Seeing is Believing: The Design of the Human Eye by Taylor Richardson

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1412

Seeing is Believing: The Design of the Human Eye

by	Taylor Richardson

If one of your friends asked you, “How do you know God exists?,” what would you say? There are many different ways to prove God’s existence, because God has given us so much evidence. Sometimes we find that evidence in things we see in the Universe, for example, the Sun. The Sun is like a giant nuclear engine. It gives off more energy in a single second than mankind has produced since the Creation. It converts 8 million tons of matter into energy every single second, and has an interior temperature of more than 20 million degrees Celsius (see Lawton, 1981). Sometimes we find evidence in the animal kingdom. Take the golden orb spider for instance. Pound for pound, the dragline silk of this spider is five times stronger than steel, and is twice as strong as the material that currently makes up SWAT teams’ bulletproof vests. In fact, due to its amazing strength and elasticity, it has been said that you could trap a jumbo jet with spider silk that is the thickness of a pencil.

And sometimes the evidence for God’s existence can even be found within our own bodies. The writer of the book of Hebrews spoke about this evidence when he said: “For every house is built by someone, but he who built all things is God” (3:4).

One of the best examples of design within the human body is the eye. Even Charles Darwin struggled with the problem of how to explain how such a complex organ as the eye could have “evolved” through naturalistic processes. In The Origin of Species he wrote:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest sense (1859, p. 170, emp. added).

But even though Darwin acknowledged that the eye could not have evolved, he went on to argue that it had, in fact, been produced by natural selection through an evolutionary process. It seems almost as though Darwin could not seem to make up his mind on the matter. But he is not the only one who has struggled to explain, from a naturalistic viewpoint, the intricacy of the eye. Evolutionist Robert Jastrow once wrote:

The eye is a marvelous instrument, resembling a telescope of the highest quality, with a lens, an adjustable focus, a variable diaphragm for controlling the amount of light, and optical corrections for spherical and chromatic aberration. The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better. How could this marvelous instrument have evolved by chance, through a succession of random events? (1981, pp. 96-97, emp. added).

How indeed? Though Dr. Jastrow argued that “the fact of evolution is not in doubt,” he confessed that “…there seems to be no direct proof that evolution can work these miracles.… It is hard to accept the evolution of the eye as a product of chance” (1981, pp. 101,97,98, emp. added). Considering the extreme complexity of the eye, it is easy to understand why Jastrow would make such a comment. In his book, Does God Believe in Atheists?, John Blanchard described just how complex the eye really is.

The human eye is a truly amazing phenomenon. Although accounting for just one fourth-thousandth of an adult’s weight, it is the medium which processes some 80% of the information received by its owner from the outside world. The tiny retina contains about 130 million rod-shaped cells, which detect light intensity and transmit impulses to the visual cortex of the brain by means of some one million nerve fibres, while nearly six million cone-shaped cells do the same job, but respond specifically to colour variation. The eyes can handle 500,00 messages simultaneously, and are kept clear by ducts producing just the right amount of fluid with which the lids clean both eyes simultaneously in one five-thousandth of a second (2000, p. 313).

Statements like this proves that the eye was so well designed, and so complicated, that it could not have happened by accident, as evolution teaches.

THE EYE’S DESIGN

The anatomy of the eye was first examined and recorded at Alexandria, Egypt, in the first century A.D. An anatomist, Rufus of Ephesus, described the main parts of the eye, which included the dome-like cornea at the front, the colored iris, the lens, and the vitreous humor (which gives the eye its shiny look). Today, thanks to microscopes, we now know that these, along with many other parts of the eye, work in harmony to produce the gift of sight.

The outer white layer of the eye is called the sclera, more commonly known as the “white of the eye.” This layer is an extremely durable, fibrous tissue that extends from the cornea (the clear front section of the eye) to the optic nerve (at the back of the eye). Six tiny muscles (known as the extraocular muscles, or EOMs) connect to the sclera around the eye and control the eye’s movements. Four of the muscles (known as the rectus muscles) control the horizontal and vertical movement, while two (the oblique muscles) control the rotation. All six muscles work together so that the eye moves smoothly.

