Making Sense of Baptism by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1230

Making Sense of Baptism

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

One reason why some religious people do not feel that baptism in water is a prerequisite for salvation is because “it doesn’t make any sense.” Why would God demand that a sinner be immersed in water in order to receive the abundant amount of heavenly blessings found “in Christ” (cf. Galatians 3:27; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:34-40; 2 Timothy 2:10; Colossians 1:14)? “The necessity of baptism seems so arbitrary,” they say. “The need to confess faith in Jesus as the Son of God makes good sense. It also is logical to repent of one’s sins. But what good is baptism? What meaning does it have? And why should getting wet physically, make one clean spiritually?”
First, regardless of whether God’s instructions seem sensible to us or not, God expects His orders to be obeyed. One of the many lessons that a person learns from studying the Old Testament is that God oftentimes gave commands that seemed somewhat illogical to man. Not long after the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, God commanded Moses to strike a rock in order to receive water (Exodus 17:1-7). Although digging a well would seem to be the more reasonable thing to do, God wanted Moses to strike a rock with his rod before receiving water from the rock. Forty years later, as the Israelites began their conquest of Canaan, Jehovah instructed the Israelites to march around the city of Jericho one time a day for six days, and seven times on the seventh day in order to conquer the city (Joshua 6:1-5). God said of the Israelites: “It shall come to pass,” on the seventh day, “when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when you hear the sound of the trumpet, that all the people shall shout with a great shout; then the wall of the city will fall down flat” (6:5). The idea of an army defeating an enemy simply by walking around a city, yelling, and blowing horns, seems irrational. It makes no sense to the average person. Yet, this is what God demanded of His people if they wanted to be victorious. A few hundred years later, Elisha, a prophet from God, instructed a leprous man named Naaman to “wash in the Jordan seven times” in order to be cleansed of his disease (2 Kings 5:10). Considering the waters of the Jordan had no healing power, this command made little sense to Naaman then, and may not be very sensible to some Bible readers today. Why would God want a leper to dip himself in a river? And why seven times? What medicinal power did the river have? Why not simply have the prophet say to Naaman, “Your faith has made you well”?
Today, if a sinner wants to receive “the victory through…Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:57), the Scriptures are clear: in addition to confessing faith in Christ and repenting of his sins (John 8:24; Romans 10:9-10; Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38), he must be baptized (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21). For people to reject the command to be immersed in water simply because they feel that baptism and eternal salvation are totally unrelated, is as wrong as it would have been for Moses, the Israelites, and Naaman to reject God’s commands years ago (cf. Isaiah 55:8-9).
The truth of the matter is, however, one’s immersion into water is not the “illogical instruction” some have made it out to be. God’s plan to save man, and the conditions upon which salvation is accepted (including baptism), were in the mind of God “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). God always has known of this plan “which He accomplished in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 3:11). To speak of baptism as some flippant, fly-by-night ritual insults the eternal plan of God. It is meaningful, first, because God says it is. And second, if one truly takes the time to observe some of the passages that discuss baptism, he will have a better understanding of its significance. God never intended for a person to think that the power to forgive sins is in the water, any more than He expected Naaman to believe the power to cleanse his leprosy was in the Jordan River. In fact, the apostle Peter was very clear about this matter when he wrote that baptism is “not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3:21).
Paul wrote to the churches of Galatia, saying, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27, emp. added). When this passage is coupled with Romans 6:3ff., one learns that by being baptized into Christ, we are baptized into His death.

Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin (Romans 6:3-7).

Rather than asking, “Why baptism?,” perhaps we should ask, “Why not?” What other act would so fitly represent the complete ending of a life of sin? In his comments on Romans 6, R.L. Whiteside observed:

In being buried in baptism there is a likeness of his death; so also there is a likeness of his resurrection in our being raised from baptism to a new life. Hence, in being baptized we are united with him in the likeness of this death and resurrection. We are therefore, partakers with him in death, and also in being raised to a new life. Jesus was buried and arose to a new life; we are buried in baptism and arise to a new life. These verses show the act of baptism, and also its spiritual value (1988, p. 132).

It is in the act of baptism that the cross is actualized for the sinner, and brought to have individual significance (Riley, 2000, p. 72). Every time a person becomes a Christian, a sinner dies (“being buried with him in baptism”—Colossians 2:12), and is raised up a saint “through faith in the working of God, who raised Him [Jesus] from the dead” (Colossians 2:12).
Truly, baptism “makes sense” (perfect sense) when we take the time to focus on the One Who gave both His life for us, and the mode of baptism to begin our new life with Him (Matthew 28:18-20). Similar to how Noah’s new life, in a new world, began after having been transported from a world of sin by water (1 Peter 3:21; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17), the sinner is carried by water into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This submissive act ushers us out of the world and into a relationship with God.

