A Lesson From the Sophists by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3525

A Lesson From the Sophists

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

The ancient Sophists occupied the period in Greek philosophical history just after the physical philosophers had posited various explanations concerning the substance of the material world (ca. 450 B.C. [Kahn, 2005]). Sophists are often dismissed as charlatans or hypocrites, and to some degree this charge is just. Our purpose here, however, is not to evaluate the Sophists’ project, but rather to learn a lesson from the circumstance in which the Sophists found themselves and from the major question they posed. As the answer to this question highlights the value of special revelation, it is relevant to Christian apologetics.

The earliest Greek philosophers (e.g., Thales, Anaximander, Democritus, etc.), had focused primarily on developing accounts of physical reality, asking “Of what is the world made?” However, social and political unrest demanded that philosophers move beyond the merely physical questions (i.e., questions about substance) in order to address spiritual and ethical issues. The traditional Greek religion, with its accompanying supernatural explanations for the phenomenal world, were being questioned. Likewise, traditional laws were being questioned (see Rogers, 1923, p. 45). As all citizens in Athens had the opportunity to participate directly as legislators, those who wanted to advance in politics desired special training in rhetoric for the purpose of learning to persuade audiences in the legal/political realm. The Sophists occupied themselves as teachers of rhetoric, among other topics. Consider the following summary:

The basis [of the Sophists’] work was apt to be rhetorical, but with the abler Sophists, this was broadened out to cover the field of an all-round and liberal culture. Any knowledge that was available of the workings of the human mind, of literature, history, language, or grammar, of the principles underlying the dialectic of argument, of the nature of virtue and justice, was clearly appropriate to the end in view.... Now all this seems innocent enough.... In reality, however, there were some grounds for...suspicion. On the practical side, merely, there always was a danger lest the Sophistic skill be prostituted to unsocial ends.... Apart, however, from such chances for abuse, which no doubt were often taken advantage of, there was a more fundamental reason for the popular distrust. The habit of unrestricted inquiry and discussion which was crystallized by the Sophistic movement, the free play of the mind over all subjects that interest men, meant the overthrow of much in the existing civilization.... (Rogers, pp. 42-43).

While some of the Sophists had high ideals (e.g., Protagoras [see Plato, 1997, pp. 746-790]), nonetheless the legacy of the Sophists is that of a general ethical relativism.

Greek culture was at a crossroads. At issue was whether the traditions of previous generations of society would be maintained, or the desires of each present individual would be accepted as his own standard. Should the individual or society take prominence? The Sophists, exposing at times the lack of rational support for tradition, essentially offered the solution of “Every man for himself.” In so doing, they posed the following philosophical question: Is man the measure of all things (as modern secular humanists allege; see Colley, 2007), or is there some external, objective standard to guide human action? Some philosophers, such as Socrates, were rightly concerned that any solution whatever be subjected to the test of human reason, and that the solution be applied to all humanity. Yet, even a Platonic solution, such as that presented in the Republic, has aspects that are unsatisfactory to many (especially its communistic aspects [Plato, 1997, pp. 971-1223]).

This quandary is ancient, yet bears a strikingly current application. Our present culture is largely divided concerning the validity of divine authority and religious tradition. At least two lessons present themselves for the Christian apologist. The first, general lesson to be learned from this Greek predicament is that man needs divine guidance in order to flourish (Jeremiah 10:23). Anytime man rejects an objective standard concerning what is good, relativism threatens. “Someone who holds that nothing is simply good, but only good for someone or from a certain point of view, holds a relativist view of goodness,” and has invited revolution, as did the Greeks (Craig, 2005, p. 894). Yet, even a universally accepted standard, if not grounded in objective truth, is not desirable (it could happen to be philosophical pessimism, Nazism, etc.).

It is interesting to note that within a few generations of the Sophists, the greatest theophony Jesus Christ would appear, providing the way to human fulfillment and peace in the fullness of time (see John 10:10; 14:6; Galatians 4:4). The Greek-speaking world would be influenced heavily by Christianity, and many philosophers throughout the centuries would come to appreciate Christian principles, even developing philosophical systems involving biblical teaching (see Rogers, pp. 185ff.).