The inside of the eye can be divided functionally into two distinct parts. The first is the physical “dioptric” mechanism (from the Greek word dioptra, meaning something through which one looks), which handles incoming light. This includes the cornea, iris, and lens. The cornea is the transparent, dome-shaped window (about eleven millimeters in diameter) that covers the front of the eye. Its most important function is to protect the delicate components of the eye against damage by foreign bodies. Thus, the cornea acts like a watch face, in that it lets us look through the “window” of our eye while protecting the internal components from debris and harmful chemicals. The cornea also takes care of most of the refraction (the ability of the eye to change the direction of light in order to focus it on the retina) and works with the lens to help focus items seen at varying distances as it changes its curvature. The iris and the pupil work together to let in just the right amount of light. There are two opposing sets of muscles that regulate the size of the aperture (the opening, or the pupil) according to the brightness or dimness of the incoming light. If the light is bright, the iris constricts, allowing little light to pass; but if it is dark, the iris dilates or expands, allowing more light to pass through. The light (or image) then moves through a lens that has the ability to adjust its shape to help it clarify the image by changing the focal length of the lens between 40.4 and 69.9 millimeters where it is then focused (in an inverted form) on to the retina.

Between the lens and the retina is a transparent substance (the vitreous fluid) that fills the center of the eye. This substance is important because it not only gives the eye its spherical shape, but also provides nutrition for the retinal vessels inside the eye. In children, the vitreous feels like a gel, but as we age, it gradually thins and becomes more of a liquid.

The second is the receptor area of the retina where the light triggers processes in the nerve cells. The retina plays a key role in visual perception. In his book, The Wonder of Man, Werner Gitt explains how the retina is a masterpiece of engineering design.

One single square millimetre of the retina contains approximately 400,000 optical sensors. To get some idea of such a large number, imagine a sphere, on the surface of which circles are drawn, the size of tennis balls. These circles are separated from each other by the same distance as their diameter. In order to accommodate 400,000 such circles, the sphere must have a diameter of 52 metres... (1999, p. 15).

Alan L. Gillen also praised the design of the retina in his book, Body by Design.

The most amazing component of the eye is the “film,” which is the retina. This light-sensitive layer at the back of the eyeball is thinner than a sheet of plastic wrap and is more sensitive to light than any man-made film. The best camera film can handle a ratio of 1000-to-1 photons in terms of light intensity. By comparison, human retinal cells can handle a ratio of 10 billion-to-1 over the dynamic range of light wavelengths of 380 to 750 nanometers. The human eye can sense as little as a single photon of light in the dark! In bright daylight, the retina can bleach out, turning its “volume control” way down so as not to overload. The light-sensitive cells of the retina are like an extremely complex high-gain amplifier that is able to magnify sounds more than one million times (2001, pp. 97-98, emp. added).

Without a doubt, this thin (only 0.2 mm) layer of nerve tissue is a marvel of engineering. It contains photoreceptor (light-sensitive) cells and four types of nerve cells, as well as structural cells and epithelial pigment cells. The two kinds of photoreceptor cells are referred to as rods and cones because of their shape. Each eye has about 130 million rods and 7 million cones. The rods are very sensitive to light (whether it is bright or dim), and allow the eye to see in black and white. Cones, on the other hand, are not as sensitive as rods, and function only optimally in daylight. There are three different types of cones—red light, green light, and blue light—each of which is sensitive to its respective color of light, and which allow the eye to see in full color. The rods and cones convert the different lights into chemical signals, which then travel along the optic nerve to the brain.

Not only are the images produced by the dioptric mechanism miniaturized and upside-down, but it turns out that they also are left-right inverted. The optic nerves from both eyes split up and cross each other in such a way that the left halves of the images of both eyes are received by the right hemisphere of the brain, while the right halves are received by the left. Each half of the observer’s brain receives information from only one half of the image. As Gitt went on to explain, “Note that, although the brain processes the different parts of the image in various remote locations, the two halves of the field of vision are seamlessly reunited, without any trace of a joint—amazing! This process is still far from being fully understood” (p. 17). It is hard to believe that this inverted system of sight could have been produced through evolution.

Since the eyes are one of the most important organs in the body, they must be taken care of constantly. And God designed just such a built-in cleaning system, consisting of the eyelashes, eyelids, and lacrimal glands. The lacrimal glands produce a steady flow of tears that flush away dust and other foreign materials. The tears also contain a potent anti-microbial agent known as lysozyme that destroys bacteria, viruses, etc. The eyelids and eyelashes work together to keep dirt and other debris from entering the eye. The eyelids act like windshield wipers, blinking 3-6 times a minute to moisten and clean the eye.

