or ability to protect herself by military means. Far from it. Instead, they repeatedly explained that America’s greatness and her ability to prolong her existence as a nation depend exclusively on the spiritual, religious, and moral condition of her people. Specifically, the Founders insisted that the citizens’ attachment to God, Christ, the Bible, and the Christian religion would determine the future of the nation. If a sizable percentage of the citizenry does not continue to maintain Christian virtue and morality, as defined by the Bible, the nation would lose its ability to survive.
Consider, for example, the remarks of Patrick Henry in his observations concerning the state of France after their bloody revolution:
But, as to France, I have no doubt in saying, that to her it will be calamitous. Her conduct has made it the interest of the great family of mankind to wish the downfall of her present government; because its existence is incompatible with that of all others within its reach. And, whilst I see the dangers that threaten ours from her intrigues and her arms, I am not so much alarmed as at the apprehension of her destroying the great pillars of all government and of social life; I mean virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed (as quoted in Henry, 1891, 2:591-592, emp. added).
John Witherspoon echoed precisely the same sentiment: “He who makes a people virtuous makes them invincible” (1815, 9:231, emp. added). And Declaration signer and “The Father of the American Revolution,” Samuel Adams, likewise issued a solemn warning in a letter to James Warren on February 12, 1779:
While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader (1908, 4:124, emp. added).
These three Founders sound a sober warning to Americans in the 21st century. Our schools, courts, and centers of government continue to dismantle the Christian connections that have always characterized the nation. With the cleansing of our religious moorings is also the eradication of the virtue and morality that comes only from Christianity. As Americans continue to jettison Christian virtue and morality, the nation is brought closer and closer to the brink of destruction. Accordingly, the invincibility for which America has been known around the world is swiftly waning. Even now, we are in the process of surrendering our liberties to alternative ideologies (e.g., socialism), and our increasing vulnerability must inevitably result in America being conquered. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).

REFERENCES

Adams, Samuel (1904-1908), The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Harry Cushing, 4 vols. (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).
Henry, William (1891), Patrick Henry; Life, Correspondence and Speeches (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons), [On-line], URL: http://www.archive.org/details/pathenrylife01henrrich. See also George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 4. General Correspondence. 1697-1799, Image 1071, “Patrick Henry to Archibald Blair,” January 8, 1799, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw4&fileName=gwpage113.db&recNum=1070.
Witherspoon, John (1815), The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle).

How Old Were Ahaziah and Jehoiachin When They Began Their Respective Reigns? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=744&b=2%20Chronicles

