4/11/18

A Prayer for Unity by Trevor Bowen


http://insearchoftruth.org/articles/a_prayer_for_unity.html

A Prayer for Unity

Although we concern ourselves with unity of those we fellowship as members of the body of Christ, many people exist outside our fellowship, who call themselves Christians. Some of these may find confrontational and challenging Bible study a waste of time, because "We are all Christians already!", as they might say. Temporarily laying aside the necessary implications of our division upon our personal relationship with God, let us consider another undeniable reason for Bible study that questions our differences - unity. Unity was very important to Jesus. Let us consider, "Why?".

The Need for Unity

One of the dreadful consequences of division is lack of successful evangelism. Division depletes and diminishes our ability to reach the lost. In Jesus' prayer for unity, he asks:
"I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." (John 17:20-21)
Unity enhances and extends our influence to the lost, which creates more opportunities to teach and possibly convert sinners to Jesus. If we care about reaching the lost, then we will also care about being unified with others who call themselves Christians. One who does not so care for the lost neither hopes nor loves as God hoped and loved (Romans 5:6-8; I Corinthians 13:7; I John 4:7-11; Romans 8:20).

Agree to Disagree?

In addition to describing the benefit of unity, the above prayer also provides us a qualifying imperative: It must be a true unity, which exists only in Jesus Christ and the Father. Some have adopted the notion of "unity in diversity" as a means of solving our differences. The philosophy is "Let us agree to disagree". Although division is certainly evil, unity should not be obtained at the price of compromising truth:
"This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." (James 3:15-17)
Division originates and is maintained wherever carnal desires reign. This occurs wherever man's will and wisdom are followed. However, if we submit our will to the "wisdom from above", then we will find peace. Yet, peace is not the most important goal of this divine wisdom. It is "first pure, then peaceable". Therefore, unity must never be achieved by sacrificing purity. Truth should not be sacrificed for a compromising peace accord (Jude 1:3; II Thessalonians 2:9-12; John 17:17).
What good is unity in error? Such unity only accelerates our rush into error, away from God, and into its consequential destruction. Only by seeking to unify on a pure, solid foundation may we find true peace (Philippians 4:13).

The Power of Prayer

How much power does Jesus' prayer hold? James said that the prayer of a righteous man "avails much" (James 5:16-18). It is difficult to find a prayer uttered by a man more righteous than Christ; therefore, to those who esteem Him a righteous man, this prayer will hold great sway as it outlines Christ's will for us. Never mind its influence on the mind of the Father as He provides for His children. The question for us is, "Do we feel any need to do our part to recognize the fulfillment of the Lord's prayer?"
See also: When Jesus Prayed, The Gospel Guardian, vol. 6, num. 43, p. 5. March 10, 1955.
Trevor Bowen

"THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS" Believer, Beware! (2:9-23)

                     "THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS"

                       Believer, Beware! (2:9-23)

INTRODUCTION

1. It was Paul's desire that his brethren be "perfect (complete) in
   Christ" - Col 1:28; 2:1-3

2. But there were influences at Colosse which endangered their 
   salvation, against which Paul warns in Col 2:8-23

3. As we consider what those threats were, we see similar threats today
   as well!

4. In other words, subtle (and some not so subtle) influences which may
   promise us much, but can easily lead us away from Christ!

[For example, we notice from verses 8-10 that at Colosse there was the
danger of...]

I. PHILOSOPHIES AND TRADITIONS OF MEN (8-10)

   A. THE DANGER OF MAN-MADE PHILOSOPHY AND TRADITION...
      1. They "cheat" you
         a. They don't deliver what they may promise
         b. They can even cheat you of your salvation!
            1) By rendering our worship and service to God as "vain"
            2) As Jesus warned in Mt 15:9
      2. This they do through "empty deceit"
         a. It is not evident (otherwise, none would accept it)
         b. But like many of the workings of Satan, it is through
            "deception"

   B. WE ARE FACED WITH SIMILAR INFLUENCES TODAY...
      1. The "philosophies" of:
         a. Atheism
         b. Evolution
         c. Humanism
      2. The "traditions of men," found rampant in:
         a. Protestant denominations
         b. Catholicism (both "Roman" and "Orthodox")
         c. Various cults
      3. Though these "philosophies" and "traditions of men" may possess
         a lot of truth, it is the error in them that can lead one away
         from the pure and simple doctrine of Jesus Christ!

   C. WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND...
      1. In "Jesus Christ" are found ALL the treasures of wisdom and
         knowledge - Col 2:3
      2. In "Jesus Christ" is to be found the FULLNESS of the Godhead
         bodily - Col 2:9
      3. In "Jesus Christ" we are COMPLETE - Col 2:10
      4. As Peter wrote in his second epistle:  "Grace and peace be
         multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our
         Lord, as His divine power has given to us ALL things that
         pertain to life and godliness , through the knowledge of Him
         who called us by glory and virtue," - 2Pe 1:2-3

[So "Believer, Beware!" when anyone suggests that we need the
philosophies or traditions of men in addition to or instead of Jesus
Christ!

In verses 11-17, Paul deals with what was a real problem in the first
century church...]

II. JUDAISTIC CEREMONIALISM (11-17)

   A. THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH...
      1. Many Jewish Christians felt it necessary for Gentile Christians
         to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in ADDITION to
         following Christ - cf. Ac 15:1-5
      2. The early church had to constantly deal with this problem
         a. Which they did at Jerusalem (where the problem originated) 
            - Ac 15:6-27
         b. Which Paul did in writing Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and
            Colossians
      3. Here in Col 2:11-17, Paul deals with the problem by pointing
         out:
         a. Through baptism into Christ, we experience the "true
            circumcision", which is a cutting away of the sins of the
            flesh - Col 2:11-13
         b. By His death on the cross, Jesus has taken the Old Law out
            of the way - Col 2:14-15 (cf. Ep 2:14-16)
         c. Therefore, we are to let no one try to judge (condemn) us
            in matters of the Old Law - Col 2:16-17

   B. TODAY, THERE ARE MANY WHO STILL TRY TO BIND THE OLD LAW UPON 
       CHRISTIANS...
      1. Various denominations with their Sabbaths and food regulations
      2. Other religions with their separate priesthood and many other
         practices, based upon the Old Testament, and not the New!

   C. AS THOSE IN CHRIST...
      1. We have died to the Law and Jewish ceremonialism (this 
         especially pertains to Jewish Christians) - Ro 7:1-6
      2. We have been set free, and need to beware of becoming 
         "entangled again with a yoke of bondage." - Ga 5:1
      3. If we seek justification by our observance of things found in
         the Old Law, we are fallen from grace! - Ga 5:2-4

[So "Believer, Beware!" when people try to impose things upon you which
are based upon the Law of Moses.  Remember, "you are complete in HIM."

