“Couldn’t There Have Been Exceptions to the Laws of Science?” by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

 https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3713

 

“Couldn’t There Have Been Exceptions to the Laws of Science?”

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Some people have realized the implications of the laws of science concerning the matter of origins. Simply put, the laws of science contradict the evolutionary model (cf. Thompson, 2002; Miller, 2007). So, the question is asked by both sincere and unrelinquishing people, “Could there not have been exceptions at some time in the past to the laws of science?”

The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a scientific law as, “a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena” (2003, p. 1182, emp. added). In other words, as long as the scientist takes care to make sure that the law applies to the scenario in question, the law will always hold true. According to its definition, a scientific law has no known exceptions, or else it would not be a law in the first place. A “theory,” on the other hand, is merely an “attempt to explain” phenomena by deduction from other known principles (McGraw-Hill..., p. 2129). A theory may not be true, but a law, by definition, is always true. Since there are no known exceptions to scientific laws, would it not be unscientific for evolutionists to assert, without any scientific evidence, that there have been exceptions to the laws of science in the past?

Consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. A perpetual-motion machine is a device which attempts to violate either the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 263). Numerous attempts have been made over the years to design such a machine—all to no avail. Such a machine would certainly be worth a large sum of money. However, a prominent Thermodynamics textbook used in mechanical engineering schools says concerning such attempts, “The proposers of perpetual-motion machines generally have innovative minds, but they usually lack formal engineering training” (Cengel and Boles, p. 265). Why would the writers make such a statement? The answer is that the Laws of Thermodynamics, which are taught in-depth in mechanical engineering curriculums, prohibit the design of such a machine. According to the textbook writers, to spend time and energy on such a pursuit categorizes the pursuer as unknowledgeable about such scientific truths. The Laws of Thermodynamics have been substantiated to the point that in 1918 the U.S. Patent Office declared that they would no longer accept patent applications for alleged perpetual-motion machines (Cengel and Boles, p. 265). Concerning patent application rejections, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website says, “a rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion” (2008, emp. added).

As far as science can tell, its laws have never been violated. They are without exception. From a scientific perspective, the evolutionary model falls short of being able to account for the origin of the Universe. Indeed, it contradicts the known laws of science that govern the Universe. The creation model, on the other hand, is in perfect harmony with the laws of science.

REFERENCES

“706.03(a) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101[R-5]-700 Examination of Applications” (2008), Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, United States Patent and Trademark Office, [On-line], URL: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_706_03_a.htm.

Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.

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

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

Thompson, Bert (2002), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

 

“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution” by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1631

“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution”

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The Law of Biogenesis tells us that in nature, life comes only from life of its kind (Miller, 2012). Therefore, abiogenesis (i.e., life arising from non-living materials) is impossible, according to the scientific evidence. How then can atheistic theories like Darwinian evolution be considered acceptable? There is a growing trend among evolutionists today to attempt to sidestep the problem of abiogenesis by contending that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather is a theory which starts with life already in existence and explains the origin of all species from that original life form. However, this approach is merely wishful thinking—an effort to avoid the logical import of the Law of Biogenesis.

Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory, and intuitively must be so. In 1960, British evolutionary physiologist, G.A. Kerkut, listed abiogenesis as the first assumption in a list of non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is founded. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred” (Kerkut, 1960, p. 6). Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain the origin of species through natural means—without supernatural Creation. Logically, unless you concede the existence of God and subscribe to theistic evolution in order to explain the origin of life (a position that has been shown to be unsustainable, cf. Thompson, 2000), abiogenesis must have originally occurred in order to commence the process of Darwinian evolution. Abiogenesis is required by evolution as the starting point.

Further, atheistic evolutionary geologist, Robert Hazen, who received his doctoral degree from Harvard, admitted that he assumes abiogenesis occurred. In his lecture series, Origins of Life, he says, “In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with natural laws of chemistry and physics” (2005, emp. added). Again, evolution is an attempt to explain life through natural means, and abiogenesis must go hand-in-hand with such a theory. Hazen further stated that in his assumption of abiogenesis, he is “like most other scientists” (2005). It makes perfect sense for atheistic evolutionists to admit their belief in abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution to occur. However, many evolutionists do not want to admit such a belief too loudly, since such a belief has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. It is a blind faith—a religious dogma.