The second, specific lesson to be learned from the Greek situation during the Sophistical age is that Christianity provides grounds for perfect balance between emphasis upon the individual person and deference to his community. The individual is uniquely responsible for his own obedience and righteous lifestyle (Acts 2:40; 2 Timothy 2:15; Hebrews 11:6; Jude 21-23). The individual’s own rationality is central, but not for the purpose of originating religious truth. Rather, the individual uses his rationality to examine evidence for the validity of revealed truth, and to apply revelation properly. At the same time, he is divinely situated in the church, a community of believers who bear each others’ burdens (Philippians 2:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 John 4:7), exercise godly discipline (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Peter 5:5), and appeal to a single standard for conduct (2 Samuel 22:31; Romans 10:13-17; Colossians 3:17). Christianity is not designed in such a way that its adherents exercise faith in isolation. No one Christian is more valuable or more important than another (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11).

CONCLUSION

The Bible contains the answers to philosophical questions—even those asked by the ancients. The Sophists indirectly raised the question of the degree to which such a source should be consulted when philosophers develop ethical and metaphysical arguments. To defend the affirmative answer is the task of the Christian apologist, who considers philosophy in light of divine revelation in order to develop the most effective response.

REFERENCES

Colley, Caleb (2007), “Secular Humanism and Evolution,” http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3336.

Craig, Edward (2005), “Relativism,” in The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Craig (New York: Routledge).

Kahn, Charles H. (2005), “Sophists,” in The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Craig (New York: Routledge).

Rogers, Arthur Kenyon (1923), A Student’s History of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan).

Plato (1997), Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).

A Leap Into the Dark? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=558

A Leap Into the Dark?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

One of the most abused verses in all of Scripture is 2 Corinthians 5:7: “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” Often, those who “expound” upon the apostle Paul’s statement explain that faith implies something less than knowledge—that is, they teach that we must accept evidence blindly and take a “leap of faith.” Many so-called teachers and preachers, when commenting on 2 Corinthians 5:7, argue for a separation of faith and facts. German theologian Hans Kung upheld this idea of “biblical” faith when he wrote: “Even in faith, then, there is no certainty entirely free from doubt. In faith, we must commit ourselves to something uncertain” (1980, p. 61). Similar to Kung’s ideas about faith is the statement of televangelist Robert Schuller, who suggested: “Faith is a commitment to an unprovable assumption” (1984). If these men are correct, faith is either something based on no proof at all or something composed of a small amount of knowledge and a big dose of uncertainty that allows men to “act like” they know something when, in fact, they do not. Is this the kind of faith to which Paul was referring when he wrote his second epistle to the Corinthians?

Second Corinthians 5:7 is both amplified and clarified by verse 16 of that same chapter: “Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.” In other words, in the past Jesus had been present in the flesh, and hence could be known by sight. But, at the time Paul wrote his letters to the Corinthians, the situation had changed—Christ no longer was on the Earth. Thus, the apostle Paul clarified his statement about not walking “by sight” with the phrase “now we know Him thus no longer.” Of course, Christ still could be known, but not “after the flesh.” Had Paul written 2 Corinthians while Christ still was living upon the Earth, these passages (5:7,16) never would have been included among his remarks. But since they were written at some point after Christ’s ascension, Paul therefore was compelled to make the comparison he did in 2 Corinthians 5:7.

His point, quite simply, was this. There was a time when faith and sight went together. That is to say, at one time in history, men walked by faith because of sight (cf. John 4:41; 20:25-29). However, eventually followers of Jesus possessed a faith in Him that was not based upon sight, but instead upon such things as credible testimony, deduction, and revelation. Jesus indicated His approval of those whose faith is based upon knowledge gained in ways other than by sight when he told “doubting” Thomas: “Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

Today, Christians can have a genuine faith without sight, thanks to such things as credible testimony from reliable eyewitnesses (such as Peter, James, John, and Paul) and other means of knowledge that are not necessarily dependent upon having personally seen something firsthand (cf. 1 Peter 1:8-9). All of us believe in people, places, and events that we never have seen personally, yet that does not diminish their factuality. Nor does the absence of “sight” weaken the faith routinely produced via credible testimony from people of the past who did witness such things. Truly, one may “walk by faith, not by sight,” and still possess knowledge-based faith.