In verses 18-19, we see there was still another danger at Colosse...]

III. THE WORSHIP OF ANGELS (18-19)

   A. WHY WOULD PEOPLE WORSHIP ANGELS?
      1. Perhaps because they felt angels were needed as "intercessors"
      2. Perhaps with "a sense of humility", they felt they could not go
         to God (or even Jesus) directly

   B. THE PROBLEM WITH ANGEL WORSHIP...
      1. It is actually the result of a "false humility" and based upon
         one's "vain imagination"   - Col 2:18 (cf. He 4:14-16, where
         we learn we can "come boldly to the throne of grace")
      2. It actually diverts one away from Christ, the rightful "Head of
         the body" - Col 2:19
         a. For this reason, angels refused any semblance of worship -
            Re 22:8-9
         b. And so did the apostle Peter - Ac 10:25-26

   C. TODAY, SOME RELIGIONS HAVE DEVELOPED A COUNTERPART TO THE WORSHIP
      OF ANGELS...
      1. E.g., Catholicism with its veneration of Mary and the "saints"
      2. The reasoning is similar:  "humility" ("We need them to 
         intercede for us")
      3. Though an attempt is made to distinguish between "veneration"
         and "worship", in practice the distinction is lost among the
         average person
      4. And the result is still the same:  "not holding fast to the
         Head," venerating other beings rather than Christ!

[Finally, from verses 20-23 we can glean that there was the problem
of...]

IV. ASCETICISM (20-23)

   A. ASCETICISM HAS OFTEN BEEN OFFERED AS A KEY TO "SELF-CONTROL"
      1. Such as fasting and other forms of abstinence
      2. Or self-flagellation (beating one's self with whips)

   B. BUT ASCETICISM IS OF NO REAL VALUE AGAINST THE "INDULGENCE OF THE
      FLESH"
      1. As Paul points out in Col 2:23
      2. Indeed, transformation comes through "renewing the MIND", not
         afflicting the BODY
         a. As Paul wrote in Ro 12:1-2
         b. Yes, those who "set their minds on the things of the Spirit"
            are the ones "who live according to the Spirit" - Ro 8:5
            1) They are the ones who by the Spirit will be able to "put
               to death the deeds of the body" - Ro 8:13
            2) For the "fruit of the Spirit" includes self-control - Ga 5:22-23

   C. TODAY, WE MUST BEWARE OF THE FALSE CLAIMS OF ASCETICISM!
      1. Fasting may have a place in the lives of Christians - cf. Ac
         13:2-3; 14:23; 1Co 7:5; 2Co 11:27
         a. But not for the purpose of developing self-control!
         b. Rather as a means of humbling oneself before God as we pray,
            that God might hear our prayer - cf. Ezr 8:21; Mt 6:17-18
      2. Those religions that would teach various forms of "asceticism"
         as a means of developing spiritual maturity would have us
         believe that "the secret" is in such "neglect of the body" 
      3. But Christ is "the secret", and by holding fast to Him we find
         the ability to "crucify the flesh with its passions and 
         desires." - Ga 5:24

CONCLUSION

1. As we live the Christian life, attempting to mature spiritually,
   beware of any doctrine or teaching of man that suggests we need more
   than Jesus Christ!

2. Remember, He is "THE" way (not "A" way) - Jn 14:6

3. And we are COMPLETE in Him!

Are you IN Him?  - cf. Ga 3:26-27...
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Can Humans Become Gods? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1221

Can Humans Become Gods?

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One of the more eye-opening beliefs of Mormonism is the polytheistic notion that humans can become gods. Standard Mormon theology maintains that even God (the Father) and Jesus Christ were once human. They were preceded by other humans who themselves progressed to the status of gods.
Of course, this doctrine was not presented initially by Joseph Smith, but was developed after the production of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon actually contradicts later Mormon revelation, in that it affirmed in 1830 the biblical doctrine of the oneness of God in three persons, i.e., the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Observe the conversation between Ammon and King Lamoni:
And then Ammon said: “Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?” And he said, “Yea.” And Ammon said: “This is God.” And Ammon said unto him again: “Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?” And he said: “Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens.” And Ammon said unto him: “The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels.… I am called by his Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people” (Alma 18:26-30).
Nephi declared: “And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end” (2 Nephi 31:21, emp. added). Amulek contended with the diabolical Zeezrom: “And Zeezrom said unto him: ‘Thou sayest there is a true and living God?’ And Amulek said: ‘Yea, there is a true and living God.’ Now Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ And he answered, ‘No’ ” (Alma 11:26-29, emp. added).
The Book of Mormon also affirmed that Jesus was God in the flesh:
And now Abinadi said unto them: “I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (Mosiah 15:1-4, emp. added).
Even the “three witnesses” to the Book of Mormon, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, affirmed monotheism and the oneness of God: “And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God” (“The Testimony,” 1981, emp. added). Joseph Smith affirmed the same thing in the Articles of Faith: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Pearl, 1981, p. 60).
These teachings certainly are in harmony with the Bible. The Bible repeatedly and frequently affirms the doctrine of monotheism and the unity of God: Deuteronomy 4:35,39; 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6,8; 45:5; 46:9; Mark 12:29; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4,6; 1 Timothy 2:5. These and many other passages indicate “there is but one infinite Spirit Being, and that within that one Spirit essence there are three personal distinctions, each of which may be, and is, called God” (Lanier, 1974, p. 46). There is only one divine essence (ousia) or nature (phusis)—a solidaric unity—one divine substance in (not and) three persons (prosopa or persona), with each “person” being the subsistence (hupostaseis) of the divine Essence [NOTE: for discussions of the concept of Trinity and its treatment in church history, see Archer, 1982, pp. 357-361; Bickersteth, n.d.; Boles, 1942, pp. 19ff.; Chadwick, 1967, pp. 84ff.; Schaff, 1910, 3:670ff.; Walker, 1970, pp. 106ff.; Warfield, 1939a, 5:3012-3022].
But by 1844, Joseph Smith had begun to advocate a very different understanding of deity—in direct contradiction to the Book of Mormon. He began to promulgate the idea that God had, in fact, previously been a man Himself Who had become exalted, and that all men were capable of the same progression (see Tanner, 1972, p. 163). This shift was expressed formally in the Pearl of Great Price where, in the Book of Moses, God is spoken of in the singular throughout. For example: “I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven and the earth upon which thou standest” (2:1). In stark contrast, however, in the Book of Abraham, in a section discussing the same creation event, God is spoken of as “Gods.” For example:
And then the Lord said: “Let us go down.” And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.... And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night....And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed.... And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness....And the Gods planted a garden, eastward in Eden, and there they put the man, whose spirit they had put into the body which they had formed (4:1,5,18; 5:8, emp. added).
Anyone who is familiar with the King James Version cannot help but be struck with the fact that the author of the Book of Abraham had before him a copy of a KJV and merely paraphrased the text. It is equally apparent that the author “had an axe to grind” in adjusting the text to foist upon the reader the notion of multiple “gods.” In fact, in the thirty-one verses of chapter four, the term “Gods” is used thirty-two times! It is used sixteen times in chapter five! Polytheism now so thoroughly permeates Mormonism that one Mormon apostle asserted that humans are the offspring of the union between an Eternal Father and an Eternal Mother (McConkie, 1979, p. 516)!