It is also true that atheists themselves use the term “evolution” as a generalized catchall word encompassing all materialistic origin models, including those dealing with the origin of the cosmos, not just the origin of species. A simple Google search of the keywords, “cosmic evolution,” illustrates that contention. Consider, for example, the title of Harvard University astrophysicist Eric Chaisson’s Web site: “Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind” (2012). Consider also the comments of NASA chief historian, Steven Dick: “Cosmic evolution begins…with the formation of stars and planetary systems, proceeds…to primitive and complex life, and culminates with intelligence, technology and astronomers…contemplating the universe…. This story of the life of the universe, and our place in it, is known as cosmic evolution” (2005). If atheism were true, in this mythical story of how the Universe evolved from nothing to everything, abiogenesis must have occurred somewhere along the way. Thus, abiogenesis is a fundamental, implied phenomenon of evolutionary theory. Creationists are merely using atheistic evolutionists’ terms in the same way they use them.

The truth is, one cannot logically commence a study of Life Science or Biology—studies which are intimately linked with the theory of evolution by the bulk of the scientific community today—without first studying the origin of that life which allegedly evolved from a single-celled organism into the various forms of life on Earth today. Biology and Life Science textbooks today, with almost unanimity, include a discussion of biogenesis, abiogenesis (ironically, discussing the work of Pasteur, Spallanzani, and Redi, who disproved the theory of abiogenesis), and extensive discussions of evolutionary theory. The evolutionists themselves inevitably couple Biology and Life Science with evolution, as though they are one and the same. But a study of life—biology—must have a starting point. So, evolutionists themselves link the problem of abiogenesis to evolution. If the evolutionary community wishes to separate the study of biology from evolution—a position I would strongly recommend—then the evolutionist might be able to put his head in the sand and ignore the abiogenesis problem, but not while the evolutionist couples evolution so intimately with biology.

The reality is that abiogenesis stands alongside evolutionary theory as a fundamental plank of atheism and will remain there. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together. It is time for the naturalist to forthrightly admit that his religious belief in evolution is based on a blind acceptance of an unscientific pheonomenon.

REFERENCES

Chaisson, Eric (2012), “Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind,” Harvard College Observatory, https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html.

Dick, Steven J. (2005), “Why We Explore: Our Place in the Universe,” NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_13.html. 

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

"Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith" by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4704

"Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith"

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

We openly grant that the accusation represented by the title of this article is true, at least for many individuals today. But not for all.

“Blind Faith”—Many Have It

What is “blind faith”? What is meant by the accusation? The idea behind “blind faith” is that a person chooses to believe in something or someone (namely, God) without any supporting evidence. The portrait painted in our minds is that of a person who puts on a blindfold and steps up to a ledge. He cannot see what is beyond the ledge. He has no idea how far down the drop is—whether or not he will plummet to his death, break his legs, or simply fall down. He has no idea if there is water, a trampoline, or rocks at the bottom. He simply decides to believe that he will not die if he jumps off—that he will be safe. He has no evidence, only pure, baseless “faith.” So, he takes a “leap of faith.” Question: who in their right mind would do such a thing? Whoever has such a faith truly is naïve, an extremely emotionally, rather than rationally, charged individual, and possibly is in need of counseling, or has an agenda for having such a belief system.