For many years, scientists have compared the eye to the modern manmade camera (see Miller, 1960, p. 315; Nourse, 1964, p. 154; Gardener, 1994, p. 105). True, the eye and camera do have many things in common, if the function of the camera demands that it was “made,” does it not stand to reason that the more complex human camera, the eye, also must have had a Maker? Alan Gillen explained it best when he wrote: “No human camera, artificial device, nor computer-enhanced light-sensitive device can match the contrivance of the human eye. Only a master engineer with superior intelligence could manufacture a series of interdependent light sensitive parts and reactions” (p. 99, emp. added). That master engineer was God. The writer of Proverbs knew this when he wrote, “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both” (20:12).

REFERENCES

Blanchard, John (2000), Does God Believe in Atheists? (Auburn, MA: Evangelical Press).

Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; a facsimile of the first edition).

Gardner, Lynn (1994), Christianity Stands True (Joplin, MO: College Press).

Gillen, Alan L. (2001), Body by Design (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Gitt, Werner (1999), The Wonder of Man (Bielefeld, Germany: Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung E.V.).

Jastrow, Robert (1981), The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Lawton, April (1981), “From Here to Infinity,” Science Digest, 89[1]:98-105, January/February.

Miller, Benjamin and Goode, Ruth (1960), Man and His Body (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Nourse, Alan E., ed. (1964), The Body (New York: Time, Inc.).

Seeing God in a Box...Fish by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1541

Seeing God in a Box...Fish

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Constant competition between car companies rages to see which one can design the lightest, toughest, most aerodynamic, fuel efficient models. It seems that the DaimlerChrysler Company has recently put itself several steps ahead in the race by designing a remarkably efficient economy car for Mercedes-Benz. The idea that inspired this car was very simple. The designers looked to the natural world to find a model of highly-efficient, aerodynamic design, coupled with a sturdy structure that could withstand collisions. The model on which they finally settled seemed an unlikely candidate: the boxfish.

At first glance, the boxfish’s body does not appear very aerodynamic. As its name implies, it has a rather “boxy” look, and not the streamline “raindrop” shape that is used for many aerodynamic models. Upon further investigation, however, the boxfish’s shape and design happen to be amazingly efficient. As one author put it, “Despite its boxy, cube-shaped body, this tropical fish is in fact outstandingly streamlined and therefore represents an aerodynamic ideal. With an accurately constructed model of the boxfish the engineers in Stuttgart were able to achieve a wind drag coefficient of just 0.06 in the wind tunnel.” In order to grasp the importance of this drag coefficient, it “betters the drag coefficient of today’s compact cars by more than 65 percent” (“Mercedes-Benz Bionic...,” 2005, emp. added).

But the aerodynamic aspects of the boxfish were not the only helpful features used by the DaimlerChrysler engineers. The skin of the boxfish “consists of numerous hexagonal, bony plates which provide maximum strength with minimal weight” (“Mercedes-Benz Bionic...”). By reproducing this skin structure, the car company was able to achieve “up to 40 percent more rigidity...than would be possible with conventional designs.” The report went on to say that if the entire car shell were designed with these hexagonal structures, the weight of the car could be reduced by almost one-third, without forfeiting any safety features during collisions.

Such copying of the natural world is not a unique event. A popular field of study known as biomimicry has arisen of late in which scientists and technologists look to nature to supply optimal designs and functions. Ironically, the writer of what appears to be the primary article on this amazing boxfish/car relationship misses the logical conclusion of the biomimetic design, as do other scientists who study the field—that design demands an Intelligent Designer. The said writer commented, “[T]he boxfish possesses unique characteristics and is a prime example of the ingenious inventions developed by nature over millions of years of evolution. The basic principle of this evolution is that nothing is superfluous and each part of the body has a purpose—and sometimes several at once” (“Mercedes-Benz Bionic...,” 2005).