“LET US MAKE MAN”

Separate and apart from the issue of the inspiration of the Book of Mormon (see Miller, 2003), the question must be asked: Does the Bible give credence to the notion of multiple gods? Certainly not! However, various verses have been marshaled in an effort to defend the Mormon viewpoint. For example, on the sixth day of Creation, God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). It is alleged by Mormons that the use of the plural in this verse implies a multiplicity of “gods.” However, an examination of the context reveals that the doctrine of the Trinity is being conveyed (see Leupold, 1942, 1:86ff.).
The Holy Spirit was active at the Creation, “hovering over the face of the waters” (1:2). “Hovering” refers to attentive participation (cf. Deuteronomy 32:11). Elsewhere, the Bible makes clear that Jesus also was present at the Creation, in active participation with Deity’s creative activity (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2; 2:10). Hence, when God spoke of “Us,” He was referring to Himself and the other two members of the divine Essence [cf. “Godhead” (theotes) in Colossians 2:9, “divine” nature (theios) in Acts 17:29 and 2 Peter 1:3-4, and “divinity” (theioteis) in Romans 1:20. The first term (theotes) differs from the third term (theioteis) “as essence differs from quality or attribute” (Thayer, 1901, p. 288; cf. Vine, 1966, pp. 328-329; Warfield, 1939b, 2:1268-1270)]. Some (e.g., Archer, 1982, p. 74) have suggested that God was including the angels in the “us,” since “sons of God” sometimes can refer to the angels (e.g., Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; cf. Psalms 29:1; 89:6), and “sons of God” can be shortened to “God” while still referring to angels (e.g., compare Psalm 97:7 with Hebrews 1:6, and Psalm 8:5 with Hebrews 2:7,9). In either case, the fact remains that the Bible presents a consistent picture that there is only one God, and that this divine essence includes three—and only three—persons.

“YE SHALL BE AS GODS”

Another verse that has been brought forward to substantiate Mormon polytheism is the comment made on the occasion of Adam and Eve being tempted to eat the forbidden fruit: “For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5—NKJV). The King James Version says, “ye shall be as gods.” Four points of clarification are in order on this verse. In the first place, Satan made this statement—not God. Satan’s declarations are never to be trusted, since he is “a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).
In the second place, the uncertainty conveyed by the various English translations in their differing treatment of the verse (i.e., whether “God” or “gods”) is the result of the underlying Hebrew term elohim. This word is not to be confused with Yahweh, the formal name for God throughout the Old Testament. Elohim is a generic term used some 2,570 times in Scripture, and generally refers to the one true God, but also is used to refer to pagan gods, and even can refer to judges or rulers and, as noted previously, to angels (Harris, et al., 1980, 1:44-45). Though the word is plural in form, it is used in both the plural and singular sense [cf. “face” (panim)—Genesis 50:1; Exodus 34:35 and “image” (teraphim)—1 Samuel 19:13]. English shares a similar phenomenon with its plural nouns like “deer,” “seed,” “sheep,” and “moose.” The same form is used, whether referring to one or to many. Hebrew, like most other languages, matched the number (whether singular or plural) of verbs and adjectives with the noun. In the case of elohim, with only rare exception, the verbs and adjectives used with it are either singular or plural in conformity with the intended meaning (Ringgren, 1974, p. 272). Fretheim noted that its use in the Old Testament for Israel’s God is “always with singular verbs” (1997, 1:405; cf. Archer, 1982, p. 74).
Some Hebrew scholars maintain that the plural form used to designate the one true God is the pluralis majestatis or excellentiae—the plural of majesty—or the plural of intensification, absolutization, or exclusivity (e.g., Fretheim, 1:405; Gesenius, 1847, p. 49; Harris, et al., p. 44; Mack, 1939, 2:1265; Reeve, 1939, 2:1270), although others question this usage (e.g., Grudem, 1994, p. 227; Jenni and Westermann, 1997, p. 116). In the case at hand, Satan was tempting Eve with the prospect of being like God—Whom she knew, and from Whom she (or at least her husband) had received previous communication (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:3). She knew nothing of other “gods”—pagan or otherwise. Since the term elohim occurs 58 times in the first three chapters of Genesis and is consistently rendered “God,” and since Satan himself used the term earlier in the same verse as well as four verses earlier (vs. 1) to refer to the one God, no contextual, grammatical, or lexical reason exists for rendering it “gods” in verse five. In fact, most of the major English translations properly render it “God” (e.g., NKJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV). [See also the discussion in Clarke, n.d., 1:50, who noted that the ancient Syriac version rendered the term correctly].
Third, elohim in this verse has an attached prefix (Biblia Hebraica, 1967/77, p. 4)—what Hebrew scholars call an “inseparable preposition” (Weingreen, 1959, p. 26). In this case, the prepositional prefix is the eleventh letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the kaph, and means “like” or “as.” Satan was not saying that Eve would become God or a god; He was saying she would become like God. This realization brings us to a fourth point: the context stipulates in what way Eve would become like God. In the very verse under consideration, an explanatory phrase clarifies what Satan meant: “You will be like God, knowing good and evil” (emp. added). This meaning is evident from subsequent references in the same chapter. When they disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit, “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew…” (verse 7, emp. added). God commented: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil” (verse 22, emp. added). In other words, Adam and Eve became like God in the sense that they now were privy to a greater breadth of awareness, understanding, and insight: “They now had a sufficient discovery of their sin and folly in disobeying the command of God; they could discern between good and evil; and what was the consequence? Confusion and shame were engendered, because innocence was lost and guilt contracted” (Clarke, p. 51). As Keil and Delitzsch summarized: “By eating the fruit, man did obtain the knowledge of good and evil, and in this respect became like God” (1976, 1:95, emp. added).