Sadly many people have such a “faith.” Many people call themselves Christians, and claim to believe in the Bible, but clearly have not read it. They have a “blind faith” which, according to the Law of Rationality (Ruby, 1960, pp. 126-127), is irrational. Their belief in God is not based on the evidence, but is a blind leap into the dark without it. Philosphers call this phenomenon “fideism” (Popkin, 1967, 3:201-202). However, the biblical portrait of faith (Greek, pistis—translated equally as faith, belief, trust, or having confidence in; Arndt, et al., 1979, pp. 661-664) is not what some in Christendom have defined it to be nor what Hollywood has portrayed it to be. It is not “believing when common sense tells you not to,” as the 1947 movie, Miracle on 34^th Street suggested (Seaton). It is not a “leap of faith” like Dr. Jones’ actions in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Spielberg, 1989). The Bible does not advocate a “Feel, don’t think” mentality, like that encouraged by Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars (Lucas, 1999). Biblical faith is based on evidence (Hebrews 11:1). It is trust—comparable to the trust one has in a parent or friend—that is based on proof. We trust someone when he has proven himself to be trustworthy. When one listens to or reads revelation from God’s Word (i.e., what Bible believers call “special revelation”) and the information therein proves to be true, one develops faith in God (Romans 10:17). When one examines the evidence from the created order (i.e., what Bible believers call “general revelation”), and it points to the existence of a supernatural Being as Creator—rather than blind, random, accidental change over time—we learn to trust God based on that evidence.

In short: The biblical model of faith requires evidence. According to the biblical model, the truth of God can be known—not felt or accepted without proof—and it will set men free (John 8:32). Sincere truth seekers examine what they have been told and investigate its veracity by pondering the evidence, as did the “fair-minded” Bereans of Acts 17:11, before becoming Christians. In fact, God (through Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:21) tells the creationist that he is expected to prove or test something before believing it—only accepting what has been proven right or good. Do such passages give the impression that the Bible advocates a blind, evidence-less faith?

Sadly, evidence-based faith is not the faith of many within Christendom. But “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Many of us base our view squarely on the evidence—such as the evidence presented below. [NOTE: See Miller, 2003a for more on the topic of “blind faith” and the Bible. Also, Miller, 2003b.]

But We Don’t

In order for a belief to not be “blind” or irrational, it needs supporting evidence. While the creationist does not claim to hold direct, observable evidence of God, since we cannot taste, touch, see, hear, or smell Him, the indirect evidence—a legitimate source of scientific evidence—is overwhelming. What supporting evidence do creationists put forth? A thorough treatment of this subject is outside the scope of this article, but hundreds of articles and books deal eloquently and credibly with the subject. [NOTE: See www.apologeticpress.org for a library of said material.]

In short, the creationist argues, among other things, that:

1. The available evidence contradicts the atheistic model (cf. Miller, 2012b; Miller, 2013c), which logically leaves theism—the Creation model;
2. The fundamental evidence that contradicts the naturalistic model, supports the contentions of the creation model, which never contradicts the scientific evidence;
3. The existence and teachings of the laws of science demand a non-material, uncaused Cause for the Universe;
4. There are numerous natural evidences in the Universe that exhibit the characteristics of intent, purpose, and complexity, which indicate a Mind behind them. Such attributes testify to the presence of intelligent design, which implies a Designer;
5. Objective morality exists, which implies a higher Law that transcends mankind, which in turn demands a supernatural Author;
6. A Book exists that contains certain characteristics that can only be explainable if it is what it says it is—the Word of the Creator.

These proofs, and many others, provide evidence that demands an explanation and cannot be satiated by naturalistic theories. Only supernatural Creation provides an answer in keeping with the evidence. The Creation model can hardly be deemed unscientific. Its legitimate followers cannot be brushed aside as “blind” believers. Such sweeping accusations are unfair and betray a prejudiced, stereotypical mindset, to say nothing of the fact that such accusations fall victim to the ad hominem logical fallacy (“Fallacies,” 2012).

Actually, Evolutionists Do

In truth, Creation is the reasonable choice—the one not beholden to evidence-less leaps of faith. It is not contingent on the baseless, mythical claim that aliens exist and initiated life on Earth (cf. Miller, 2013a); that abiogenesis—like magic from a fictional novel—is somehow possible (cf. Miller, 2012b); that non-humans give birth to humans, as they do in the tabloids (cf. Flew and Warren, 1977, pp. 25,45,65); or the fanciful idea that Universes spontaneously pop into existence (cf. Miller, 2013c). Indeed, atheistic evolution is simply well-packaged superstition. Creation is the option in keeping with reason and the evidence.