Notice the concession made in the writer’s statement that the boxfish, indeed, exhibits “ingenious invention.” Such a statement implies that some type of “genius” or intelligence is behind the invention. Furthermore, evolution has been consistently presented as a process that is maintained by naturalistic, random, chance happenings that are incapable of producing anything “ingenious” or “intelligent.” And finally, the author states that evolution leaves nothing “superfluous,” and that each part of the evolved animal has “a purpose.” This remark is ironic considering the fact that many defenders of evolution continue to use the argument that humans and animals maintain several “vestigial organs” that are supposedly useless leftovers of evolution (see Harrub, 2001, for a discussion of vestigial organs). Indeed, any theory that explains too much, explains too little. On the one hand, evolution maintains an underlying principle that nothing is superfluous, while at the same time evolution is a “fact” because animals and humans supposedly have left-over vestiges that are no longer useful? As one can see, the concept of evolution is so “flexible” and self-contradictory that it sustains no real ability to explain anything.

To the contrary, the only valid explanation for the optimal design in the boxfish is the fact that whenever we see efficient, complex design, there must be an intelligent designer behind it. Considering the fact that many of the most ingenious engineers that the car-manufacturing world can boast spent thousands of hours copying the design of the boxfish, which proved to be 65 percent more efficient in some ways than other designs, one must logically conclude that whoever designed the boxfish has outsmarted the brightest car engineers for many years. “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good” (Genesis 1:31).

REFERENCES

Harrub, Brad, (2001), “Hey Cut That Out...On Second Thought, Hold That Scalpel!, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2050.

“Mercedes-Benz Bionic Concept Vehicle,” (2005), [On-line], URL: http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2050607.004.

Seal Whiskers Sensing God by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5393

Seal Whiskers Sensing God

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

As it turns out, seals (as in the animal, not the trained U.S. military personnel), sport a remarkably well-designed feature for sensing underwater objects: their whiskers.  These little appendages that bristle from the sides of their faces might help seals to look cute, but they also have a far more technical purpose. Seal whiskers have been specially designed to sense activity underwater. Reporting on recent research, Jennifer McDermott from the Associated Press explained how the shape and design of seal whiskers helps seals survive. She wrote: “When a fish swims by, a hungry seal senses the wake with its whiskers. It can tell characteristics of the fish, such as shape and size, and track the location even when it’s murky or dark.¹

The benefit of this technology over the current sonar technology the Navy uses is that seals do not have to send any sound or wave out. Their whiskers gather information based solely on what is coming in. McDermott wrote that researchers are attempting to “reverse-engineer the system” that is built into seal whiskers. Such reverse-engineering begs the question: If highly intelligent scientists are attempting—so far without success—to reverse-engineer the technology behind seal whiskers, then the original Engineer must have been more intelligent than those who are now attempting to understand the design. Such examples of humans looking to nature to find usable technology (often called biomimicry) validates the conclusion that there is a Grand Engineer behind the workings of the world. The idea that random, chance processes of evolution worked over millions of years to “design” a system such as that found in seal whiskers does not provide an adequate or rational answer. If it takes intelligence to reverse-engineer it, then it took intelligence to engineer it in the first place.

McDermott went on to state that seal whiskers are not the only natural technology that has peaked the interest of the U.S. Navy. She wrote: “The Navy, which is also funding bio-inspired work at universities, has taken a greater interest in the field in the past decade. Animals do things well that the Navy wants its underwater vehicles to do well.” When we look to the natural world that God, the Grand Engineer, designed, we can truly see that the beasts, cattle, great sea creatures, and even the whiskers on a seal bring praise to the Lord (Psalm 148:7-12).

Endnotes

¹ Jennifer McDermott, “The Seal Whiskerers: Navy Looks to Sea Life for New Ships,” Associated Press, 2017, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/seal-whiskerers-navy-sea-life-ships-46136863.

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" The Olivet Discourse - II (13:24-37)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

 The Olivet Discourse - II (13:24-37) 

 INTRODUCTION

1. In our previous lesson, we covered the first half of Mark 13...
   a. Commonly called "The Olivet Discourse", delivered by Jesus on the Mount 

        of Olives
   b. A challenging passage of scripture, believed to discussing either...
      1) The destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 A.D.
      2) The second coming of Christ, which is yet to occur
      3) Or both events, described either in turn or intertwined

