All Religion Is Bad Because Some Is? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2342

All Religion Is Bad Because Some Is?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

In logical discussions, a straw man is a weak, illogical position that is easily refuted. The more powerful, logical position is then coupled with the straw man, and both are said to fall together, yet the stronger position never actually is refuted by the opposition. For example, suppose a person stated that he owned a congenial, safe dog. The man’s neighbor argued that such was impossible. The opposing neighbor then recounted a story about a family’s pet pitbull that went berserk and killed someone. Then he stated that this incident proves that all pets are dangerous. Does his argument follow from the evidence? Of course not. He might have proven that one family’s pitbull was dangerous, but he did not prove that all pets are dangerous. In fact, it would be easy to multiply numerous examples of dangerous pets, but proving those specific pets to be dangerous could not logically be applied to all pets.

This idea must be understood when reading modern atheistic writings that purport to prove that the ideas of God and formulated religion are detrimental to society. Their argument, in a nutshell, goes like this: Since we can list examples of religions and religious fanatics that were (or are) harmful or detrimental to society, then all religions or ideas about God are harmful or detrimental to society.

So that the reader does not think that this author is, himself, constructing a straw man, let us consult the writings of a very popular, militant atheist by the name of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens has been critically acclaimed as “one of the most prolific, as well as brilliant, journalists of our time” according to the London Observer. The Los Angeles Times stated that he is a “political and literary journalist extraordinaire.”

One of Hitchens’ most popular recent books is titled god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Notice that his subtitle is broad enough to lump all religions into it: Islam, New Testament Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Hitchens then proceeded, in the pages of his book, to list many horrible things that people have done in the name of “religion.” He said: “Religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow” (2007, p. 6). Hitchens even titled chapter two, “Religion Kills.” In it he wrote: “Here, then, is a very brief summary of the religiously inspired cruelty I witnessed... ” (p. 18). He then recounted horror stories of several moral atrocities perpetrated in the name of “religion.” Furthermore, Hitchens stated: “If one comprehends the fallacies of any ‘revealed’ religion, one comprehends them all” (p. 126).

Can Hitchens and others document atrocities performed in the name of religion? Of course they can. Does this prove that all religion is false, and that if a person can spot a flaw or comprehend a fallacy in one religion, then he has effectively disproved the validity of all religions? Absolutely not. Can you imagine what would happen if this type of argument were used in other areas of life? Apply such thinking to food. Many foods are poisonous and kill people, thus all foods should be avoided. Apply it to electricity. It is the case that many people have died while using electricity, thus all electrical use is detrimental to society. Or apply it to activities like swimming. Many have drowned while swimming, thus all swimming leads to drowning and should be avoided. What if it were applied to surgery? Since it is true that thousands of people have died during surgery, or as a result of surgery, then all surgery should be avoided because it all leads to death or is in some way physically detrimental to society. Obviously, the ridiculous idea that all religion is detrimental to society because it can be proven that some religions are, should be quickly discarded by any honest, thoughtful observer.

New Testament Christianity does not stand or fall based on the validity of other competing religions. In fact, Hitchens and others are right to assert that many religions are detrimental to society. But they are wrong to lump true Christianity in with the rest of the useless lot. New Testament Christianity is unique, logically valid, historically documented, and philosophically flawless. It does not crumble with various other religions that are filled with “vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20). Instead, New Testament Christianity as personified in the life of Jesus Christ shines as the truth that makes men free (John 8:32).

[NOTE: It should not be understood that Hitchens and others attack Christianity solely using the straw man argument. They do present other, more specific arguments that are answered in other Apologetics Press materials. It should be observed, however, that the straw man is a frequently used, favorite tactic that needs to be understood and specifically refuted.]

REFERENCE

Hitchens, Christopher (2007), god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve).

A Reaction to Big Bang Euphoria by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1124

A Reaction to Big Bang Euphoria

by	Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

Q.

I have heard that recent findings from a NASA satellite support the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. Is this correct?

A.

In 1992, newspapers plastered new findings about the Big Bang theory across their front pages. The Associated Press quoted physicist Joel Primack as saying that the new scientific data represent “one of the major discoveries of the century.” The reports often are couched in highly religious terms, suggesting that scientists have found the “Holy Grail of cosmology.” What is all this talk about, and what is its significance to the biblical record of creation?