One thing is for sure: the Bible nowhere discusses or recognizes the legitimacy of any concept such as a “leap of faith.”

REFERENCES

Kung, Hans (1980), Does God Exist? (New York: Doubleday).

Schuller, Robert (1984), “The Hour of Prayer,” February 5.

A Higher Law by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2687

A Higher Law

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Concomitant with the decline of the American Republic with its inherent Christian connections, has been the infiltration of various segments of society, education foremost among them, by alternative philosophies and ideologies. Indeed, though once considered unthinkable, atheism and evolution have now achieved respectability within academia. The implications of these false systems of belief are sinister and destructive to civil (i.e., Christian) society. As French existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre, openly acknowledged:

Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself.... Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior (1961, p. 485, emp. added).

Or, to put it in the words of prominent evolutionist, Richard Dawkins:

I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave.... My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true (1989, pp. 2,3, emp. added).

So if atheism, and its sinister protégé, evolution, are true, no higher standard for human behavior exists than human opinion, genetic tendency, and subjective inclination—animalistic impulse.

But such thinking is utter nonsense. No sane evolutionist would want to live in a society where the behavioral implications of his theory are enacted on a thoroughgoing, widespread scale. Yet, atheists and evolutionists continue their propaganda campaign to eradicate Christian principles from civilization. Tragically, the gradual encroachment of atheistic morality is evident in American society. Not only have crime statistics exploded since the systematic elimination of God and Christianity from public schools commenced in the 1960s, many immoral behaviors are openly, blatantly vying for legal and social sanction—from same-sex marriage, polygamy, and abortion to gambling, suicide, and a host of other evils.

No atheist or evolutionist desires to embrace the logical outcome of his godless philosophy. He seeks to distance himself from those moments in history where atheistic ideology has managed to assert itself over a society. One stark example is seen in the rise of the Nazis and their Third Reich in 1930s Germany. Their agenda included the persecution and elimination of Christian and Jewish elements of society. When their regime came crashing down and they were called before the world’s tribunal, one of their attempts to justify themselves was that they were merely obeying the law of the land. They insisted that they all had to obey Hitler’s orders, which had the force of law in the German state, and, hence, obedience could not be made the basis of a criminal charge. Dr. Stahmer, the defense attorney for Hitler’s “Successor Designate No. 1,” Hermann Goering, articulated the point on July 4, 1946 at the Nuremburg Trials in Nuremburg, Germany:

From whence will they [the victorious Allies—DM] take the standard by which to decide about justice and injustice in a legal sense? In so far as such standards exist by International Law, valid up to now, further statements are not required. That a special court for the trial was created by the Charter of this Tribunal I also do not object to. I must, however, vigorously protest against its use, in so far as it is meant to create a new material law by threatening punishment for crimes which, at the time of their perpetration, at least as far as individuals are concerned, did not carry any punishment.... Can one expect that hereafter punishment will be recognized as just, if the culprit was never aware of it, because at the time he was not threatened with such punishment, and he believed to be able to derive the authorisation for his way of acting solely from the political aims pursued?... Because internationally recognized standards outside the positive International Law by which the legitimacy of States and of their aims could have been judged did not exist, any more than did an international community as such. Slogans about the legitimacy of one’s own and of the illegitimacy of foreign aspirations served only the formation of political fronts just as the efforts to brand political adversaries as disturbers of the peace. In any case they did, indeed, not create law (The Trial of..., 1946b, 18:106-107, emp. added).