2. I’ve proposed that the discourse foretells the destruction of
   Jerusalem, based first upon the setting...
   a. Jesus’ words spoken previously in the temple
      1) His parables about Israel’s rejection of Him - cf. Mt 21:28-32,33-46; 22:1-14
      2) His condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees - cf. Mt 23:27-36
      3) His lamentation over Jerusalem - cf. Mt 23:37-39
   b. Jesus’ prophecy regarding about the temple - Mk 13:1-2
   c. The disciples’ questions, which when Mark and Luke’s account is
      considered, appear to be:
      1) "When will these things be?"
      2) "What will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?"
      -- Cf. Mt 24:3; Mk 13:4; Lk 21:7

3. We then saw that in vs. 5-23, Jesus describes...
   a. What will not be the sign (other than the gospel preached to all nations) 

       - Mk 13:5-13
   b. What will be the sign - Mk 13:14
      1) The abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel - Dan 9:26-27; 12:11
      2) Which Luke explains to be Jerusalem surrounded by armies - Lk 21:20
   c. What to do when they saw the sign - Mk 13:15-23
      1) Those in Judea were to flee to the mountains to avoid a great tribulation
      2) They were not to be misled by false christs or false prophets

[Up to vs. 24, Jesus described a local, escapable judgment to befall
Jerusalem.  He does not describe the worldwide, inescapable judgment
taught elsewhere in the Scriptures.  But with vs. 24, many believe Jesus
now addresses His second coming (cf. J. W. McGarvey’s Fourfold Gospel).
As we continue with our study, I propose that the destruction of
Jerusalem is still under consideration...]

II. THE OLIVET DISCOURSE (continued)

   D. WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT...
      1. Events to occur "after the tribulation of those days"...
         a. Cosmic disturbances - Mk 13:24-25
            1) The sun will be darkened
            2) The moon will not give its light
            3) The stars of heaven will fall
            4) The powers in the heavens will be shaken
         b. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven
            with power and great glory - Mk 13:26
            1) The sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven - cf. Mt 24:30
            2) All the tribes of the earth will mourn - cf. Mt 24:30
         c. The elect will be gathered - Mk 13:27
            1) For with a great sound of the trumpet, angels will be sent - cf. Mt 24:31
            2) They shall gather the elect from the four winds, from the
               farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven
      2. Such events certainly sound like the second coming of Christ,
         but consider two reasons why they may not be referring to Jesus’
         coming at the Last Day...
         a. The events were to occur "immediately after the tribulation
            of those days" ("in those days, after that tribulation") - Mt 24:29; Mk 13:24
            1) They are connected in time to the tribulation described in Mk 13:15-28
            2) This "coming" of Jesus was to occur at the conclusion of
               the siege of Jerusalem
         b. The events are similar to those used to foretell God’s judgment of other nations
            1) Babylon - Isa 13:1,6-13
            2) Egypt - Isa 19:1-2; cf. Eze 32:2,7-9
            2) Tyre - Isa 23:1; 24:21-23
            3) Edom - Isa 34:4-6
            4) Nineveh - Nah 1:1-5
            5) Israel - Am 8:9
            6) Judah - Jer 4:5-6,23-28
      3. Jewish prophets foretold God’s judgment upon such nations...
         a. Using figures of worldwide destruction, even though the judgment was local
         b. Perhaps because such judgments foreshadow God’s Final
            Judgment to come upon the entire world at the Last Day
      4. Like other Jewish prophets, Jesus used figurative language to depict:
         a. The judgment to befall the religious leaders of Israel (in
            terms of worldwide destruction)
         b. The provision made for faithful disciples of Christ (in
            terms of the gathering by angels)
      5. Therefore I suggest that even in Mk 13:24-27 Jesus refers to
         the destruction of Jerusalem

   E. ADMONITIONS TO BE PREPARED...
      1. The parable of the fig tree - Mk 13:28-29
         a. New branches and leaves indicate summer is near
         b. When you see these things (Jerusalem surrounded by armies), the time is near
      2. It would happen before "this generation" passed away - Mk 13:30
         a. Some define "generation" as a race of people (i.e., the
            Jews) - cf. McGarvey, B. W. Johnson
         b. But note its use by Jesus just prior to this discourse - cf. Mt 23:33-36 (esp. 36)
         c. The destruction of Jerusalem came to pass within forty years!
      3. The words of Jesus will come to pass - Mk 13:31
         a. Heaven and earth shall pass away one day - cf. 2Pe 3:7,10
         b. But Jesus’ words will by no means pass away
      4. Of that day and hour, only the Father knows - Mk 13:32
         a. Many believe at this point Jesus begins to talk about the
            second coming - e.g., France, NIGTC; Short, NIBC
         b. The disciples might discern the general timing with the
            advance of armies toward Jerusalem
         c. But the day and hour when the siege would begin, only the Father knew
      5. Therefore, take heed, watch and pray! - Mk 13:33-37
         a. You don’t know when the time is - e.g., Ac 1:7
         b. Don’t be caught off guard, like a servant caught sleeping
            when his master returns
         c. Be ready, for the Son of Man will come when you not expect Him
         d. The siege of Jerusalem might begin promptly, so flee Judea
            promptly when you see the armies surrounding Jerusalem!