GOD OF GODS

A third attempt to substantiate the Mormon doctrine of plural gods is the use of various verses from the Bible that speak of God being a “God of gods.” For example, on the occasion of the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, the “Song of Moses” declared: “Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods” (Exodus 15:11, emp. added). Forty years later, in his stirring challenge to the Israelites to be firm in their future commitment to God, he reminded them: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome” (Deuteronomy 10:17, emp. added). During the days of Joshua, some of the Israelites exclaimed: “The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, He knows” (Joshua 22:22, emp. added). These verses, and many more in the Bible, speak of “gods” in such a way that a cursory reading might leave one with the impression that the Bible teaches that “gods” actually existed. However, one cannot really study the Bible and come away with that conclusion. The Bible presents a thoroughgoing monotheistic view of reality. It repeatedly conveys the fact that “gods” are merely the figment of human imagination, invented by humans to provide themselves with exemption from following the one true God by living up to the higher standard of deity. Humans throughout history have conjured up their own imaginary gods to justify freedom from restriction and to excuse relaxed moral behavior.
Consequently, all verses in the Bible that use the term “gods” to refer to deity (with the exception of the one God) are referring to nonexistent deities that humans have invented. When God gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, the very first one said: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). Liberal higher critics of the Bible (like Wellhausen) have alleged that this dictum advocated only monolatry (exclusive worship of Yahweh) rather than actually denying the existence of other gods. Distinguished professor of Old Testament languages, Gleason Archer, has maintained, however, that “this construction of the words is quite unwarranted” (1974, p. 235). Many additional passages clarify the point. For example, the psalmist declared: “For the Lord is great and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all gods” (Psalm 96:4, emp. added). One might get the impression from this verse by itself that the psalmist thought that “gods” actually existed. However, the next verse sets the record straight: “For all the gods of the peoples are idols, but the Lord made the heavens” (vs. 5, emp. added). The Hebrew word for “idols” (elilim) means “of nothing, of nought, empty, vain” (Gesenius, p. 51). Notice carefully the contrast the psalmist was making. The people made their gods; but the one true God made the heavens (i.e., the Universe). The genuineness, reality, and greatness of God are placed in contrast to the people’s fake, nonexistent gods who could not make anything. Archer concluded: “This passage alone…demonstrates conclusively that the mention of ‘gods’ in the plural implied no admission of the actual existence of heathen gods in the first commandment” (1974, p. 236). As God Himself announced: “They have provoked Me to jealousy by what is not God” (Deuteronomy 32:21, emp. added).
The denunciation of the Israelites for conjuring up false gods—pretending that such actually existed, rather than devoting themselves exclusively to the one and only God—reached its zenith in the eloquent preaching pronouncements of the Old Testament prophets. Elijah treated the notion of the existence of gods in addition to the one God with sarcasm and forthright ridicule (1 Kings 18:27-29). The idea of multiple gods would have been laughable, if it were not so spiritually serious (cf. Psalm 115:2-8). The people on that occasion finally got the point, for they shouted: “The Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God!” (vs. 39).
Likewise, the reality of monotheism was pure, well defined, and single minded for Jeremiah. He frequently chastised the people by accusing them of following gods that were, in fact, “not gods” (2:11; 5:7; 16:20). Isaiah was equally adamant and explicit:
You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no savior. I have declared and saved, I have proclaimed, and there was no foreign god among you; therefore you are My witnesses, says the Lord, that I am God. Indeed, before the day was, I am He; and there is no one who can deliver out of My hand; I work, and who will reverse it? (43:10-13, emp. added; cf. 37: 19; 40:18-20; 41; 44:8-24).
Over and over, Isaiah recorded the exclusivity of the one true God: “I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me” (45:5, emp. added); “There is no other God” (45:14, emp. added); “I am the Lord, and there is no other” (45:18, emp. added).
The New Testament continues the same recognition of the nonexistence of deities beyond the one God Who exists in three persons. Paul reminded the Galatian Christians of their pre-Christian foolish belief in other deities: “But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods” (4:8, emp. added). By definition, the “gods” that people claim actually exist are not gods! In his lengthy discussion of whether Christians were permitted to eat foods that had been sacrificed to pagan deities, Paul clarified succinctly the Bible position on the existence of so-called gods:
Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live (1 Corinthians 8:4-6, emp. added).
In this passage, Paul declared very forthrightly that idols, and the gods they represent, are, in fact, nonentities. The RSV renders the meaning even more clearly: “We know that an idol has no real existence, and that there is no God but one” (emp. added).
Of course, Paul recognized and acknowledged that humans have worshipped imaginary, nonexistent gods in heaven (like Greek mythology advocated) and on Earth (in the form of idols). He used the figure of speech known as “metonymy of the adjunct,” where “things are spoken of according to appearance, opinions formed respecting them, or the claims made for them” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 597; Dungan, 1888, p. 295; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4). He spoke of “gods” as if they existed, simply because many people of his day had that opinion. But Paul knew “there is no God but one.” As Allen observed: “The gods (i.e., the so-called divine beings contemplated by the pagans) represented by the images did not exist. …[T]hey were nothing as far as representing the deities envisioned by the heathen” (1975, p. 98, emp. added; cf. Kelcy, 1967, p. 38; Thomas, 1984, p. 30).
Paul continued his discussion of idols two chapters later, and again affirmed the nonexistence of any deities besides God: “What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything?” (1 Corinthians 10:19). For Paul, it was technically permissible for a Christian to eat food that had previously been used in a pagan ceremony as an offering to a “god.” Why? Because such “gods” did not, and do not, actually exist—except in the mind of the worshipper (cf. 8:7-8)! Thus, the food used in such ceremonies was unaffected. However, the person who really thinks there are “gods,” and who then worships these imaginary “gods,” is, in actuality, worshipping demons (10:20)! Paul said there are only two possibilities: “But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons” (10:20-21). Paul envisioned no class of beings known as “gods.” There is only the one true God, and then there are the demons and forces of Satan (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:15-16). This bifurcation of the spiritual realm (i.e., God versus Satan and his forces) is the consistent portrait presented throughout the Bible. The Bible simply admits no knowledge or possibility of “gods.”