While some who call themselves “Christians,” do, indeed, have an unscriptural, blind faith, in truth, the same can be said of the evolutionary community—and more so. Why? (1) Because unlike evolution, the evidence does not contradict Creation but supports it, even though some have accepted Creation without that evidence; (2) because not all creationists hold to a blind faith. Some examine the evidence and draw the reasonable conclusion that a Creator exists. However, all naturalists must have a blind, evidence-less faith, since atheistic evolution is based on certain baseless, unprovable assumptions, including abiogenesis, naturalism, spontaneous generation or the eternality of matter, etc. (cf. Miller, 2013b and Kerkut, 1960 for other key, baseless evolutionary assumptions). Belief in those assumptions is purely blind. They (1) are not supported by the evidence, which classifies evolution as irrational; (2) actually contradict the evidence; and (3) even show the naturalist to be engaged in self-contradiction, which he blindly ignores when confronted with the evidence of his contradictions (cf. Miller, 2012a). It seems clear that it is the evolutionist—not the creationist—who holds to a blind faith.

Consider the following timeless quotes from various prominent evolutionists concerning the character of the naturalist’s faith:

• Robert Jastrow, evolutionary astronomer and founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA: “At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists  [i.e., naturalists—JM] are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is alsoan act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief” (1977, pp. 62-63, emp. added).
• John Sullivan, once a popular evolutionary science writer: “The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith” (1933, p. 95, emp. added).
• Richard Lewontin, evolutionary geneticist of Harvard University: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs..., in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”(1997, p. 31, 2^nd and 4^th emp. in orig.).
• G.A. Kerkut, British evolutionary physiologist: Spontaneous generation is “a matter of faith on the part of the biologist…. The evidence for what did happen is not available” (1960, p. 150, emp. added).
• Loren Eiseley, evolutionary anthropologist of the University of Pennsylvania: “With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past” (1957, pp. 201-202, emp. added).
• Robert Hazen, evolutionary geologist who received his doctoral degree in Earth Science from Harvard University, a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Laboratory, and a professor of Earth Science at George Mason University: “I make an assumption that life emerged from basic raw materials through a sequence of events that was completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. Even with this scientific approach, there is a possibility that we’ll never know—in fact, that we can’t ever know. It is possible that life emerged by an almost infinitely improbable sequence of difficult chemical reactions. If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicated in a program of lab experiments. If the origin of life was an infinitely improbable accident, then there’s absolutely nothing you or I or anyone else could do to figure out how it happened. I must tell you, that’s a depressing thought to someone like me who has devoted a decade to understanding the origin of life” (2005, emp. added).
• Fred Hoyle, distinguished atheistic British astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at University College, Cardiff, Wales: “It is doubtful that anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth’s surface to produce large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the ‘primeval soup theory’ of the origin of life, scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are just as inaccessible to the empirical approach” (1978, p. 26, emp. added).

If these quotes from eminent evolutionists do not prove that naturalistic evolution is a religious faith, and a blind one at that, what would? It’s no wonder that the late Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, said about evolution, “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory” (1981, emp. added). These quotes simply do not characterize true Christianity or the true Creation model—but they do characterize evolution.

Thus, it seems that the rank and file evolutionist’s self-incriminating, venomous accusations towards the creationist are well-represented by the Shakespearean quote, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (III.2). Be wary of the one who makes accusations the loudest and attempts to deflect attention from his own inadequacies.

Bottom line: The true model of origins will be based on the evidence. It will be the rational model. It will not contradict the evidence at every turn. So atheistic evolution is not the true model of origins.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.

Eiseley, Loren (1957), The Immense Journey (New York: Random House).

“Fallacies” (2012), The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill, http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/fallacies.

Flew, Antony G.N. and Thomas B. Warren (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1978), Lifecloud (New York: Harper & Row).

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

Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).

Lewontin, Richard (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9.