BACKGROUND

The Big Bang theory rests on three basic assumptions: (1) that from some sort of original “cosmic egg,” itself smaller than a single proton, hydrogen and helium atoms were created and ultimately gave rise (through a process called “nucleosynthesis”) to 99% of the visible matter in the Universe; (2) that the heat generated by this initial process has cooled to only a few degrees above absolute zero; and (3) that the Universe is expanding away from a central point. These points have been discussed in a previous article (Major, 1991). But how is the current controversy related to these assumptions, and what ramifications do these new findings have on biblical creation?

Although the extremely high temperatures thought to be associated with the Big Bang could not be measured directly, evolutionary cosmologists felt that one day it might be possible to find a remnant of these temperatures in what they termed “background” radiation—the “afterglow” of the Big Bang. In 1965, two scientists from Bell Laboratories, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, pointed an improvised radio telescope into space and found a uniform background radiation of three degrees above absolute zero (3-Kelvin). Cosmologists took this as evidence for the Big Bang, and Drs. Penzias and Wilson subsequently were awarded a Nobel Prize for their discovery. In 1989, NASA launched its Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE), and it began its survey of deep space. It, too, found a 3-K temperature (or, more correctly, 2.735 ±0.06 K, measured to an accuracy of one in 10,000).

There were still serious problems with the Big Bang theory, however. For example, in any Big Bang scenario—according to evolutionists’ assumptions about initial conditions—the Universe can contain no more than 10% protons, neutrons, and other ordinary matter found in stars, planets, etc. What makes the rest of the matter—90-99% of the Universe—still is a mystery. Cosmologists do not know what it is, and have not found direct evidence of its existence. One suggestion is that it consists of “cold dark matter”—“cold” because it cannot interact with other matter (except gravitationally), and “dark” because it cannot be seen. Evolutionists need this matter—both known and unknown—to allow for expansion and galaxy formation. If this extra matter did not exist, the ordinary matter of the Universe would have scattered into the empty reaches of space without ever coming together to form galaxies.

The problem is, the Universe is “lumpy.” There are clusters of galaxies, for example, which stretch 550 million light years across the sky. The cold dark matter theory cannot account for this, and circumventing this problem is what the current controversy is all about. Big Bang supporters now are suggesting that the “cosmic egg” had small defects—minor variations that could grow into major variations. The existence of these “minor variations” should have had some effect on the background radiation. However, until now, the evidence of any serious fluctuations in the background radiation has been conspicuously absent, leaving the Big Bang concept riddled with problems for which there seemingly were no solutions.

When NASA’s COBE satellite reported its first results, those results supported previous findings of a uniform background radiation. A second survey was carried out to an accuracy not of one in 10,000, but to one in 100,000. The current media reports are all about the results of this last survey, which evolutionists say documents the existence of minor variations in the background temperature of the known Universe.

COMMENTS

These variations are presumed to represent early defects, which could explain how the Universe got to be so “lumpy.” However, most people likely are unaware of the infinitesimal nature of the variations being reported. In reality, the “variations” differ by barely thirty-millionths of a Kelvin from the approximate 3-K background. Some scientists doubt that these are large enough to account for the large-scale structure of the Universe (see Flam, 1992). So, while scientists were relieved to find variations, they have been forced to admit that the results are not exactly what they need to “fix” the theory.

Recent articles in science journals also make mention of other concerns. For example, the measured temperature variations, according to the principal investigator, George Smoot, are “well below the level of instrumental noise.” In other words, the variations may turn out to be statistically unimportant, because the instruments are not accurate enough to produce the published results. Al Kogut, who also worked on the initial research project, said: “You can’t point to any one point in the data and say that’s signal and that’s noise” (see Flam, 1992). These evolutionists believe, of course, that they are observing a real phenomenon, and not just instrument noise. [It should be pointed out, however, that the variations were not apparent from the raw data. They were “extracted” by manipulating COBE’s data.]

CONCLUSION

These recent findings are not an unqualified success, and should be downgraded from “greatest discovery” to “interesting,” and from “proof” to “possible corroboration.” The British journal Nature commented: “The simple conclusion, that the data so far authenticated are consistent with the doctrine of the Big Bang, has been amplified in newspapers and broadcasts into proof that ‘we now know’ how the Universe began. This is cause for some alarm” (1992, p. 731).