In his final argument, Dr. Stahmer further asserted that Germany was operating under a dictator: “A dictator does not enter into a conspiracy with followers, he does not make any agreement with them, he dictates” (1946b, 18:111). Hitler was the law of Germany. Hence, what right did America, Britain, or Russia (the Allied powers) have to call the Nazis to account for their actions? What standard of behavior, what law code, could possibly justify their condemnation of the Nazis? How could Nazis be judged on the basis of American, British, or Russian law, seeing they were Germans—not Americans, British, or Russians? Atheists, humanists, materialists, and evolutionists can offer no legitimate answer to these questions. The very nature of their viewpoint militates against the existence of objective, absolute morality. Indeed, to the evolutionist, morality can be nothing more than a function of the human mind—an expression of personal taste, likes, and dislikes.

U.S. Supreme Court justice, and U.S. Chief of Counsel for the prosecution (Chief Prosecutor) of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, Robert Jackson, made the following observation in his opening remarks on November 21, 1945: “The Charter of this Tribunal evidences a faith that the law is not only to govern the conduct of little men, but that even rulers are, as Lord Chief Justice Coke [said] to King James, ‘under God and the law’” (The Trial of..., 1946a, 1:78, emp. added). Similarly, on July 27, 1946, Sir Hartley Shawcross, Chief Prosecutor of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, asserted the fundamental basis for human behavior: “Ultimately the rights of men, made as all men are made in the image of God, are fundamental” (The Trial of..., 1946d, 19:470, emp. added).

On Friday, July 26, 1946, Jackson included the following comments in his closing arguments:

As a Military Tribunal, this Tribunal is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations. As an International Tribunal, it is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional systems, nor will its rulings introduce precedents into any country’s internal system of civil justice. As an International Military Tribunal, it rises above the provincial and transient and seeks guidance not only from international law but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence which are assumptions of civilization and which long have found embodiment in the codes of all nations (The Trial of..., 1946c, 19:383, July 26, emp. added).

The only legal guidance and authority that transcends international law, which is responsible for the moral assumptions of civilization as embodied in the codes of all nations, and which rises above “the provincial and transient” (geographical locale and time), is the law of God! Here is the only basis upon which human behavior may be rightly measured.

Atheists typically define morality in terms of “minimizing harm and pain,” and then insist that humans naturally possess an inherent recognition of morality—mores that have characterized human civilization throughout history. But this vague, ambiguous attempt to evade the existence of objective morality will not do. World-renowned atheist, Antony Flew, attempted this sleight of hand in his debate with Thomas B. Warren in 1976, when he insisted that the Nazis were tried for their crimes on the basis of “International” law (p. 248). Observe that this quibble side-steps the real issue, for at least three reasons: (1) There is no such thing as “International” law, since the entire international community has never established a single law code that can be bound on all countries. Even the United Nations lacks any such law code. Nor would they ever come to an agreement on one, if they tried! (2) Even if all nations on Earth somehow united to reach consensus on right and wrong, what right would those nations’ representatives have to impose their standard of behavior on all humans? (3) And, further, even if one generation of world leaders defined right and wrong for the entire world, what would prevent the next generation of world leaders from meeting and overturning that standard? All subsequent moral frameworks and law codes would be just as legitimate as the first one—though they may differ with each other in numerous instances. In the specific case of the Nazis, if some later tribunal convened to revisit the Nuremberg verdicts, and decided to overturn those decisions and declare to the world that the Nazis’ actions were actually noble, heroic, and moral—would their action make it so? If there is no God, the atheist must answer, “Yes.”

The Founders of the American Republic insisted that human government must be established on unchanging moral principles that transcend human opinions and feelings. These unchanging moral principles are derived from and based upon the unchanging laws of God—what the Founders styled in the Declaration of Independence: “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” As Constitution signer and U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson expressed: “Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine” (1804, 1:105). Or as Constitution signer Alexander Hamilton insisted: “The law...dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this” (1961, 1:87). Noah Webster said it so well when he observed that “our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion” (1832, p. 6).

The truth is that all human behavior that conflicts with the law of God is sin (1 John 3:4)—the only moral evil. Any civilization that jettisons this objective standard of morality is committing ultimate, national suicide. That society is leaving itself open to unimaginable horror—the natural consequence that logically follows from the expulsion of God from the minds of the citizens. Atheism, if honestly applied, must inevitably result in hedonism. The psalmist certainly connected the dots:

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none who does good (Psalm 53:1).