CONCLUSION

1. Admittedly, there is much in "The Olivet Discourse" that alludes to
   our Lord’s second coming at the Last Day...
   a. But it no different than prophecies by other Jewish prophets who
      foretold God’s judgment upon nations and cities
   b. Such figurative language was a common motif used by Jewish prophets
   c. We should not be surprised to see Jesus using the same motif in  this context
   -- And rightly so, for God’s judgments upon nations in the past are
      types and shadows of the Final Judgment to befall the entire world
      when Jesus comes again

2. In addition to the setting leading up to the discourse, there is the
   natural flow of the discourse itself that leads me to conclude it is
   entirely about the destruction of Jerusalem...
   a. Jesus’ disciples are told what will not be the sign - Mk 13:1-13
   b. They are told will be the sign that His coming is near - Mk 13:14
   c. They are told what to do when they see the sign - Mk 13:14-23
   d. His coming in judgment (the fall of Jerusalem) is described in
      terms reminiscent of other Jewish prophets who foretold of God’s
      judgments upon various nations - Mk 13:24-27
   e. Admonitions are given for them to be prepared and watchful, for
      all these things will happen before the current generation passed
      away, though the exact time was unknown - Mk 13:28-37

So I view "The Olivet Discourse" to describe a local, escapable judgment
which occurred as Jesus foretold in 70 A. D.

However, there is still the worldwide, inescapable judgment at the Last
Day.  Are you ready for that Day?  The admonitions to be prepared and
productive are very similar:

   "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in
   which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the
   elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the
   works that are in it will be burned up."

   "Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner
   of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking
   for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which
   the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements
   will melt with fervent heat?"

   "Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens
   and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.  Therefore, beloved,
   looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in
   peace, without spot and blameless;"
                                                       - 2Pe 3:10-14             

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

365,536 Pageviews

 

Glorifying God in the Good or Bad by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2019/11/26/glorifying-god-in-the-good-or-bad/#more-14919

Glorifying God in the Good or Bad

Nick Foles, the Jacksonville Jaguar quarterback, returned to the starting lineup two weeks ago, after being sidelined since he injured his shoulder in the opening week of the season.

It’s been a tough season for Foles who won a Super Bowl with the Philadelphia Eagles and signed a four-year contract with the Jags in May.

When asked about dealing with the injury Foles said that it has made him a better person. Taught him to have joy even during a difficult situation. And helped him grow in his faith.

Foles said he told God, “If this is the journey you want me to go on, I’m going to glorify you in every action, good or bad.”

Known as an outspoken believer in Jesus, the quarterback referred to his Super Bowl win when he hoisted the Lombardi Trophy, “In that moment I realized I didn’t need that trophy to define who I was because it was already in Christ.”

I don’t know Nick Foles’ religious affiliation, but I know he’s right about two things: (1) We can glorify God even in tough times; and (2) Our achievements, awards, and accolades don’t define who we are. The Christian’s identity is in Christ.

In Psalm 50, Jehovah, speaking through Asaph declared, “Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify Me.”

Normally we don’t think about glorifying God during our difficulties. We give glory to God for our blessings. Our successes. Our material abundance. Our spiritual victories.

Yet, the Bible is filled with commands and examples reminding us that life is not a beautiful bouquet of roses without the thorns. We all experience trials, troubles, and tribulations.

When Paul and Silas were beaten and imprisoned for preaching Christ, they sang, prayed and gloried God. Not softly or faintly, but loudly enough the other prisoners heard them (Acts 16:25).

While suffering his “thorn in the flesh,” Paul prayed to God three times for its removal. God’s answer? “My grace is sufficient for you.” The thorn remained. But Paul didn’t pout. Rather he glorified God and responded with faith, hope and courageous determination.