How Old Were Ahaziah and Jehoiachin When They Began Their Respective Reigns?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In 2 Kings 8:26 we read that Ahaziah, the sixth king of Judah, was twenty-two years old when he began his reign. However, in the book of 2 Chronicles, the Bible indicates that he was forty-two years old when he became king (22:2). Furthermore, in 2 Kings 24:8 we read where Jehoiachin succeeded his father as the nineteenth king of Judah at the age of eighteen, yet 2 Chronicles 36:9 informs us that he was “eight years old when he became king.” How is it that both of these kings are said to have begun their respective reigns at different times in their lives? Was Ahaziah twenty-two or forty-two when he became king? And was Jehoiachin merely eight years old when he began his rule over Judah, or was he eighteen as 2 Kings 24:8 indicates? How do we know which numbers are correct? And more important, how does the believer, who regards the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, explain these differences?
Fortunately, there is enough additional information in the biblical text to prove the correct age of both men when they began their particular reigns over Judah. (Ahaziah ruled Judah around 841 B.C., and Jehoiachin almost 250 years later in 598 B.C.) Earlier, in 2 Kings 8:17-18, the author mentions that Ahaziah’s father (Jehoram) was 32 when he became king, and died eight years later at the age of 40 (2 Chronicles 21:5, 20). Obviously, Ahaziah could not have been 42 at the time of his father’s death at age 40, since that would make the son (Ahaziah) two years older than his father (Jehoram). Thus, the correct reading of Ahaziah’s age is “twenty-two,” not “forty-two.” There also is little doubt that Jehoiachin began his reign at eighteen, not eight years of age. This conclusion is established by Ezekiel 19:5-9, where Jehoiachin appears as going up and down among the lions, catching the prey, devouring men, and knowing the widows of the men he devoured and the cities he wasted. As Keil and Delitzsch observed when commenting on this passage: “The knowing of widows cannot apply to a boy of eight, but might well be said of a young man of eighteen” (1996). Furthermore, it is doubtful that an eight-year-old child would be described as one having done “evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Kings 24:9).
Even though it is possible to know the ages of Ahaziah and Jehoiachin when they began their respective reigns in Judah, the ages of these two kings in Chronicles are incorrect. Are these legitimate mistakes? Are we to conclude, based upon these two verses in 2 Chronicles, that the Bible is not from God? What shall we say to such questions?
The simple answer to these queries is that a copyist, not an inspired writer, made these mistakes. In the case of Ahaziah, a copyist simply wrote twenty instead of forty, and in Jehoiachin’s situation (2 Chronicles 36:9), the scribe just omitted a ten, which made Jehoiachin eight instead of eighteen. This does not mean the Bible had errors in the original manuscripts, but it does indicate that minor scribal errors have slipped into some copies of the Bible. [If you have ever seen the Hebrew alphabet, you will notice that the Hebrew letters (which were used for numbers) could be confused quite easily.] Supporting this answer to the “number problems” in Chronicles are various ancient manuscripts such as the Syriac, the Arabic, at least one Hebrew manuscript, and a few of the Septuagint manuscripts—all of which contain the correct ages for these kings in 2 Chronicles (22 and 18 rather than 42 and 8). Based upon this evidence, and from the fact that the ages of Ahaziah and Jehoiachin given in the Massoretic text of Chronicles are incorrect, the translators of the NIV decided to translate 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 36:9 as “twenty-two” and “eighteen” rather than the way most other English versions of the Bible read (“forty-two” and “eight”).
Although history records that copyists were meticulously honest in handling the text of the Bible, they, like all humans, made mistakes from time to time. Yet, even though technical mistakes in copying the text were made by these scribes of old, three important facts remain: (1) accurate communication still is possible; (2) many times one can find the correct reading by investigating ancient manuscripts such as those listed above; and (3) errors in copies of the Bible do not mean that those errors were in the original manuscripts written by inspired men.
*For a general background of this article, see our foundational essay on copyists’ errors.
REFERENCES
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.

The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin! by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/blood.html


The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin!1 John 1:5 -- 2:1
“If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).
To understand this verse, we must know what sin is, what its consequences are, how the blood of Christ can cleanse us from sin, and what it means to walk in the light.

What is sin?
Sin is a thought, attitude, action or inaction contrary to the will of God. “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
Such statements are not popular! Most people tend to think that sin is actually not all that bad, especially their own sin!
How often is the word “sin” found in magazines and newspapers? The bad consequences of sin are described in great detail, but (except in churches) sin is almost never acknowledged as a cause of human suffering. Sin has to do with one’s responsibility to God, and people prefer not to think about that.
A man went to church alone because his wife was ill. When he came home, she asked: “What did the preacher talk about today?” “Sin,” he replied. “And, what did he say about it?” “Well, he was against it!”
Although there is a conspiracy of silence in the press about sin, God has much to say about sin. When we study the Scriptures we discover how sinful we are!
Jesus teaches us to look at the inner causes of sin: “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man” (Mark 7:20-23).
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus emphasized that external sins begin with internal sins, for example, when He said: “Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).
In a popular song in the fifties there was a line, “You can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking.” On hearing the song my father commented, “But you can go to hell for what you’re thinking!”
In the New Testament there are several lists of sins that show us how sinful we are.
“Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like” (Galatians 5:19-21).
“Being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful” (Romans 1:29-31).
“For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:2-4).
“If you show partiality, you commit sin” (James 2:9). This means that looking down on poor people, racism, and all forms of prejudice and discrimination are sin, including favoritism, cronyism, tribalism, and blind patriotism.
And what about sins of neglect? “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). There are so many good things that we ought to do that we fail to do!
Even our good deeds are tainted by our sins: “But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).
Even those who sincerely want to do what is right, fall far short in actual practice, as Paul says: “For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do” (Romans 7:15).
The Bible is a spiritual mirror that shows us our sins (James 1:23, 24).