The solution? Citizens must return to the founding principles: God exists, the Bible is the Word of God, Christianity is the one true religion, and citizens must govern themselves by Christian moral principles.

REFERENCES

Dawkins, Richard (1989), The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Hamilton, Alexander (1961), The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press).

Sartre, Jean Paul, (1961), “Existentialism and Humanism,” French Philosophers from Descartes to Sartre, ed. Leonard M. Marsak (New York: Meridian).

The Trial of German Major War Criminals (1946a), 2nd Day: Wednesday, 21st November, 1945, (Vol. 1, Part 7 of 8), (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office), http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-01/tgmwc-01-02-07.html.

The Trial of German Major War Criminals (1946b), 187th Day: Thursday, 4th July, 1946, (Vol. 18, Part 7 of 8), (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office), http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-18/tgmwc-18-171-07.shtml.

The Trial of German Major War Criminals (1946c), 187th Day: Friday, 26th July, 1946, (Vol. 19, Part 1 of 12), (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office), http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-19/tgmwc-19-187-01.shtml.

The Trial of German Major War Criminals (1946d), 188th Day: Saturday, 27th July, 1946, (Vol. 19, Part 8 of 8), (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office), http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-19/tgmwc-19-188-08.shtml.

Warren, Thomas and Antony Flew (1976), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God, Creation and Evolution (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press). http://www.nationalchristianpress.net/NCPcatalog.pdf.

Webster, Noah (1832), History of the United States (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).

Wilson, James (1804), The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, ed. Bird Wilson (Philadelphia, PA: Lorenzo Press).

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Three Responses To Jesus (3:7-12) by Mark Copeland

 

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

                   Three Responses To Jesus (3:7-12)

INTRODUCTION

1. Our text describes the ongoing impact of Jesus' Galilean ministry...
   a. Great multitudes followed Jesus and His disciples - Mk 3:7-9
   b. They were drawn by His ability to heal the sick and cast out demons - Mk 3:10-12

2. Reflecting on this passage, I observed three distinct classes of individuals...
   a. The disciples of Jesus - Mk 3:7,9
   b. The great multitude - Mk 3:7-10
   c. The unclean spirits - Mk 3:11-12

[Upon further reflection, it occurred to me that these three distinct
classes illustrate "Three Responses To Jesus", and that everyone
responds to Jesus in one of three ways.  First, you have...]

I. THE COMMITTED

   A. LIKE THE DISCIPLES...
      1. Which included men like Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Levi
         (Matthew)
      2. Who answered the call to follow Jesus - cf. Mk 1:16-20; 2:14
      3. Who offered their service in whatever way He asked
         a. As when Jesus asked them to prepare a boat - cf. Mk 3:9
         b. As when Jesus would later send them out to preach - cf. Mk 3:13,14

   B. THE COMMITTED TODAY...
      1. Would include those who make up the Lord's church
      2. Who heed Jesus' call to discipleship - cf. Mt 28:19-20
      3. Who offer their energy and resources to the spread of Christ's kingdom
         a. By developing a Christ-like character - cf. 2Pe 1:5-11
         b. By developing a Christ-like service - cf. 1Pe 4:10-11

[Just as there committed followers of Jesus then, so there are today.
But there was another group of responders, those we might describe as...]

II. THE CURIOUS

   A. LIKE THE MULTITUDE...
      1. Which included those looking to be healed, or perhaps just to see a miracle
      2. Though following Jesus from place to place, they were not true disciples
      3. But those seeking some sort of personal satisfaction, whom Jesus often drove away
         a. As when they followed Him after He fed the 5000 - cf. Jn 6:24-27
         b. As when He challenged them with the call to true discipleship - cf. Lk 14:25-27
      4. Of course, some would eventually take up the challenge and become true disciples

   B. THE CURIOUS TODAY...
      1. Would include those who may visit churches, even regularly
      2. But they are like "tire kickers"; they never fully commit themselves
      3. Perhaps they attend just to appease their conscience
         a. But they never obey the gospel - cf. Mk 16:15-16
         b. They just put it off, like the Athenians and Felix  - cf. Ac17:32; 24:24-27
      4. Hopefully, one who is curious will eventually take the step to follow Jesus completely

[Finally, there are those whose response to Jesus is entirely negative,whom we can categorize as...]