Not so long ago, adherents of the Big Bang held to a smooth Universe, and pointed with pride to the uniform background radiation. Then they found large-scale structures, and revised their “predictions.” Now they have found infinitesimal variations, and are hailing them as the greatest discovery of the century. We must urge caution when a theory, claiming to be scientific, escapes falsification by continual modification with ad hoc, stopgap measures. Certainly there is no need for George Smoot to say, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.” This statement spurred the media to seek comments from various religious quarters. According to the Associated Press, the “Rev. Mr. Burnham said many theologians will find having another confirmation of the big bang theory to be very compatible with the belief that God created the universe out of pre-existent chaos.” However, the idea that God just started the creation and left it to evolve on its own is not supported anywhere in the Bible. The evolutionists’ time scale is inconsistent with biblical chronology, and the creation record tells us that God created the heavenly objects on the fourth day. This order of creation differs markedly from the evolutionary account. Overall, this new discovery is not anywhere near as conclusive as its promoters claim. The Big Bang theory still is rife with problems.

REFERENCES

Major, Trevor (1991), “The Big Bang in Crisis,” Reason & Revelation, 11:21-24, June.

Flam, Faye (1992), “COBE Finds the Bumps in the Big Bang,” Science, 256:612, May 1.

Nature (1992), “Big Bang Brouhaha,” 356:731, April 30.

A Naturalist's Strong Case Against Abiogenesis by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5884

A Naturalist's Strong Case Against Abiogenesis

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

According to the evidence, in nature, life only comes from life,¹ making belief in naturalism and atheism (which require abiogenesis—life from non-life) a blind faith.² In fact, naturalism is a self-contradictory belief, since a naturalist must believe in such unnatural phenomena.³ And yet, such rational truths are regularly neglected by today’s naturalist-dominated scientific community. Ironically, some acknowledge the total failure of naturalism to provide a reasonable explanation for how life came from non-life and proceed to (unconsciously) make a case against it that is as good as the case creationists have long made against abiogenesis. Hostile witness testimony is powerful evidence, since hostile witnesses are less likely to acknowledge the claims made by those they dislike or with whom they disagree. A good example of hostile witness testimony that supports creationist arguments about abiogenesis is a recent article in New Scientist by Michael Marshall entitled “Life’s Big Bang.”⁴ Here are some telling quotes from the article that we could not have said better.

On the Long-standing Failure of Naturalists to Explain the Origin of Life

• “Many ideas have been proposed to explain how it began. Most are based on the assumption that cells are too complex to have formed all at once, so life must have started with just one component that survived and somehow created the others around it. When put into practice in the lab, however, these ideas don’t produce anything particularly lifelike. It is, some researchers are starting to realise,⁵ like trying to build a car by making a chassis and hoping wheels and an engine will spontaneously appear. The alternative—that life emerged fully formed—seems even more unlikely.”
• “An early idea put proteins in the driving seat. In the 1950s, biochemist Sidney Fox discovered that heating amino acids made them link up into chains…. However, the proteinoids never got much further. Some researchers still hunt for lifelike behaviour in simple proteins, but the idea that proteins started life on their own has now been largely rejected.”
• “More recently, much research has focused on an idea called the RNA world…. However, biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.”
• “Perhaps, then, membranes came first. David Deamer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, has championed this option. In the 1970s, his team discovered that lipids found in cell membranes could be made when two simple chemicals, cyanamide and glycerol, were mixed with water and heated to 65°C…. Nevertheless, he now accepts that this isn’t enough, because lipids can’t carry genes or form enzymes.”
• “A handful of scientists argue that life didn’t begin on Earth, but elsewhere in the universe, and that it was carried here on meteoroids and other space bodies…. The idea is called ‘panspermia’. Aside from the fact that this simply relocates the problem of how life got going, we also haven’t found evidence of life elsewhere. If panspermia were true, bacteria would be raining down on Earth from space, and neighbouring worlds like the moon would be scattered with their remains. But there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile. Furthermore, space is hostile to life. In experiments where bacteria were placed outside the International Space Station, even exposures of a year took a heavy toll. This leaves a window for life to travel within the solar system, but it is a narrow one: the trip from Mars to Earth would take many months at least. Travel from other stars would take millennia, so looks impossible.”

Translation: the arguments that have long been used in support of abiogenesis, and which continue to be promoted in textbooks, are all acknowledged now to be wrong based on the physical evidence.

Naturalists: “The Origin of LIfe Is Apparently More Complicated Than We Thought.”