What are the consequences of sin?
“The righteous judgment of God” (Romans 2:5) requires the death penalty for sin. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). After listing a series of sins, Paul says that “the righteous judgment of God” is “that those who practice such things are deserving of death” (Romans 1:32).
In addition to bringing dishonor to God, our sin causes immeasurable pain, heartache and suffering to others. Only God knows how much harm is done by our sins and “each of us shall give account of himself to God” (Romans 14:12).
Jesus warns us about eternal punishment in hell as the ultimate consequence of sin: “And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire - where ‘Their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched’” (Mark 9:47, 48).

God provides salvation through the blood of Christ.
When we realize how sinful man is, and how destructive sin is, we could easily conclude that there is no hope for mankind.
But there is hope because God, in His great love and mercy, has provided the blood of Christ as the means of salvation. God is willing to forgive: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ says the LORD, ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land’” (Isaiah 1:18, 19).
Water and many other solvents are used to wash away physical dirt, but only the blood of Christ can cleanse us from sin.
Many people do not understand how blood can take away sins. Briefly stated: Since death is the just penalty for sin, the only way God can preserve His righteousness when He forgives sin is if someone else, who is without sin, bears this punishment in the place of the one forgiven (see Romans 3:24-26).
Thus, God has given blood as the means of atonement by which sins are forgiven. In Leviticus 17:11 He explains: “The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood thatmakes atonement for the soul.” Atonement is satisfaction for an offense, resulting in the restoration of a broken relationship.
“According to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22).
Under the Old Covenant there was atonement through the blood of sacrificial animals. This prefigured the blood of Christ, who would bring the ultimate sacrifice for sin. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4).
High priests in the Old Testament offered the blood of animals. Our High Priest, Jesus Christ, gave His own life as a sacrifice for sin: “Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:12-14).
Christ could pay the penalty for our sin because He was without sin. Since He was not under the same condemnation, He could voluntarily take our place, He “who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24).
Thus God’s grace is granted through the blood of Christ. We are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith” (Romans 3:24, 25). “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7).

The blood of Christ is the blood of the New Covenant.
Jesus said something that was hard for His hearers to comprehend: “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54).
This mystery was unveiled when Jesus instituted the Lord’s supper: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins’” (Matthew 26:26-28).

The blood of Christ shows God’s love.
“God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him” (Romans 5:8, 9). Jesus “loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood” (Revelation 1:5).
God proves His love by the high price He was willing to pay for our salvation. “Conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:17-19).
As John the Baptist testified of Jesus: “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).

Cleansing by the blood of Christ is offered to all.
The Old Covenant was given to the people of Israel. The New Covenant is for the whole world. To non-Jewish Christians Paul wrote: “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Ephesians 2:13).
The blood of Christ is for everyone: “And they sang a new song, saying: ‘You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation’” (Revelation 5:9).

The blood of Christ enables us to stand before God’s throne in white.
“Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, ‘Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?’ And I said to him, ‘Sir, you know.’ So he said to me, ‘These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb’” (Revelation 7:13, 14).
Now we can better understand John’s statement: “If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).

How do we walk in the light?
“God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Through the blood of Christ, God has freed us from the power of darkness so we can walk in the light: “He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:13, 14).
We begin our walk “in the light of the gospel” (2 Corinthians 4:4) when we believe in Jesus (Mark 16:16), repent of our sins (Luke 24:47), confess our faith in Christ (Romans 10:10) and are baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). We then rise from baptism to “walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4). We strive not to sin, but when we fall short “we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1).
Thus, to walk in the light does not mean “that we have no sin” (1 John 1:8) because then a continual cleansing by the blood of Christ would not be necessary. It does mean, however, that we are not walking in darkness!
We walk in the light by following Christ day after day and by coming together on the first day of the week to commune with the body and blood of Christ at the Lord’s table.

Let us walk in the light!
“If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Amen.
Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.
Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)