III. THE CONDEMNED

   A. LIKE THE UNCLEAN SPIRITS...
      1. Unclean spirits were demons, whose origin is uncertain
         (possibly fallen angels)
      2. They knew who Jesus was - cf. Mk 3:11
      3. They knew that torment awaited them - cf. Mt 8:29; also 2 Pe 2:4; Jude 1:6
      4. Yet they showed no desire to repent of their evil ways

   B. THE CONDEMNED TODAY...
      1. Would include those who persist in sin and refuse to repent - cf. He 10:26a
      2. For whom there is no forgiveness while they remain in that state - cf. He 10:26b-31
      3. Who often think lightly of sin, and mock those trying to do good - cf. 1Pe 4:3-4
      4. Yet they will one day have to answer, even confess Jesus - cf.1Pe 4:5; Php 2:9-11

CONCLUSION

1. Dear friend, in which group would you place yourself in your response to Jesus...?
   a. Are you among the committed - a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ?
   b. Are you among the curious - interested, but have not yet made the decision?
   c. Are you among the condemned - determined to resist God and refuse to follow Jesus?

2. One day, we will either be in the group of the committed or the condemned...
   a. The time for curiosity will be over
   b. We will either be saved or lost forever
   c. Today is time to make your choice!

As Paul wrote in his second epistle to the Corinthians:

   We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to
   receive the grace of God in vain. For He says: "IN AN ACCEPTABLE
   TIME I HAVE HEARD YOU, AND IN THE DAY OF SALVATION I HAVE HELPED
   YOU." Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of
   salvation.
                                                       - 2Co 6:1-2

Receive God's grace by obeying the gospel of Christ, and join ranks with
those who are committed to following Jesus and serving Him through time
and eternity...! - cf. Tit 3:4-8 

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

What Does The Bible Say About Gender Identity? by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2016/04/05/what-does-the-bible-say-about-gender-identity/

What Does The Bible Say About Gender Identity?

 

Hannah Holloway says, “I never really thought to myself, yes, I am a girl.  Or, yes, I am a guy.  I’m Hannah.”

Hannah’s story along with several others was reported in Sunday’s Kansas City Star in the Arts and Culture section.  The Star devoted three full pages to the issue of gender identity. Hannah and others want to be classified as nonbinary.  So, she doesn’t want to be called by the pronoun “she” but the pronoun “they.”

Another lead article discusses how the definition of transgender has continued to evolve. Kasimir Hazelwood thinks “normal” is a meaningless word. Hazelwood identifies as androgyne, someone masculine with feminine qualities.

Rogers claims to be “genderfluid.”  That means sometimes Rogers feels like a male and other times a female.  V is open to any sexual orientation and dates both men and women.  “I like the label queer,” says V, “because it is not clear cut.”

So, now the new controversy in our culture is gender identity.  This minority of mixed up people is clamoring for gender neutral public restrooms. Unisex locker rooms, and the right to identify however they choose on legal forms.  Some applications provide the choice “Male,” “Female” and “Other.”  Facebook now allows you to choose, “him,” “her,” or “their.”

How many others are there, you ask?

According to an ABC report they have identified at least 58 gender options.  They include bigender, pangender, transgender, Agender, intersex, Cis, Trans, and something called two spirit.

Don’t you miss the days when life was simple? There were just boys and girls.

I don’t claim to understand this confusion.  I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist.  I’m a preacher.  So, I will offer a simple Bible explanation.

Gender crisis and confusion exists because people have strayed away from God.  They have lost their spiritual identity. And they have denied the Creator and His purpose for their lives.

Our society is on the fast track to becoming like the pagan culture Paul described in Romans chapter one. “…They knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools,  and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things” (Rom. 1:21-25)

The Bible says that in the beginning God created the first pair “male and female.” He pronounced a blessing upon them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Gen 1:27-28). Later when Jesus was asked by the Pharisees a question relating to marriage, he responded this way.