• “The problem with understanding the origin of life is that we don’t know what the first life was like. The oldest accepted fossils are 3.5 billion years old,⁶ but they don’t help much. They are found in ancient rock formations in Western Australia known as stromatolites and are single-celled microorganisms like modern bacteria. These are relatively complex: even the simplest modern bacteria have more than 100 genes. The first organisms must have been simpler. Viruses have fewer genes, but can reproduce only by infecting cells and taking them over, so can’t have come first.”
•  “Life can be boiled down to three core systems. First, it has structural integrity: that means each cell has an outer membrane holding it together. Second, life has metabolism, a set of chemical reactions that obtain energy from its surroundings. Finally, life can reproduce using genes, which contain instructions for building cells and are passed on to offspring…. Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.”

Translation: life is (in the words of intelligent design advocates) “irreducibly complex.” All necessary components for life had to be in place from the beginning, or life could not exist, making naturalistic theories for the origin of life implausible, irrational, and fideistic.

“Well, If Simple Explanations Don’t Work…”

What is the naturalists’ response to the above crushing admissions? Even though the only other “naturalistic” option “seems even more unlikely” according to Marshall, naturalists are essentially conceding the irreducible complexity of life, but are continuing to deny the decisive, rational evidence of a Designer that is demanded by their laboratory findings. If  “simple explanations of how life got started don’t add up,” Marshall says, the explanations (contrary to common sense) must be complex instead. “The shortcomings of these simple models of life’s origin have led Deamer and others to explore the seemingly less plausible alternative that all three systems emerged together in a highly simplified form”: the “everything-first idea” for the origin of life. Really?

Proving the legitimacy of that “less plausible alternative,” Marshall explains, has been the pursuit of various laboratories over the last several years. While acknowledging the shortcomings of their results as well (e.g., “pieces of the puzzle are still missing,” and “It remains to be seen whether [they—JM]…can work”), Marshall admits that, nevertheless, they “are our best model yet…. Perhaps the most persuasive argument [for complexity—JM] is that the simpler ideas don’t work.” But assuming the first life was more complex makes abiogenesis even less plausible, as he admitted. How is that a good solution to the problem? Marshall continues: “As is the case with many things in life, the beginning was probably more complicated than we had thought.” (Wait, haven’t creationists been saying that all along?) Translation: since we can’t get a simple brick to make itself in order to start building a house (we’ve tried), the solution must be that the whole house, comprised of intricate design, complexity, and bricks was accidentally (and magically) manufactured all at once…without a manufacturer. Better option: Hebrews 3:4—there was a manufacturer for the house: “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.”

 Endnotes

¹ Jeff Miller (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018; see also, Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition, pp. 61-110.

² Jeff Miller (2013), “‘Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith,’” Reason & Revelation, 33[7]:76-83, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1125&article=2164.

³ Jeff Miller (2017), “Evolution Is Self-Contradictory,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?article=5468.

⁴ Michael Marshall (2020), “Life’s Big Bang,” New Scientist,  247[3294]:34-38. Emphasis is added throughout the following quotes.

⁵ New Scientist is published in the U.K., explaining the variant spelling of many words throughout the following quotes.

⁶ Note that scientific and biblical evidence supports a young Earth, on the order of thousands, not billions, of years. See Jeff Miller (2019), “21 Reasons to Believe the Earth is Young,” Reason & Revelation, 39[1]:2-11.

Suggested Resources

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" The Apostles Of Christ (3:13-19) by Mark Copeland

 

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

               The Apostles Of Christ (3:13-19)

INTRODUCTION

1. Important to the ministry of Jesus was the appointment and training of His apostles...
   a. Men who would follow Him and continue His work after His death
   b. Men who themselves would experience great suffering and martyrdom

2. In our text (Mk 3:13-19), we read of their appointment...
   a. To be with Him and later sent out to preach, heal, and cast out demons
   b. Luke tells us that the selection was proceeded by a night of prayer - Lk 6:12

[In another lesson (on Mt 10:1-4), attention is given to the identity
and history of each man.  In this lesson, I wish to focus on their
overall ministry for Christ and the world.  To wit, they served as...]

I. WITNESSES FOR THE RESURRECTION

   A. THEY WERE EYEWITNESSES OF JESUS' RESURRECTION...
      1. Jesus had shown Himself alive through various proofs - Ac 1:1-3
      2. Jesus commissioned them to testify concerning Him - Ac 1:8
      3. Peter explained that the apostles were to be witnesses for the resurrection - Ac 1:21-22
      4. Thus they testified again and again - Ac 2:32; 3:15; 4:33;5:30-32; 10:39-41; 13:29-31

   B. OFFERING A SOLID BASIS FOR OUR FAITH...
      1. Jesus expected us to believe in Him through their word - Jn17:20
         a. Apart from their gospels and epistles, we know little of Jesus
         b. They tell us of His life, miracles, and resurrection
      2. The manner of their lives and death give credibility to their testimony
         a. They suffered greatly for their faith - 1Co 4:9-13; 2 Co 11:23-28
         b. All but John suffered martyrdom

[The apostles served the important role of providing reliable testimony
that Jesus arose from the dead, so that our faith in Him might rest on a
solid basis!  They also served as...]

II. AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST

   A. REPRESENTATIVES WITH A MESSAGE...
      1. Sent out to preach the gospel to every person - Mk 16:15-16
      2. Given a "ministry of reconciliation" - 2Co 5:18-19
      3. Proclaiming that message as Christ's ambassadors - 2Co 5:20-21
      4. Even when they were bound in prison - Ep 6:19-20

   B. TELLING THE STORY OF SALVATION...
      1. Pleading with all to be reconciled to God - 2Co 5:20
      2. Pleading as co-workers with Christ, not to receive the grace of God in vain - 2Co 6:1
      3. Warning of the danger of refusing Christ and His message - He 12:25-29
      4. Warning of what will happen to those who obey not the gospel- 2Th 1:7-9

[The apostles as ambassadors of Christ revealed the good news of
salvation to the world.  Have we accepted their message in faithful
obedience?  But consider also their role as...]

III. TEACHERS FOR THE DISCIPLES

   A. CONTINUING THE WORK BEGUN BY JESUS...
      1. Jesus did not reveal all things during His earthly ministry - Jn 16:12
      2. The Holy Spirit would reveal all the truth to the apostles - Jn 16:13-14
      3. The Holy Spirit would remind them of things Jesus said - Jn 14:25-26
      4. This was part of the Great Commission given to them - Mt 28:19-20
      5. Declaring the whole counsel of God - Ac 20:27
      6. Teaching all things that pertain to life and godliness - 2 Pe 1:3

   B. BECOMING THE AUTHORITY FOR THE CHURCH...
      1. Continuing steadfastly in their doctrine - Ac 2:42
      2. Receiving their words as the word of God - 1Th 2:13
      3. Accepting what they wrote as the commandments of the Lord - 1Co 14:37
      4. Rejecting them is thus paramount to rejecting Christ - 1Th 4: 1-2,8; cf. Lk 10:16

[Through His apostles, Jesus continues to instruct His church as we
continue steadfastly in their teachings!  Finally, the importance of the
apostles is seen by their role in the...]

IV. FOUNDATION FOR THE CHURCH

   A. TOGETHER WITH CHRIST...
      1. The church is built on Christ, as the chief cornerstone - Ac 4:10-12; 1Co 3:11
      2. But the apostles are also part of the foundation of the spiritual building - Ep 2:19-22
      3. Their names are even depicted as written on the foundation for
         the New Jerusalem, which is the Lamb's bride (the church) - Re 21:9-10,14

   B. SERVING AS THE BASIS OF...
      1. Our faith, through their eyewitness testimony - 2Pe 1:16-18
      2. Our doctrine, through their teaching - Ac 2:42
      3. Our hope, through their message - Ep 3:5-6

CONCLUSION

1. The world owes a great debt to the apostles of Jesus Christ...
   a. Without whom they would know little of Jesus of Nazareth
   b. Without whom they would have little reason to believe in Him

2. As disciples of Christ, let us be sure to give them the honor and respect that is their due...
   a. By continuing steadfastly in their doctrine
   b. By respecting the authority of their doctrine

Indeed, the moment we begin to drift away from the apostles of Jesus
Christ, we begin to drift away from that great salvation made possible by Him...! - cf. He 2:1-4  

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

7 Lessons Learned From Saul’s Flaws by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2013/03/13/seven-lessons-learned-from-sauls-flaws/

7 Lessons Learned From Saul’s Flaws

We’ve been watching the History Channel’s presentation of The Bible from Executive Producers Roma Downey and Mark Burnett.  The reaction has been interesting.

Movie critics called it “fractious and overwrought,” “a further piece of evidence that drama and reverence don’t mix well,” and “a mini-series full of emoting that does not register emotionally.”

Predictability the Christian Post and similar news outlets have hailed The Bible as “awesome,” inspiring, and “spot on.”

I’m somewhere in the middle.  I’m a visual person.  So, I like watching Bible films. Although they’ve missed some details, and added others not in the Bible, I’ve enjoyed watching it so far.