“I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”

When Paul was confined to a Roman prison, he wrote the Philippian letter and spoke of the “joy of faith.” He viewed his imprisonment as an opportunity to “preach Christ,” as the gospel message spread even to the Emperor’s palace. His motto and message was “rejoice in the Lord.”

James reminds us that even when “we face trials of various kinds” that we can “count it all joy” (Jas 1:3). The experience he affirms makes us better. Stronger. More complete in Christ.

It’s well to be reminded in an era of unparalleled prosperity that we don’t thank and glorify God just because of what He’s given us. But because of who HE IS.

The Psalmist affirmed, “I will praise You, O Lord my God, with all my heart, And I will glorify Your name forevermore” (Ps 86:12).

When? It good times and tough times. In sickness and in health. In joy and in sorrow. In abundance and in scarcity. And in triumph and in defeat.

Why? Because God is worthy to be praised. He is our Creator. All-knowing. All-wise. Ever present. And He will provide. In His time.

I’m reminded of the words of the poet and songwriter, Annie Flint Johnson, who experienced many sorrows in life, yet was strong and faithful.

He giveth more grace when the burdens grow greater,
He sendeth more strength when the labors increase;
To added afflictions, He addeth His mercy,
To multiplied trials, His multiplied peace.

When we have exhausted our store of endurance,
When our strength has failed ere the day is half done,
When we reach the end of our hoarded resources
Our Father’s full giving is only begun.

To God be the glory. In good times or bad.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

INHERITED DEPRAVITY? by steve finnell

 

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2016/11/inherited-depravity-steve-finnell-do.html

INHERITED DEPRAVITY?  by steve finnell

Do all men inherit guilt from the sin of Adam? Does the fact that Adam sinned mean all of his descendents are born depraved? Many denominations teach that as facts. Those denominations who baptize unbelieving infants do that because they believe infants are born guilty of Adam's sin.

The Westminster Confession

CHAPTER 6

Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of

the Punishment thereof.

I. Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
III. They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation.
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

The doctrine of Inherited/Total Depravity has been adopted by many denominational churches due to the writings of Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430 and John Calvin (1509-1564)

Those who believe the false doctrine of Original Sin say all men are sinners at conception.

There are no references in Scripture that state men need to be forgiven for Adam's sin or that men inherited Adam's guilt.

If all men are born totally depraved how did Moses serve God? Moses did not live under grace. Moses did not receive Christian baptism as an unbelieving infant.

Was Abraham totally depraved at conception? Genesis 18:19 since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all nations of the earth will be blessed? 19 For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham was was spoken about him." (NASB)

Questions: How it possible that God would chose Abraham if he was totally corrupt at conception? How could Abraham's children and household do righteous acts and justice if they were totally defiled and only inclined to do evil?

The doctrine of Original Sin/Inherited Sin and Total Depravity are not found in the Bible, they only written in man-made creed books.

Was Noah guilty of sin at conception rendering him totally depraved? Genesis 6:8-9 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. 9 These are the records of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.(NASB)

Did Noah trick God into thinking that he was a righteous man? No, God cannot be deceived, however, men can be deceived into believing the false doctrine of Original Sin, Totally Depravity and Inherited Depravity.

Was Job a guilty of Adam's sin at conception? Was Job not capable of resisting evil? Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.(NASB)

Was the first Gentile convert to Christianity a totally depraved sinner at conception? No. Acts 10:1-2 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.(NASB)

Inherited Depravity is a man-made doctrine found in denominational creed books. Original Sin/Inherited Sin is not found in the Bible.

Atheist and nonbeliever are not born evil. Many atheist and non believers do good works.

All men sin and are guilty of their own sins. No person has inherited sin from Adam.

All men need a Savior because of their sin, not because of Adam's sin.

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

God's terms for pardon from sin. Faith: John 3:16, Repentance: Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, Confession: Romans 10:9, Immersion in Water: Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16

Virtuous by Sandra F. Cobble

 

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Cobble/Sandra/Fontaine/1933/virtuous.html

Virtuous

Usually when we think of the word "virtuous" we tend to think of moral purity. We may even remember overhearing someone speak of some girl having "lost her virtue" -- meaning, "having lost her virginity." After having read in the New Testament of a woman's place in the church, we then read of the "virtuous woman" in Proverbs 31. Somehow, it just does not all seem to fit together. Just what is a "virtuous woman"? Perhaps some of our confusion results from an incomplete understanding of the term "virtuous."