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matt 19:4-6)

The Bible does not give us free rein to choose our sexual preferences and gender identity.

Our culture has taken something simple, and obvious and made it so complex and complicated that it goes beyond the absurd! Yet, “enlightened” educators, politicians, journalists and sadly some church leaders, nod with some kind of knowing empathy that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, feelings, behavior and sexual identity or preference.

Our culture has lost its way. The real crisis today is a crisis of values.  G. K. Chesterton was right when he wrote, “The danger when men stop believing in God is not that they’ll believe nothing; but that they will believe in anything.”

The solution is not to seek our gender identity, but to seek God.  To desire spiritual communion with Him.  And to accept who He created us to be.

Parents, preachers and Bible teachers must now emphasize to a new generation influenced by the confusion of their culture, that God created us.  He made us male and female.  He gave us distinct gender roles.  And that our body does not belong to us, it belongs to the Lord.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

THE DECEIVER AND THE DECEIVED by steve finnell

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-deceiver-and-deceived-by-steve.html

 

 THE DECEIVER AND THE DECEIVED by steve finnell

There are usually two involved when God's word is perverted, the deceiver and the deceived.

 Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'? (NASB) [Lie number 1]

Genesis 3:4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! (NASB) [Deception number 2)

Genesis 3:6....she took from its fruit and ate; and gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. (NASB) [Deception number 3]

When lie number 1 did not work, Satan changed the lie to another lie.

Eve was deceived by the second lie and then  encouraged Adam to accept that deception.

There are deceivers and the deceived among  contemporary believers in Jesus Christ.

Example: Many act as deceivers concerning the meaning of Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (NKJV)

The deceivers say that "for" means, be baptized "because your sins have already been forgiven."

Deceivers say your sins were forgiven and you received the gift of the Holy Spirit the minute you believed.

There are no English translations that I am aware of that translates "eis" as because of, I have read Acts 2:38 in 40+ translations.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NIV 1973)

[Note: Acts 2:38 does not say receive gifts, it says gift.]

Deceivers say that "and" in Acts 2:38 is not a conjunction, therefore it does not connect repent and be baptized.

Note: The serpent could not convince Eve of his first lie, so he tried the second lie. It worked.

Most deceivers today cannot convince men that their sins can be forgiven before they believe, so they convince them immersion in water is not essential to the forgiveness of their sins.

There are deceivers and the deceived. Many are both. There are also those who take God at His word, which one are you?

It usually takes a skilled professional and a willing student to convince a person that, for, in order to, or so that yours may be forgiven, actually means "because" your sins were already forgiven.

-------------------------------------------------------

If Satan cannot convince you that you can be saved without believing that Jesus is the Son of God, and The Christ. Then he will say, you do not have to be baptized in order to be saved.  If that does not work, he will say you do not have to change you lifestyle, repentance is not essential in order to enter the kingdom of God. If that does not work, he will say once you are saved you can never be lost. If none of that works Satan will say, you are saved by grace alone, therefore, God will save you, and you have no responsibility to believe in Jesus, to confess him as the Son of God, to repent, nor to be baptized in water, nor to live a Christian lifestyle.              

 

FIRST THESSALONIANS by Paul Southern

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Southern/Paul/1901/thes1.html

FIRST THESSALONIANS

1. THE TITLE

This book is so called because it is the first of two epistles addressed to "the church of the Thessalonians" (I Thessalonians 1:1).

2. THE WRITER

Paul is named as the writer in the first verse of chapter 1.

3. THE CITY OF THESSALONICA

The town was formerly called Therma (Bath, or Hotwells), and was situated on the Thermaic Gulf almost 100 miles southwest of Philippi. In 315 B.C., Cassander, King of Macedonia, named it for his wife Thessalonica, half-sister of Alexander the Great. During Paul's time, it was a great commercial and political center, being the Roman capital of one of the four districts of Macedonia. The modern town goes by the name of Salonika. It compares favorably with many Mediterranean ports. During World War I it was the main seaport to the entire Balkan area.

4. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING

It was written from Corinth about A.D. 52 or 53 (Acts 17:14-16; 18:1-5; I Thessalonians 3:1-6).

5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH

Paul established the church on his second missionary tour. After leaving Philippi, the party passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia and came to Thessalonica where they spent three Sabbaths preaching in the synagogue (Acts 17;1-4). On account of persecution by the Jews, they went on to Berea. Leaving Silas and Timothy there, Paul went on to Athens, and finally to Corinth where he spent eighteen months. Silas and Timothy rejoined him there (Act 17:5-8:11). While Paul was in Thessalonica he received support from the Philippians (Philippians 4:16). The evangelization of Thessalonica had far-reaching consequences. Here the normal course of the gospel was realized, for from this radiating center was "sounded forth the word of the Lord" (I Thessalonians 1:8). In no other Macedonian community was there found a more effective sounding board for the gospel.

6. THE EPISTLE

This is probably the first epistle by Paul, and perhaps the first written document of the Christian religion. It is full of the spirit of love for the Thessalonians, whose "work of faith and labor of love and patience of hope" was remembered by the apostle. The main idea is consolation (4:17,18). The keynote is hope, and the key words are afflictions and advent.

7. EXERCISES FOR STUDENT ACTIVITY
1. Questions
1. Who was with Paul when he wrote this letter? (1:1).
2. What are some of the things in the church for which Paul is thankful? (1:2-6).
3. Give a description of Paul's ministry at Thessalonica (2:1-16).
4. Who hindered Paul from returning to Thessalonica? (2:1-16).
5. Describe Paul's great solicitation for the Thessalonians (3:1-10).
6. Was Paul's prayer in 3:11 ever answered? (Acts 20:1-4).
7. What duties and exhortations are enjoined? (4:1-12; 5:12-22).
8. What does Paul say about Christ's second coming? (4:13-18; 5:1,2).
9. What should be our attitude in view of His second coming? (5:3-11).
2. Complete the following quotations:
1. "For from you _____________ out the word of the Lord."
2. "But we were _____________ among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children."
3. "Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, _____________ our way unto you."
4. "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which _____________ in Jesus will God bring with him."
5. "Abstain from all _____________ of evil."
6. "_____________all things: hold fast that which is good."
7. "_____________no the Spirit."
3. Topics for further study
1. What evidences in I Thessalonians indicate that many of the Thessalonians came into the church directly from heathendom?
2. Discuss the position held by many that I Thessalonians is one of the most gentle and affectionate of Paul's letters.
3. Note statements in the epistle regarding the deity of Jesus.
4. What does the epistle teach regarding the use of sexual instinct?
5. Why were the Thessalonians unduly alarmed concerning their Christian dead?

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

Moonrise by Gary Rose

 

What a spectacular picture! The moonrise reflecting upon the water in thousands upon thousands of tiny islands of light. And that moon, with its slightly reddish-gold hue is contrasted by different colored clouds; WONDERFUL!

Frankly, I don’t think about moonrise very much- sunrise,yes; moonrise,no. But moonrise is important, and as I think about the following passage from the book of Genesis, I realize how important. Genesis chapter 1 says…

Genesis 1 ( World English Bible )

¹³ There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

¹⁴ God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;

¹⁵ and let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth;” and it was so.

¹⁶ God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars.

¹⁷ God set them in the expanse of sky to give light to the earth,

¹⁸ and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good.

It is a human failing of mine to read something and gloss-over some important fact. Notice verse 13 above. Evening is listed first; odd isn’t it. For me, the day begins at sunrise, not sunset. So, I read the chapter once again… humm, the other days do the same- evening first. Next, I consulted a half dozen other translations- same thing.

One other thing, that moon, that underestimated moon (by me) rules over the night. Now, it may be a lesser light, but it is still important. I know that different cultures have the day beginning at different times. Humm, I wonder if I should rethink my concepts of time passage to coincide with the Bible.

Well, this is probably much to do about nothing, or maybe not? You decide. As for me, I intend to pay more attention to moonrise in the future. And, try to read my Bible a bit slower to understand more of what is being said. How about you?