Last night’s portrayal of King Saul was striking.  God records both the great men and women who trusted in Him, as well as those who were flawed and failed to be faithful.  Saul is one of the latter.

Years ago I heard a leadership lesson by John Maxwell on Saul’s mistakes.  These seven points are based on that lesson.

Flaw #1: Saul made rash decisions and promises.   (1 Sam. 14:24; 24:16-22; 26:25)

         He made a decree that anyone who touched food before a certain time would be killed.  When it came time to enforce it, he did not.  He rashly offered the  sacrifice, not waiting for the prophet Samuel.  He made a bad decision by disobeying God in sparing Agag and the spoils of war.

Saul was foolhardy, reckless, and irresponsible.  Not good qualities for a person seeking the favor of God. 

Flaw #2: He Was Overly Influenced by Others’ Opinions. (I Sam. 13:8-9; 14:44-45; 25:24; 15:27,30

To keep His army happy, Saul usurped Samuel’s position. He reneged on his vows.  He disobeyed the direct command of God.  He was afraid of not  being honored by the people.

When we care more about people’s opinion of us than God’s favor, we are in trouble.

Flaw #3: He vacillated Between Self-Depreciation and Self-Glorification.

The Bible shows the severe swing in his moods and attitude.  At first he was aware of his humble origin, but later builds a moment to himself (1 Sam. 15:12). On one hand he doubted and seemed unsure of himself, at other times he was prideful and disdainful.

Both extremes are a recipe for spiritual failure.

Flaw #4:  He Often Showed Little or No Interest in the Things of God.

             Jefferson Scott said, “Saul is never said anything resembling a personal relationship with God”   As you read Samuel and as I watched The Bible, it is apparent that Saul did not show the close relationship to God as did Abraham, Moses or Joshua.

There is danger for Christians to confuse our knowledge of God with really knowing God. Growing close to God. Developing intimacy with God.

Flaw #5:  He Couldn’t Handle Anyone Receiving More Praise than He Did.

         Saul was a jealous man. Most notably in his attitude toward  David.  (I Sam. 18;7, 8) John Maxwell is fond of saying, “There is no success without a successor.”  King Saul clearly did not want to see David
as his successor.

It is often said that “The people’s capacity to achieve is determined by their leader’s ability to empower.”  Saul did not empower God’s chosen successor. It hurt Israel. David.  And Saul himself.  Don’t allow the sins of envy and jealousy to hurt your work in the Kingdom.

Flaw #6:  He Doubted the Loyalty of Those Closest to Him and Drove them Away.

         This is true of David, as well as his son Jonathan, and his daughter Michal.  Because Saul lived a life that didn’t justify their loyalty, he didn’t receive it.  Or deserve it.

“Travel the high road” is good advice in relationships.  Men and women seeking to influence others for God’s cause must be honest, open and loyal.

Flaw #7: He Failed To Show Courage When Challenged by His Enemies

The Bible showed two examples of Saul’s failure to demonstrate courage when his people needed it most.  First in his reluctance to trust God in fighting the Philistine giant, Goliath ((I Sam. 17:11).  Then at the end of his life during the Philistine war.(I Sam. 27:5)

What is Courage?  Courage is fear that has said it’s prayers,”  wrote Karl Barth.  Saul hadn’t said his prayers.

Leadership requires courage.  The core of Christianity is courage.  It takes courage to stand for truth.  Say “no” to sin.”  And not be conformed to the world.

The Bible provides for us both positive and negative examples. The thesis of The Bible is a well intended motto–“Trust in God!”

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

Gifts Of Judgment GEORGE L. FAULL

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/gifts-of-judgment-george-l.html

Gifts Of Judgment

GEORGE L. FAULL

Dear Brother Faull,

I heard you say that the men who teach that the apostolic gifts continue today are inconsistent, for if the good gifts exist, the judgmental gifts continue, too. I do not understand what you mean by that. Would you explain?

The apostolic gifts were not merely the gifts of tongues, and healings, raising the dead, making the deaf to hear, the blind to see and the lame to walk. That is only half of the story. There is another side to the coin. Namely, the apostles had the power to bring judgment or even death on the disobedient.

God did not only empower His Old Testament prophets with the ability to do miracles of supply, He also endowed them with the ability to bring judgment on rebels. In fact, in a crisis when God's man was questioned, or their authority suspect, God empowered them to defend their office. Remember Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and how they were swallowed alive by the earth for questioning Moses and Aaron?