Lucas, George, dir. (1999), Star Wars Episode I—The Phantom Menace, Lucasfilm.

Miller, Dave (2003a), “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=444.

Miller, Dave (2003b), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation--EXTENDED VERSION,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1399.

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Reason & Revelation, 32[5]:53, May, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1029&article=1763.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Miller, Jeff (2013a), “Directed Panspermia and Little, Green (Non-Existent) Men from Outer Space,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4620.

Miller, Jeff (2013b), “Don’t Assume Too Much: Not All Assumptions in Science Are Bad,” Reason & Revelation, 33[6]: 62-64,69-70, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1122&article=2153.

Miller, Jeff (2013c), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: the Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2786.

Patterson, Colin (1981), Written transcript made from audio tape of lecture presented at the American Museum of Natural History, November.

Popkin, Richard (1967), “Fideism” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: McMillan).

Ruby, Lionel (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott).

Seaton, George (1947), Miracle on 34^th Street, Twentieth Century Fox.

Shakespeare, William (2011), Hamlet, The Literature Network, http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/hamlet/10/.

Spielberg, Steven, dir. (1989), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Paramount Pictures.

Sullivan, J.W.N. (1933), Limitations of Science (New York: Viking Press).

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Jesus Questioned About Fasting (2:18-22) by Mark Copeland

 

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

      Jesus Questioned About Fasting (2:18-22)

INTRODUCTION

1. The nature of Jesus' ministry caught the attention of many...
   a. He healed the sick, cast out demons - Mk 1:34
   b. He traveled from city to city, preaching in the synagogues - Mk 1:39

2. The attention of religious leaders led to close scrutiny...
   a. As when the scribes took issue with His claim to forgive sins - Mk 2:6-7
   b. As when the scribes and Pharisees took issue with His dining with sinners - Mk 2:16

[Not just Jesus, but also His disciples were scrutinized.  When His
disciples were not fasting like other men's disciples, Jesus was asked why...]

I. THE NARRATIVE

   A. JESUS QUESTIONED REGARDING FASTING...
      1. Why did His disciples not fast? - Mk 2:18
      2. Both disciples of John and those of the Pharisees fasted- ibid.
      3. Fasting was commonly practiced at the time
         a. The Law of Moses ordained one fast, on the day of Atonement- Lev 23:26-32
         b. But Jews fasted on many other occasions, for different
            reasons, lengths, and degrees of abstinence - cf. "Fasting In The Old Testament"
         c. In the first century, many Jews fasted twice weekly - cf. Lk 18:12; Didache 8:1
      -- Since it was so common, why did the disciples of Jesus not fast?

   B. JESUS' RESPONSE REGARDING FASTING...
      1. He first gave the illustration of friends and the bridegroom- Mk 2:19-20
         a. Friends with the bridegroom do not fast while he is with them, it is time for feasting!
         b. When the bridegroom is taken away, then they will fast
      2. He then gave the illustrations of new cloth and new wine - Mk 2:21-22
         a. New cloth is not sown on an old garment, or the tear is made worse
         b. New wine is not put in old wineskins, or the old wineskins will burst
      3. Jesus' explanation was two-fold:
         a. First, it was inappropriate for His disciples to fast while He was with them
         b. Second, ritualistic fasting would be out of sync with His "new doctrine" (Mk 1:27)
      -- The trappings of Judaism would be incompatible with the religion of Jesus

[So was Jesus saying that fasting would have no place in the New
Covenant?  Here are some observations taken from the text and other passages related to fasting...]