"Virtuous" is a translation of the Hebrew "chavil" (or "havil"). According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament "chavil" is used to denote "strength, power, or might" in a variety of ways. It may refer to the strength of God (Ps. 59:11), the physical strength of man (Eccl. 10:10), or even the strength of a plant (Joel 2:22). And, according to Young's Analytical Concordance, "chavil" is translated "valor" 37 times and translated "army" 54 times.

"When used of a woman (Ruth 3:11; Prov. 12:4; 31:10) it is translated 'virtuous', but it may well be that a woman of this caliber had all the attributes of her male counterpart" (TWOT). The masculine attributes described seem to indicate an individual not only with physical strength, but also strength of character, and possibly one of some wealth and social standing. And the attributes of the "virtuous" woman as shown in Proverbs 31 seem to fit that pattern.

The Septuagint translates the Hebrew "chavil" of Ruth 3:11 into the Greek "dunamis", which means "power." Proverbs 12:4 and 31:10 are translated "andreia", which means "manly."

From this we see that though "virtuous" would INCLUDE the moral purity which evidences strength of character, it would not be LIMITED to moral purity. A VIRTUOUS WOMAN WOULD BE A WOMAN STRONG IN ALL FACETS OF HER LIFE!

It is also interesting to note that our English "virtuous" originates from the Latin root "vir", which means "man"!

Sandra F. Cobble

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

Riches by Gary Rose

 

^{Money, it is a necessary thing, but it can be a problem. For many, it can become an obsession. To put it another way, the more you have the more you want (without an end in sight). Worse than this, as you acquire more, you may be willing to do absolutely anything to become more rich. God can become an afterthought as money becomes your one and only one focus in life. In thinking about this, I remembered a couple of passages from the New Testament…}

^{Luke 12 ( World English Bible )}

¹⁵ He said to them, “Beware! Keep yourselves from covetousness, for a man’s life doesn’t consist of the abundance of the things which he possesses.”

¹⁶ He spoke a parable to them, saying, “The ground of a certain rich man brought forth abundantly.

¹⁷ He reasoned within himself, saying, ‘What will I do, because I don’t have room to store my crops?’

¹⁸ He said, ‘This is what I will do. I will pull down my barns, and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods.

¹⁹ I will tell my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years. Take your ease, eat, drink, be merry.”’

²⁰ “But God said to him, ‘You foolish one, tonight your soul is required of you. The things which you have prepared—whose will they be?’

²¹ So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

²² He said to his disciples, “Therefore I tell you, don’t be anxious for your life, what you will eat, nor yet for your body, what you will wear.

²³ Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing.

²⁴ Consider the ravens: they don’t sow, they don’t reap, they have no warehouse or barn, and God feeds them. How much more valuable are you than birds!

²⁵ Which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his height?

²⁶ If then you aren’t able to do even the least things, why are you anxious about the rest?

²⁷ Consider the lilies, how they grow. They don’t toil, neither do they spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

²⁸ But if this is how God clothes the grass in the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith?

²⁹ Don’t seek what you will eat or what you will drink; neither be anxious.

³⁰ For the nations of the world seek after all of these things, but your Father knows that you need these things.

³¹ But seek God’s Kingdom, and all these things will be added to you.

1 Timothy 6 ( WEB )

⁶ But godliness with contentment is great gain.

⁷ For we brought nothing into the world, and we certainly can’t carry anything out.

⁸ But having food and clothing, we will be content with that.

⁹ But those who are determined to be rich fall into a temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful lusts, such as drown men in ruin and destruction.

¹⁰ For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some have been led astray from the faith in their greed, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

¹¹ But you, man of God, flee these things, and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, and gentleness.

Bottom line: Don’t let the allure of great wealth become overpowering. Make God the greatest priority in your life and you won’t regret it. Believe this; God will provide you with everything you truly need. Greed, otherwise known as Covetousness, is sin and taken to its ultimate end, will destroy you. Remember that last verse of the Timothy passage...

1 Timothy 6: 11 ( WEB )

¹¹ But you, man of God, flee these things, and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, and gentleness.

Christian: This is the way to go!