Numbers 16:30-32, "(30) But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that [appertain] unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD. (31) And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that [was] under them: (32) And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that [appertained] unto Korah, and all [their] goods."

When Elisha was mocked by the children who inferred that if he had the power of Elijah, he should be able to be translated as Elijah was, bears came out of the woods and devoured them.

II Kings 2:23-24, "(23) And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. (24) And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Again, Uzziah the king was smitten with leprosy for usurping the priest's role.

II Chronicles 26:18-21, "(18) And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, [It pertaineth] not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither [shall it be] for thine honor from the LORD God. (19) Then Uzziah was wroth, and [had] a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, from beside the incense altar. (20) And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he [was] leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the LORD had smitten him. (21) And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, [being] a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the LORD: and Jotham his son [was] over the king's house, judging the people of the land."

Other such examples could be given to demonstrate that God secures the honor of His specially appointed servants. The New Testament, likewise, bears out this truth.

1. When Ananias and Sapphira lied to Peter, they soon lay in death. (Acts 5:1-12)

2. Herod, who killed James and imprisoned Peter and sought his life when Peter escaped, was eaten of worms and died. (Acts 12:1-ff)

3. Peter also must have threatened Simon the sorcerer, for he said,

Acts 8:24, "Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me."

4. When Elymas the sorcerer withstood Paul, Paul cursed him to be blind for a season, and he instantly became so.

Acts 13:8-12, "(8) But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. (9) Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, (10) And said, O full of all subtility and all mischief, [thou] child of the devil, [thou] enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? (11) And now, behold, the hand of the Lord [is] upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.(12) Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord."

5. Paul ordered the Church to deliver the incestuous man at Corinth over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

I Corinthians 5:5, "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

We do not know if a physical malady came upon him, but Paul did likewise to Hymenaeus and Alexander.

I Timothy 1:20, "Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme."

When Paul wrote the Corinthians who questioned his apostleship, and some affronted him, Paul said he was quite prepared to revenge all disobedience with action and not just words. His boast of having such power was not an idle boast. He preferred, however, to build them up, not destroy them.

II Corinthians 10:6-13

He reminds them again in chapter 12 that they may find him unfavorable when he comes with power to execute judgment on the disobedient. Likewise, he says that he may use severity according to the power which the Lord gave him.

II Corinthians 13:10, "Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction."

His argument in these chapters are: "If you seek proof of Christ in me, I shall come with the power of God and 'proof' will be given."

6. The apostle John also says of Diotrephes, who resisted him, "Wherefore if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth." What was he going to do, "tickle him with a feather?" Not hardly.

Those in the apostolic office were not as those who merely walked in the flesh. Listen to Paul:

II Corinthians 10:2, "(2) But I beseech [you], that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. (3) For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (4) (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) (5) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (6) And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. (7) Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he [is] Christ's, even so [are] we Christ's.

(8) For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: (9) That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters. (10) For [his] letters, say they, [are] weighty and powerful; but [his] bodily presence [is] weak, and [his] speech contemptible. (11) Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such [will we be] also in deed when we are present.

II Corinthians 13:1-2, "1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (2) I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare."

Again, I Corinthians 4:21, "What will ye? Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and [in] the spirit of meekness?"

If the prophetic gift continues, and God is still revealing His Word, why do not these "so-called" apostles and prophets have the power to blind and strike men dead? Why aren't those who oppose them miraculously eaten of worms or swallowed alive or made lepers or devoured by bears? One fourth of the miracles in Acts were judgmental!!! Even our Lord cursed a fig tree so that it miraculously dried up in one day.

The truth is, these false apostles, prophets, and miracle workers no more have the ability to miraculously do evil than they do to do miraculous good. They do not reveal truth for they cannot confirm their authority by miraculous judgment any more than they can confirm their words by raising the dead.

Question: Has there been any one this century that Christians should have feared, lest these terrible judgments come upon them? If so, I know of none; least of all the leaders of the charismatic movement: Jimmy Swaggart, Jimmy Jones, Jimmy Baker, Jimmy Roberson, Oral Roberts, Robert Tilman, Earnest Ansley, Kathryn Kuhlman, Amiee Semple McPherson, A. A. Allen, Pat Robinson, W. V. Grant, and all the other professionals who have made a fortune at pretending the gifts. Those of this group that are dead, have died from alcoholism, cancer, or suicide, and almost every one of the above has been involved in shameful scandals, not for the cause of Christ, but their own sins.