YE ARE GODS

A final passage that is alleged to support the notion of “gods” is the statement made by Jesus when the Jews wanted to stone Him because He claimed divinity for Himself:
The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”?’ If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came…do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because I said, “I am the Son of God”? (John 10:33-36).
Mormons allege that Jesus here endorsed the notion that men can become “gods.” But, of course, Jesus did no such thing. On this occasion, He appealed to an Old Testament context to deflect the barb of His critics. Psalm 82 is a passage that issued a scathing indictment of the unjust judges who had been assigned the responsibility of executing God’s justice among the people (cf. Deuteronomy 1:16; 19:17-18; Psalm 58). Such a magistrate was “God’s minister” (Romans 13:4) who acted in the place of God, wielding His authority, and who was responsible for mediating God’s help and justice (cf. Exodus 7:1). In this sense, they were “gods” (elohim)—acting as God to men (Barclay, 1956, 2:89). Hebrew parallelism clarifies this sense: “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High’” (Psalm 82:6, emp. added). They did not share divinity with God—but merely delegated jurisdiction. They still were mere humans—although invested with divine authority, and permitted to act in God’s behalf.
This point is apparent throughout the Torah, where the term translated “judges” or “ruler” is often elohim (e.g., Exodus 21:6; 22:9,28). Take Moses as an example. Moses was not a “god.” Yet God told Moses that when he went to Egypt to achieve the release of the Israelites, he would be “God” to his brother Aaron and to Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). He meant that Moses would supply both his brother and Pharaoh with the words that came from God. Though admittedly a rather rare use of elohim, nevertheless “it shows that the word translated ‘god’ in that place might be applied to man” (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, emp. in orig.). Clarke summarized this point: “Ye are my representatives, and are clothed with my power and authority to dispense judgment and justice, therefore all of them are said to be children of the Most High” (3:479, emp. in orig.). But because they had shirked their awesome responsibility to represent God’s will fairly and accurately, and because they had betrayed the sacred trust bestowed upon them by God Himself, He decreed death upon them (vs. 7). Obviously, they were not “gods,” since God could and would execute them!
Jesus marshaled this Old Testament psalm to thwart His opponents’ attack, while simultaneously reaffirming His deity (which is the central feature of the book of John—20:30-31). He made shrewd use of syllogistic argumentation by reasoning a minori ad majus (see Lenski, 1943, pp. 765-770; cf. Fishbane, 1985, p. 420). “Jesus is here arguing like a rabbi from a lesser position to a greater position, a ‘how much more’ argument very popular among the rabbis” (Pack, 1975, 1:178). In fact, “it is an argument which to a Jewish Rabbi would have been entirely convincing. It was just the kind of argument, an argument founded on a word of scripture, which the Rabbis loved to use and found most unanswerable” (Barclay, 1956, p. 90).
Jesus identified the unjust judges of Israel as persons “to whom the word of God came” (John 10:35). That is, they had been “appointed judges by Divine commission” (Butler, 1961, p. 127)—by “the command of God; his commission to them to do justice” (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, emp. in orig.; cf. Jeremiah 1:2; Ezekiel 1:3; Luke 3:2). McGarvey summarized the ensuing argument of Jesus: “If it was not blasphemy to call those gods who so remotely represented the Deity, how much less did Christ blaspheme in taking unto himself a title to which he had a better right than they, even in the subordinate sense of being a mere messenger” (n.d., p. 487). Charles Erdman observed:
By his defense Jesus does not renounce his claim to deity; but he argues that if the judges, who represented Jehovah in their appointed office, could be called “gods,” in the Hebrew scriptures, it could not be blasphemy for him, who was the final and complete revelation of God, to call himself “the Son of God (1922, pp. 95-96; cf. Morris, 1971, pp. 527-528).
This verse teaches the exact opposite of what Mormons would like for it to teach! It brings into stark contrast the deity—the Godhood—of Christ (and His Father Who “sanctified and sent” Him—vs. 36) with the absence of deity for all others! There are no other “gods” in the sense of deity, i.e., eternality and infinitude in all attributes. Jesus verified this very conclusion by directing the attention of His accusers to the “works” that He performed (vs. 37-38). These “works” (i.e., miraculous signs) proved the divine identity of Jesus to the exclusion of all other alleged deities. Archer concluded: “By no means, then, does our Lord imply here that we are sons of God just as He is—except for a lower level of holiness and virtue. No misunderstanding could be more wrongheaded than that” (1982, p. 374). Indeed, the Mormon notion of a plurality of gods is “wrongheaded,” as is the accompanying claim that humans can become gods.

CONCLUSION

It is unthinkable that the consistent prohibition of polytheism and idolatry throughout the Bible would or could give way to the completely contrary notion that, as a matter of fact, many gods do exist, and that these gods are merely exalted humans who now rule over their own worlds even as God and Christ rule over theirs. It is likewise outlandish—and contradictory—that humans would be required to worship God and Christ—while being banned from worshipping these other gods. The fact of the matter is that “historic Hebrew is unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic” (Mack, 1939, 2:1265). The same may be said of historic Christianity. To think otherwise is pure pagan hocus-pocus—“a mere creation of the imagination, a mere matter of superstition” (Erdman, 1928, p. 78, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Allen, Jimmy (1975), Survey of 1 Corinthians (Searcy, AR: Privately published by author).
Archer, Gleason L. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition.
Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Barclay, William (1956), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press), second edition.
Barnes, Albert (1949 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Luke and John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Bickersteth, Edward (no date), The Trinity (MacDill AFB, FL: MacDonald Publishing).
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967/77), (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung).
Boles, H. Leo (1942), The Holy Spirit: His Personality, Nature, Works (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1971 reprint).
Book of Mormon (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Butler, Paul (1961), The Gospel of John (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Chadwick, Henry (1967), The Early Church (New York: Penguin Books).
Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).
Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Erdman, Charles (1922), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Erdman, Charles (1928), The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Fishbane, Michael (1985), Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Fretheim, Terence (1997), “elohim,” The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1979 reprint.
Grudem, Wayne (1994), Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann (1997), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Kelcy, Raymond C. (1967), First Corinthians (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Lanier, Roy H., Sr. (1974), The Timeless Trinity for the Ceaseless Centuries (Denver, CO: Roy H. Lanier, Sr.).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Leupold, Herbert C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1950 reprint).
Mack, Edward (1939), “Names of God,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
McConkie, Bruce (1979), Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft).
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Is the Book of Mormon From God?” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2243
Morris, Leon (1971), The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Pack, Frank (1975), The Gospel According to John (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Pearl of Great Price (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Reeve, J.J. (1939), “Gods,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1974 reprint.
Ringgren, Helmer (1974), “elohim,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Schaff, Philip (1910), History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979 reprint).
Tanner, Jerald and Sandra (1972), Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City, UT: Modern Microfilm).
Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).
“The Testimony of Three Witnesses” (1981 reprint), Introduction to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Thomas, J.D. (1984), The Message of the New Testament: First Corinthians (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press).
Vine, W.E. (1966 reprint), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Walker, Williston (1970), A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Warfield, Benjamin (1939a), “Trinity,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
Warfield, Benjamin (1939b), “Godhead,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
Weingreen, J. (1959), A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Oxford University Press), second edition.