II. SOME OBSERVATIONS

   A. JESUS INDICATED HIS DISCIPLES WOULD FAST...
      1. With His illustration:  "...they will fast in those days" - Mk 2:20
      2. When Jesus' ministry on earth was over, some fasting would be appropriate
      -- Thus Jesus did not rule out fasting altogether

   B. HE TAUGHT FASTING THAT PLEASES GOD...
      1. In His sermon on the mount - Mt 6:16-18
      2. Done not to impress men, but to please God
      -- Thus Jesus expected His disciples to fast

   C. EARLY CHRISTIANS PRACTICED FASTING...
      1. The church at Antioch, as they ministered to the Lord - Ac 13:1-3
      2. The churches of Galatia, when they appointed elders - Ac 14:21-23
      3. The apostle Paul, as part of his ministry - 2Co 6:5; 11:27
      4. Husbands and wives, by mutual consent - 1Co 7:5
      -- When joined with prayer, fasting apparently is suitable for Christians

   D. WHEN FASTING WOULD BE PROPER TODAY...
      1. Whenever circumstances require God's help
         a. These may be occasions on an individual level
            1) When faced with difficult temptations
            2) When faced with the serious illness of a loved one
         b. These occasions might be on a congregational level
            1) As when appointing elders
            2) As when sending out missionaries
      2. Whenever circumstances call for much prayer
         a. Is not God more likely to answer our  prayers if we are persistent? - cf. Lk 18:1-8
         b. Is not God more likely to respond if we fast in the proper manner? - cf. Mt 6:17-18
      -- Not as some ceremonious ritual, but when appropriate for the occasion

CONCLUSION

1. Richard Foster (Celebration Of Discipline) wrote that in a culture where the landscape is dotted...
   a. With shrines to the "Golden Arches" and an assortment of "Pizza Temples"
   b. Fasting may seem out of place, out of step with the times

2. Views about fasting usually go to extremes...
   a. "Some have exalted religious fasting beyond all Scripture and
      reason, and others have utterly disregarded it." - John Wesley
   b. Some consider fasting unnecessary, something to be ignored; others
      think it should be bound as a matter of faith (like baptism)

3. From this brief study we have observed...
   a. There is a place for fasting, but its practice would not be ritualistic
   b. For the disciple of Christ, fasting is left primarily to individual discretion
   c. When properly understood and practiced, it can be a valuable spiritual discipline
   d. A way to humble oneself before God; when joined with prayer, a way
      to solicit God's help - cf. Ezr 8:21-23

We do well to carefully study the subject of fasting (cf. "Fasting - A
Special Study").  It would be a shame to have a spiritual tool at our
disposal and not make use of it as disciples of Christ...    

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

CAN GOD FIX THIS? by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2015/12/04/can-god-fix-this/

CAN GOD FIX THIS?

“GOD ISN’T FIXING THIS” screamed the headline from Thursday’s New York Daily News following Wednesday’s mass shooting in San Bernardino leaving 14 dead and 21 wounded.

The subheading said, “As the latest bunch of innocent Americans are left laying in pools of blood, cowards who could  truly end gun scourge continue to hide behind meaningless platitudes.”

The “meaningless platitudes”? Tweets of 4 Republican politicians offering their prayers for the victims, their families and the people of San Bernardino are featured on the front page. The inside article mocks them and others for evoking the name of God instead of doing something about stricter gun laws.

But the Daily News wasn’t alone in their ridicule. Following tweets that the “thoughts and prayers” were with the people of San Bernardino, numerous others responded like these:

“Stop thinking. Stop praying.”

“Another mass shooting. Another deluge of tweeted prayers. Seems to have been an ineffective strategy so far.”

“Dear thoughts and prayers people: Please shut up and slink away. You are the problem, and everyone knows it.”

It’s incredible in the midst of tragedy, suffering and death, when the families were requesting prayers, that people would mock those who prayed. But, sadly, it is the sign of our times.

The insinuation of the Daily News and the Tweeters was insensitive, incorrect and absurd. What are they saying? There is no God? Or God doesn’t care? Or God is incapable of acting? Or prayer is useless?

Can God fix this?

(1) Prayer is not some kind of magic formula to recite when we are in trouble.

A “genie God” is not going to mystically appear, wave a wand and eliminate all human suffering. Prayer is conversation with the Almighty. It is our means of petition, supplication and request to the Creator when we have concerns and feel hurts. The Bible says God hears our prayers and that He cares about our problems. (I JN 5:14; I Pet. 5:6-7).