SECOND THESSALONIANS by Paul Southern

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Southern/Paul/1901/thes2.html

SECOND THESSALONIANS

1. THE TITLE

This epistle is called II Thessalonians because it is the second of two letters addressed to "the church of the Thessalonians" (1:1).

2. THE WRITER

Paul, who wrote the first Thessalonian letter, was also the writer of this one. This fact we learn from the first verse of chapter one.

3. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING

This letter was probably written from Corinth in A.D. 53, and just a few months after the first epistle. Two things indicate this date: (1) the fact that almost the same conditions are described in each -- persecution and trial; expectation of the Lord's hasty return; idleness in view of the Lord's speedy return; disorderly conduct; (2) the fact that Silas and Timothy were with Paul at the time each letter was written (I Thessalonians 1:1; II Thessalonians 1:1).

4. THE EPISTLE

For information concerning Thessalonica and the establishment of the church there, the student is referred to the section on I Thessalonians. The reasons for writing this second letter are apparent. The chief object was to correct an erroneous idea among the Thessalonians that the Lord would return soon and bring the world to an end. In the first letter, Paul tried to comfort them concerning their Christian dead. His effort did more than he intended. They expected Christ to return during their lifetime, hence many quit their secular work and were just waiting in idleness for His coming (II Thessalonians 3:6-13). The second letter attempts to correct these errors, and to warn the church concerning false teachers who tampered with Paul's authority. This is the shortest letter written by Paul to any church. The general theme is patient waiting for the Lord. There is a lack of special greetings. The epistle has been called a letter of warning.

5. EXERCISES FOR STUDENT ACTIVITY
1. Question
1. Name the things commendable in the church (1:3,4).
2. What will become of those who obey not the gospel? (1:5-10).
3. Compare the introduction with that of I Thessalonians (1:1,2).
4. Tell of the moral disorders in the church (3:6-11).
5. How are we to deal with the disorderly? (3:6,14,15).
6. What advice does Paul give about idlers? (3:12).
7. What indicates Paul's name had been forged? (2:1,2,15; 3:17).
8. What will precede the Lord's second coming (2:3).
9. Who is the man of sin? (2:4-12).
10. When will the man of sin be destroyed? (2:8).
11. How are people called to be Christians? (2:13-15).
12. How did Paul conduct himself while in Thessalonica? (3:7-9).
13. In his request for prayer, what does Paul ask? (3:1-5).
14. What happens when one refuses to believe the truth? (2:10,11).
2. Complete the following quotations:
1. "If any would not _______________, neither should he _______________."
2. "Yet count him not as an _______________, but admonish him as a _______________."
3. "_______________yourselves from every brother that walketh _______________."
4. "And for this cause God shall send them a strong _______________."
5. "For we behaved not ourselves_______________ among you."
6. "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a _______________ away first, and that _______________ of sin be revealed, the son of _______________."
3. Topics for further study
1. Using the Thessalonian letters as a source, write a brief paper on the second coming of Christ.
2. Discuss the judgment of the wicked as set forth in II Thessalonians.
3. What does the epistle teach concerning labor relations and economic conditions?
4. Give evidences that the Thessalonians had misunderstood Paul's teaching regarding Christ's second coming.
5. What attitude should the church have toward a brother that is withdrawn from?

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

Tranquility by Gary Rose

 

 

A simple scene; one of great beauty. The contrast of light and dark and the intense color of the butterfly as compared to the almost transparent appearance of one of the flower’s petals is breathtaking. I find this picture both calming and insightful.

This year has been difficult. I need more things in my life that will produce a positive and pleasant existence. I have grown very tired of all the controversy about the corona virus and the election. I need peace. Somehow, a small thing like this picture helps.

However, more than any picture I have ever seen, the Bible leads my mind to peace, because it leads me to the mind of God and the examples of people like Moses, Paul and especially Jesus. Paul put it this way…

Philippians 4 ( World English Bible )

⁶ In nothing be anxious, but in everything, by prayer and petition with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God.

⁷ And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus.

⁸ Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are honorable, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report; if there is any virtue, and if there is any praise, think about these things.

Prayer, the word of God and Jesus are my guide. They change me and provide a comfort that is beyond description. I learn from the Almighty; how to think, feel and LIVE.

Today, may you be blessed by growing closer to God. May your thoughts be directed towards good things (like those of verse 8 above) and may you find peace and tranquility far beyond anything a mere image can produce.

Your friend,

Gary