Calling Abortion “Good”—Really? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5195

Calling Abortion “Good”—Really?

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

What do Americans call it when a doctor uses a knife-like device and suction from a powerful hose and pump (“29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner”) to chop and suck a human being out of the mother’s womb (“Abortion Methods,” 2010)? What is it called when a doctor uses plier-like devices to twist and tear a four-month-old unborn baby into pieces? (Usually this procedure requires crushing the baby’s skull and snapping the child’s spine in order to extract him/her.) How do Americans feel about a procedure where a doctor injects a strong salt solution through a mother’s abdomen, which acts as a corrosive and burns an unborn child inside and out, normally causing the child to suffer for an hour or more before dying (“Abortion Methods”)? What do Americans think about such actions?
Just a few miles from our offices at Apologetics Press, doctors perform such appalling procedures on living, unborn human beings on a weekly basis. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly 10,000 innocent unborn children were slaughtered in Alabama in 2011 (“State Facts About Abortion: Alabama,” 2015). Many of these abortions were performed at the Reproductive Health Services of Montgomery, which “has provided abortion services and other health care for women for more than 30 years” (2015). Consider some of the feedback from various patients that this abortion clinic highlights on its Web site:
  • Thank you for your hard work and for changing people’s lives with your compassion and dignity.”
  • “Keep up the good work. As my very religious friend told me, I was against abortion until my own fifteen year old daughter became pregnant.”
  • “To all who work to allow me to keep that right to choose: What you do is important, empowering and fine. I chose to have an abortion because it was theright decision for me at the time….”
  • I am saying prayers for your safety and success.”
  • “Keep up the good work….”
  • “Thank you for your brave work for justice and freedom for women.”
  • “Every woman I know who has exercised her right to abortion made that decision with thoughtfulness, tortured consideration and integrity. All the recent talk of heroes comes into focus for me when I think of people like you who’ve been on the front line for so long. Please know you are supported not only with good thoughts and thanks but with resources, will and active determination.”
  • I thank God I was given a choice in September 1973. Abortion was just legalized a few weeks earlier” (emp. added).
Compassion. Dignity. Integrity. Justice. Fine, heroic, and good work. Prayers for success. Even thankfulness to God! These are the thoughts that various ones in our community have toward those who shed the blood of the most innocent among us?! Even President Barack Obama, in support of Planned Parenthood, the organization that murders more unborn children than anyone else in the United States, has stated:
No matter how great the challenge, no matter how fierce the opposition, there’s one thing the past few years have shown—it’s that Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It’s not going anywhere today. It’s not going anywhere tomorrow. As long as we’ve got a fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way. Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you. (“President Obama...,” 2013).
God bless you?! The Obama administration has proudly published the video from which these comments were made on the White House YouTube Channel.
What’s more, so committed are some elected officials to the murderous cause of Planned Parenthood that when evidence recently surfaced that the organization was not only killing hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year, but also attempting to sell their body parts, some Democrats in Congress petitioned the Department of Justice to investigate, not Planned Parenthood, but the whistleblowers (Ludden, 2015). And, apparently, the DOJ “agreed to look into…the group” (Mershon and Ehley, 2015). Did you catch that? There are some who are more up in arms about exactly how an undercover video was procured, rather than “whether Planned Parenthood illegally trafficked baby body parts” (“Obama DOJ…”). Why? It seems, at least in part, because some have vowed to fight to ensure that Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere today…or tomorrow.
These are sad and absurd times in which we live. Rather than “abhor what is evil” and “cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9), millions in the U.S. (including many so-called Christians) reject the Creator’s standard of right and wrong, choosing rather to do what is right in their own eyes (cf. Judges 21:25). As in Isaiah’s day, they “call evil good, and good evil” and put “darkness for light, and light for darkness” (5:20). Though God is the giver of life (Acts 17:25) and “hates…hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:16-17), many actually proceed as if they can pray to Him for the “success” of abominable abortion clinics and thank Him for the legality of willfully destroying innocent human life. God said to the degenerate city of Jerusalem in Isaiah’s day, “When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood” (Isaiah 1:15, emp. added). The once-“faithful city…full of justice” and “righteousness,” had become a city “full of…murderers” (1:21).
What is the message to America, to the world, to those who are wandering in darkness, and to those hypocrites who claim to be Christians, yet act nothing like the Christ? Repent (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 2:38). Stop calling evil good and good evil. Stop glorying in sin and shame—such “are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction” (Philippians 3:18-19). “Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rebuke the oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1:16-17). Stop provoking Almighty God to anger and submit to His Son and His Will. He can (and will!) save a sinner—but not before the sinner comes to grips with the reality that God hates sin and can have no fellowship with it (Isaiah 59:1-2; 1 John 1:5-6).
“Come now, and let us reason together,” says the Lord, “though your sins be as 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; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword;” for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

REFERENCES

“Abortion Methods” (2010), http://www.lifesitenews.com/abortiontypes/.
Ludden, Jennifer (2015), “Sting Videos Part of Longtime Campaign Against Planned Parenthood,” NPR, July 22, http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/22/425314909/sting-videos-part-of-longtime-campaign-against-planned-parenthood.
Mershon, Erin and Brianna Ehley (2015), “IPAB’s on the Horizon—House Republicans Vow to Subpoena Planned Parenthood Official—Casey Takes on Foster Children’s Health Insurance,” Politico, July 23, http://www.politico.com/politicopulse/0715/politicopulse19266.html.
“Obama DOJ Plans to Investigate…The Group That Busted Planned Parenthood” (2015), The Federalist, July 23, http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/23/doj-investigate-planned-parenthood-video/.
“President Obama Speaks at the Planned Parenthood Gala” (2013), The White House YouTube Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laYQ2DDFmCg, April 26.
Reproductive Health Services (2015), http://www.rhs4choice.com/index.html.
“State Facts About Abortion: Alabama” (2015), Guttmacher Institute, https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/alabama.html.