(2) Before doubting God, or mocking the fervent prayers of righteous people, critics should remember that neither God nor Christianity is the problem.

God is good. God is love. God is holy. He cannot be tempted with evil. Neither does He tempt us to commit sin. God created man upright. In his image. And after His likeness. (Ps 86:5; Lev 19:2;  I Jn 4:16; Eccl 7:29; Gen 1:26-27). The Christian religion is truly a religion of peace from the “Prince of Peace.”

(3) It is not God’s fault that people engage in evil acts.

The problem in this world is the same as it was in ancient Israel and in the days of Jesus Christ. It’s the sin problem. When evil enters the heart and its plans are conceived, sin occurs. Jesus said, “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander” (Matt 15:19). That’s not God’s fault!

Can God fix this?

Yes, He can, but not in the way most of the world wants.

First of God, has provided a “fix for sin” through Jesus Christ. He lived, died and was resurrected that we might be free from the slavery of sin and the evil desires incited by the devil. Jesus calls us to a higher standard of living. His gospel does not prompt people to murder unbelievers or hurt others. Both the golden rule and the second great commandment can change hearts and alter behavior. (Eph. 1:1-23; Matt 7:12; Matt 22:37-40).

Secondly, in His providence God can use evil people and nations to punish His people or nations for their unfaithfulness to His Word. Old Testament history records that God used Israel to punish the Canaanites, Assyria to punish Israel, and Babylon to punish Assyria, as well as Judah (Jer 18:5-11). This is not a very pleasant or popular thought, but it is a possibility based on Scripture.

Thirdly, the problem of evil will be solved “in the day of the Lord.” Christ is coming again. This world will be destroyed. And judgment will be justly rendered according to our deeds, both good and evil (I Pet 3:9-12; 2 Cor 5:10).

As long as the world stands, there will be evil, injustice and corruption. But God has prepared a better world. One that awaits the Believer. We will never correct all of society’s ills, but we can prepare the soul for its eternal home.

Can God fix this?

He already has.

STATEMENT OF FAITH? by steve finnell

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/statement-of-faith-steve-finnell.html

STATEMENT OF FAITH?  by steve finnell

The statement of faith of most church  congregations claims that they believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. The truth is most church congregations use a man-made  creed book and or their own opinions as the guide for faith and practice.

Scripture: Mark 16:16 He who has believed, and has been immersed, will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (The Better Version of The New Testament by Chester Estes)

Statement of Faith: He who has believed will be saved, however, immersion in water is not essential in order to be saved.

Statement of Faith: Baptism has no purpose in salvation, it is simply an act of obedience.

Statement of Faith: Infants have their inherited sins and all future sins forgiven during baptism. Infants can be saved without believing that Jesus is the Christ. They are saved and added to the body of Christ when they are baptized in water.

Statement of Faith: Sprinkling and pouring are other modes of baptism.

Statement of Faith: Water baptism is a work, therefore it is not essential for salvation.

If your church congregation claims the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why would your church statement of faith contradict the Scriptures. Why would you need a man-made creed book. God does not approve of additions and subtractions to His Bible. The Bible is not a living document.

[NOTE: Adam is the only one guilty of his sin. If Adam's sin is inherited, then why did God approve of Able, but not Cain.(Genesis 4:1-14)]

Infants do not need to be baptized, they are not guilty of sin.  

GALATIANS by Paul Southern

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Southern/Paul/1901/gal.html

GALATIANS

THE TITLE

This book is called "Galatians" because it is addressed to "the churches in Galatia" (Galatians 1:2, 3:1; I Corinthians 16:1).

THE WRITER

From Galatians 1:1 we learn that Paul the apostle was the writer.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING

Since the date and place of writing are indefinite, we shall not attempt a lengthy discussion of these matters. Scholars have suggested several dates ranging from A.D. 50 to A.D. 58; and three different places of writing: Ephesus, Macedonia and Corinth. We have no data in the epistle indicating the exact date of writing.

THE COUNTRY OF GALATIA

Politically it was the Roman province of Central Asia Minor, and included Lycaonia, Isauria and parts of Phrygia and Pisidia. Geographically it was the center of the Celtic tribes. The exact location is a moot question between two schools of thought. Exponents of the South Galatian theory make it include churches founded by Paul on his first mission tour: Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe (Acts 13:14 to 14:24). The North Galatian school interprets the term to mean a strip of country in the north of Asia Minor, occupied by the Celts. Again, we are more concerned with the contents of the epistle than with exact locations of the ones addressed.

THE CELTIC TRIBES

Celtic tribes from Northern Europe invaded Asia Minor about 280 B.C. They were subdued by the Romans in 189 B.C. and incorporated into the Roman province of Galatia in 25 B.C. Galatia means "the land of the Gauls" (Celtae-Galatae-Galli). The people were impulsive, quick-tempered, hospitable and fickle. They received impressions quickly, and just as hastily gave them up. After receiving Paul enthusiastically, they suddenly turned away from him, and from the gospel (1:6-9; Colossians 4:13-15).

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCHES

The origin of the churches of Galatia is indefinite. As indicated above, some think that the Galatians of this letter were people of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe. If so, Paul converted them on his first mission tour (Acts 13,14). However, Acts 16:6 indicates that the term Galatia meant something besides the foregoing places. It has been suggested that Europeans returning home after Pentecost established churches in Galatia. Others think that Paul might have evangelized the country while he was in Tarsus before going to Antioch. At any rate, we know that he visited them on his second tour (Acts 16:6); that he became sick and preached while there (Galatians 4:13-15), and that he also visited them while on his third journey (Acts 18:23).

OCCASION FOR THE LETTER

Paul left the churches running well (Galatians 5:7). Shortly afterwards, Judaizing teachers crept in teaching that the Jewish law was binding upon Christians (Ch. 3). They accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but claimed that salvation is reached through the works of the law, and that Gentiles should be circumcised (5:1-6). In order to carry their point, they tried to undermine Paul's apostolic authority by saying that he was not one of the apostles, and the he received his doctrines from men and not from the Lord (Chs. 1 and 2).

PURPOSE OF THE LETTER

The purpose of the letter was to correct these errors, and show that salvation is a matter of faithful obedience to the gospel of Christ and not to the law of Moses.

EXERCISES FOR STUDENT ACTIVITY

1. From encyclopedias learn all that you can concerning Celtic tribes and Gallic people.
2. Study the dangers of fickleness as discussed in Galatians.
3. What reasons does Paul give to prove that his teaching did not come from men?
4. What evidence does Paul give of his divine call?
5. Study points of correspondence between Galatians and Romans.
6. Contrast one under the Law and one under faith.
7. Examine closely Paul's teaching on the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit.
8. Note carefully the following words as used in Galatians: bondage, liberty, flesh, spirit, servant, lust, righteousness, faith.
9. In what way are Christians the seed of Abraham?
10. In what sense are Christians to bear one another's burdens when each man must bear his own burden?

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

The Cross by Gary Rose

 

This picture answers the question: What was the value of Jesus dying on the cross? Without doubt, this singular act was the most important event in all of human history. It marked a new epoch in the existence of human beings; namely, one of hope.

Jesus, as God’s sacrifice for sin, showed the way for us to overcome sin – by faith. Jesus was not only the son-of-God, but also an example of what Adam should have been- a man of faith who trusts God the Father, completely.

Sunday morning, our Bible class was about Hebrews 11, that great chapter on those who were faithful and this picture reminds me of what we will study this next Lord’s Day. Hebrews, chapter 12 begins with…

Hebrews 12 ( World English Bible )

¹ Therefore let us also, seeing we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

² looking to Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising its shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Our existence on this planet is far more than mere living, it is an opportunity to show by our lives the value of obeying God. God the Father exalted Jesus for his faith and will ultimately bless us for ours.

Today, reflect on this simple picture of the cross and how it should impact your life. What you do with that understanding will eventually be exhibited before your fellow human beings. I pray that you will determine to follow Jesus’ example and show to the world exactly how much you love God. Will you?