The Measure of a Man by Ben Fronczek

http://granvillenychurchofchrist.org/?p=120

The Measure of a Man

The Measure of A Man
Read Acts 21: 17-40
As I look at this passage, I thought more about what kind of man Paul was rather than seeing that it was just about his arrest. It is the arrest of Paul, but it is also the measure of the man who is seen in the midst of the circumstance that interests me.
I may never get arrested. I may never have to face what Paul did, but I need to learn the lessons of humility that he exemplified here.
From Acts 21:27 on, Paul becomes a prisoner. His days as a free man are over, and from here on he’s a prisoner in various places.
What intrigued me was the question, ‘How can one continue to give a positive testimony in such a negative situation?’
Now, I suppose that every Christian is faced at times with the dilemma of how to come across with a positive attitude in a negative situation.
So how can you keep a positive frame of mind, in a negative situation?
I think a good way to learn how is to watch a man who did it. When we come to the Apostle Paul, we see a man who knew how to take a negative situation and turn it into something positive.
As we move toward verse 27 of Acts 21, we are reminded that Paul arrived in Jerusalem on a positive note after completing three missionary journeys. After meeting with his brother in Christ and making a report and goes through some purification rites, he goes to the Temple to worship. But he encounters a mob, who in a frenzy want to murder him. Let’s look at this story a little closer.
I. Based on v 27 The culprits in the attack were some Jews who were from Asia.
When they saw Paul in the temple, they saw their opportunity.
When they saw him in the temple, they stirred up all the people.
Most of the time lies can move people to action quicker than truth.
Someone once said, “IT IS ALWAYS EASIER TO ROUSE MEN TO FIGHT FOR THEIR RELIGION THAN TO GET THEM TO LIVE BY IT.”
– So what did they accuse him of?
They said that he was going around teaching “against our people, and our law, and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.”
So the first accusation was that he is anti-Semitic, someone who hates Jews. Now, that’s a little difficult to accuse an individual of being anti-Semitic when he’s a Jew himself.
Then they said he was against the “the Law.” In other words he’s anti-Moses. He’s anti-biblical. And then they sum it up by saying he’s against, “this place.” (the Temple).
Now those accusations were a bit general and they really couldn’t do much to the guy who believed those things even if they were true. So they came up with something specific in verse 28. They say, ‘he brought Greeks into the temple and polluted the holy place.’ Now that’s a very strong accusation.
Because They had previously seen him with Trophimus the Ephesian in the city they just assumed that he was with Paul. But they had no evidence.
For a Gentile to enter the Temple was taboo. The Gentiles were restricted to an outer court. It was the part of the Temple known as the Court of the Gentiles. And in between that area and the inner court, was an area for Jewish women to worship. And then the inner courtyard was only for Jewish men. And then of course only the priest and the high priest could enter the Temple itself.
But Gentiles were only allowed in the outer court. There was even a sign posted on the wall that no foreigner could enter. Anyone doing so would have no one but himself to blame for his death.
Now what’s interesting in this: even if Paul had taken Trophimus in there, it should not have been Paul who was apprehended, it would’ve been Trophimus. So this shows us that something was out of whack here.
Verse 30, “The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut.,”
It goes on and said that they wanted to kill him, but fortunately in the great providence of God, the life of Paul was not to end quite yet.

II. Then we see him ARRESTED (Romans)

The one thing that the Roman Government wanted in its colonies was civil order. They didn’t tolerate riotous mobs or civil disorder. And any commander who allowed it was in real trouble. As a result, they had observation towers to watch over somewhat concealed areas. Because most of what went on in terms of people congregating went on in the temple courtyard, there was a garrison of soldiers in the northwest corner of the Temple area.
Well, the soldiers saw what was going on. In verse vss 31-32 it tells us that Immediately solders came bursting in through the crowd and the Jews then stopped beating Paul.
B. Verse 33 say that they “The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then he asked who he was and what he had done.”
They assumed that Paul is guilty of something. They assumes the crown wouldn’t have gone crazy like this unless Paul was guilty of some crime.
I think it’s interesting that this is the fulfillment of prophecy. I can imagine Paul thinking, “Yep, what Agabus told me in Caesarea has come to pass.” The Jews captured him, and he is delivered to the Gentiles, who have now chain him. I’m bound just like Agabus bound himself with my belt.
C. Romans were pretty good at trying to bring about justice. As a result, they wanted to find out what this man had done, what he was accused of, who he was, and what was going on. Verse 34 says, “Some in the crowd shouted one thing and some another, and since the commander could not get at the truth because of the uproar, he ordered that Paul be taken into the barracks.”.
Nobody had the faintest idea what was going on. They were just hollering, and screaming all kind of stuff.
III. But here in this story I want you to notice -The ATTIUDE of a Paul
In this whole story from the very beginning, the Paul hasn’t struggled or said anything. Paul is humble. I see his humility in three ways in these passages.
#1. In the beginning of this text we see his humility even as he attributes all his success to God. When he first came back to Jerusalem we read in verses 19 and 20, that he gave a report about what God had done on his missionary journeys. After hearing this they all praised God. But one thing he didn’t say was, “Look what I did. Look what I did.” Rather it was always what God had done. Here we see Paul’s humble and submissive nature as he spoke of God. All he wanted to do was glorify God, not himself.
#2. He also submitted to God’s servants on earth.
In verse 22 the leaders tell Paul, this is what we want you to do, do what we tell you. Now Paul was a great Apostle of Jesus Christ, personally commissioned by the Lord Himself, yet he is humble enough to listen to the wisdom and suggestion of these men.
#3. He also submitted to God despite potential suffering
In the beginning of this chapter we read that he was warned that something bad may happen if he went to Jerusalem, but he had to go anyway. He just had to obey God’s will no matter what, even if it meant more suffering.
As a prisoner from here on out, I think we can get an idea of how Paul viewed his imprisonment. As a point of reference, I would call your attention to how he began Ephesians 3:1. Where from jail Paul writes, “For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles.”
The point is, Paul never viewed his situation as anything other than God authored. He never viewed his imprisonment as an imprisonment of men. He doesn’t say, “I write unto you, Paul, a prisoner of Rome.” He’s always a prisoner of Christ Jesus. He recognized that it was Christ who brought him into such predicaments.
And so consequently, his imprisonment represented nothing more a new ministry. To him, it didn’t mean the end of anything; that all was lost. It meant the beginning of something new. He saw it as a means to a greater end. Somehow it was part of God’s plan.
What a humble attitude to take. To be able to view a situation that may seem horrible to everyone else as something quite different, that God may want me in a certain situation to glorify Him in a new or unique way.
And that’s just what happened here. Before Paul is carried off into the Roman barracks Paul is given a opportunity to address the crowd in Chapter 22. And what does he do?
– He tells the crowd what happen to him on the road to Damascus as he tried to persecute those who were Christians.
– He told them how he met Jesus on the road, how we was lead blind to Damascus, how when Ananias can to him,
– how his sight was restored, and how God chose him to see the Messiah and become a witness on His behalf.
– He told them how Ananias instructed him to be baptized in order to wash his sins away.
He would have never had that opportunity to preach Jesus the them that day if there was no uproar, if he hadn’t been arrested. He would never have had the chance to preach to the Roman officials and later go to Rome if he hadn’t been falsely accused, beaten and then arrested there that day.
Paul humbly learned that God can use even the darkest of times to bring about a greater good and propel an individual into amazing works of service.
Likewise I want to tell you here today that God can and will use your trial, your dark days to bring about some unexpected or even unseen good. And we can either sit around whining or boohooing, or we can humbly trust God and look for the opportunity to serve Him in some way even while in that trial.
I’ve titled this sermon, The Measure of A Man. What kind of attitude you have in these hard times, in trials will show what you are made of, whether you are a man or woman of faith, or all fluff.
Invitation
(This sermon is slightly based on a sermon by Jimmy Chapman)

Christians Belong on the Most Endangered Species List by Alfred Shannon Jr.

https://biblicalproof.wordpress.com/2011/03/page/2/

Christians Belong on the Most Endangered Species List


Christians truly belong on the Most Endangered Species list. They’re few and far between, and in some places are already extinct. If you think you have found one, be sure to know their characteristics. They are obedient to the gospel of Christ, they attend church services regularly, and they are constantly reading, studying and learning the Word of God. They are definitely not ashamed of the gospel, for they bodaciously teach it everywhere they go, and suffer for it greatly. To meet a Christian, is to meet one of life’s most precious, and rare gems.
Deut 7:7; Mt 7:14; Rom 9:27; Acts 20:7; Acts 17:11; 1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 2:15; Mt 11:29; Rom 1:16; 1 Pet 4:16; Ps 72:14; Ps 116:15; 1 Pet 2:9;

Concerns About Baptism by Eugene Perry





http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Perry/Eugene/Charles/1922/Articles/baptism.html
 
Concerns About Baptism
Many years ago a listener came to me expressing concern. I had just preached and concluded an entire sermon without even mentioning baptism or its relationship to salvation. Such was expected to be a part of or in the conclusion of every sermon. After all, were we not in the Salvation business with Jesus.
There have been changes since that long-ago episode. Now, we sometimes hear expressions of concern if baptism is mentioned "too" frequently. In many churches, members cannot even remember when it was mentioned and would be surprised if it was mentioned, let alone emphasized. When we see people transferring to denominational groups or community churches we should not be surprised. We have made the transition too easy. The difference may not even be noticed and, if it is, it will not likely be consider of much importance.
In this matter, one thing that has been a marvel to me is what must be a deliberate exclusion, by many, of baptism from the things leading to salvation. There are tracts and other printed items that, although entitled, "God's Plan of Salvation" or something similar, manage to make no mention of baptism. These can only be the product of those who have chosen to leave out what the scriptures repeatedly include.
The reader is challenged to go through the New Testament and make two lists. A list of the scripture references where baptism is stated to be related to salvation, forgiveness, cleansing and church membership (i.e. becoming a part of the body of Christ). And a list of the references where baptism is mentioned but not related to the above. The results will be interesting and should be convincing. Accept this challenge!
Another marvel to me has been the manner in which proponents of salvation prior to and without baptism are quick to call it a work of man and therefore not required because "Jesus did it all" and there is nothing that man must contribute. It is not of works. We must recognize that, although baptism is a re-enactment of the death, burial and resurrection of our Saviour and involves an act of submission on man's part, it is only truly baptism because of God's work in our hearts when we are baptized. On man's part believing, repenting and confessing faith, all of which are usually included, involve more work than is involved in submitting to being immersed in obedience to God's will.
Again, I marvel to hear well-read Bible scholars when discussing the question of what makes one a Christian declare without hesitation and dogmatically, "It's not baptism." Does this come from man's reasoning or God's teaching? Certainly, salvation does not result from dipping one in water. Yet that it is a vital part of the "Plan of Salvation" cannot honestly be denied by one who reads without prejudice.
Another marvel is that men have been so bold as to change the mode of baptism. What the scriptures frequently call a burial, what is understood to have been the meaning of the word itself, what is admitted to have been the practise of the church for many centuries and what was evidently meant to be a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ has been changed to an act of sprinkling or pouring water. This neither fits the meaning of the word, conforms to the original practise nor presents the intended picture. How dare men do such a thing.
Lastly, these changes and interpretations become even more daring when one considers that baptism's part in salvation, which men have tended to deemphasize or deny, was a dominant feature of the parting statement/instruction that Jesus made to his closest disciples. His parting wish was that the "good news" of salvation be preached to all the world so that those who believed and submitted in baptism would be saved. (Mk 16:15,16; Mt.28:19)
If anyone doubts this or perhaps thinks it is being misinterpreted or misunderstood by us, the matter is easily clarified by an observance of the apostles as they went about carrying out Jesus' parting wishes. What did they understand?
Their first efforts are recorded in the second chapter of Acts. Note Peter's statement, "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins . . ." (v.38). Surely these people who actually heard Jesus statement and who were led by the Holy Spirit had a better perception of the Lord's intent than any "scholar" or "interpreter" lacking these benefits and part of a different culture.
The wishes of a departing loved one are usually consider significant and are carefully and respectfully carried out. To ignore them or alter them is to practise shameful disrespect. We are also careful to recognize the intent of the departed. The beneficiary often receives the inheritance upon compliance with conditions. The inheritance that Jesus willed to us is "salvation" and the conditions are faith, repentance, confession and baptism.
Remember that Jesus came to bring salvation. He died, was buried and was resurrected to make this possible. Baptism is a re-enactment of this (Rom.6:3-7, 17, 18). Jesus' departing words linked baptism with salvation. The apostles, in compliance with these parting words preached and practiced baptism in relation to salvation.
Don't throw it out. Rather check it out and then carry it out.
Eugene Perry


Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Allegiance, The Flag and Godliness by Gary Rose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_flags_of_the_United_States


I saw the pledge of allegiance among my pictures today and couldn't help but remember the many times I recited this in school. How America has changed since the early 50's! Sin has become a lifestyle; just another choice. For some, the flag of our country is something to be held in disrespect and defiled whenever possible.

Our country was founded by men of faith; by those who wanted freedom and were willing to die for it. Godly men and women who respected the flag of The United States Of America. Even though our flag may have changed somewhat over time, it still represents freedom and always will!!!

The Bible says....


Proverbs, Chapter 14 (World English Bible)
  34 Righteousness exalts a nation, 
but sin is a disgrace to any people.


Americans: Remember our foundations and the righteousness that exalts a nation! What more could I possibly say???