REFERENCES

Riley, Tom (2000), Dying to Live Again (Webb City, MO: Covenant Publishing).
Whiteside, Robertson L. (1988), Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation), reprint.

Much More than an Empty Tomb! by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=256

Much More than an Empty Tomb!

by	Brad Bromling, D.Min.

As dawn broke on the third day after Christ’ crucifixion, several pious women made their way to the tomb that Joseph of Arimathea had donated for Jesus’ burial. When they arrived, they found it open and empty. Instead of seeing their Lord, they saw men (angels) dressed in dazzling clothes who announced that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The women returned to the community of Jesus’ followers and gave a full report. No one believed them. Peter and (apparently) John ran to the tomb to see for themselves. They found it as the women had said. The tomb was empty. But surprisingly, rather than spreading the exciting news that Jesus had been raised from the dead, Peter went away perplexed!
Later that day, two other disciples left Jerusalem and headed toward Emmaus, their hometown about seven miles away. As they walked, they shared their thoughts of disappointment over the death of Jesus. A stranger joined them and asked what they were talking about (they didn’t know the stranger was Jesus). They explained how that Jesus, the mighty prophet from Nazareth, had been crucified. They said, “But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel,” indicating that their hopes had been dashed (Luke 24:21). They continued: “Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened.” Apparently they expected Jesus to be raised; but even after hearing testimony from the women and the two men, the disciples from Emmaus were not convinced that a resurrection had taken place.
A few hours later they were back in Jerusalem enthusiastically telling others that Jesus was raised from the dead. What moved them from hopelessness to confident proclamation? The answer is plain: they had seen the Lord! By that time, so had Peter. In fact, from that point forward, Jesus appeared repeatedly to His followers for the next forty days before He finally ascended into heaven (Acts 1:3).
The central message of the Church is not simply that Jesus’ tomb was empty—that fact alone was not enough for the original followers of the Nazarene, nor would it be enough two thousand years later. A skeptical mind can imagine many ways to explain how Jesus’ body left the tomb (all of which have been sufficiently answered; see Geisler and Brooks, 1990, pp. 123-128; Bromling, 1993, pp. 33-38; et al.); but for a believer, only one way matters—resurrection. Faith in that is based upon the reliable testimony of people who, after having seen the risen Lord, devoted the rest of their lives to telling the Good News. Jesus left more than an empty tomb; He left credible flesh-and-blood witnesses who said of Jesus, “we have heard” Him, “we have seen [Him] with our eyes,” and “our hands have handled” Him (1 John 1:1).
Maybe an empty tomb should have been enough; after all, Jesus rebuked the disciples from Emmaus for being “foolish” and “slow of heart to believe the prophets” (Luke 24:25). But the fact is, we have much more than that. We have the Good News that Jesus appeared to: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Peter, Cleopas and his fellow disciple from Emmaus, the rest of the apostles, Stephen, James, Paul, and an additional five hundred unnamed people, many of whom Paul indicated would have testified if given a chance (Matthew 28:1-20; Mark 16:9-20; Luke 24:1-50; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8; et al.).
Christianity is not faith in an empty cave; it is faith in a Savior Who ever lives to make intercession for us (Hebrews 7:25). It is faith in the One Who by His resurrection has the ability to promise: “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5).

REFERENCES

Bromling, Brad T. (1993), “What Happened to the Body?,” Reason & Revelation, 13:33-38, May.
Geisler, Norman L. and Ron Brooks (1990), When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor).

Higgs Boson—The “God Particle”? (2nd Update) by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1694

Higgs Boson—The “God Particle”? (2nd Update)

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. staff scientist Dr. Miller holds a Ph.D. from Auburn University in Mechanical Engineering with emphases in Thermal Science and Biomechanics.]
[NOTE—For the original article and a previous update, see Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"? and Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"? (Update), respectively]

We have been closely monitoring the progress of the search for the elusive “Higgs Boson” particle—presumptuously dubbed the “God Particle” by many scientists (see Miller, 2011a and Miller, 2011b for previous discussion). The hunt has been a roller coaster ride, with scientists thinking they have found the particle and then changing their minds time and again. The Higgs Boson particle is “thought to be the fundamental unit of matter” (“Has Quest for the Elusive…?” 2011). In theory, it could explain how other elementary particles have mass. The particle is a theoretical elementary particle that is predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics, but which had yet to be observed by physicists through experimentation, until now—or so scientists hope.

Scientists awaiting the latest update in the search for the Higgs Boson at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, July 4, 2012. [Image credit Associated Press, 2012]

On July 4, 2012, scientists sent shockwaves through the world as they announced that they believe, with well over 99% certainty, that they have found the Higgs Boson particle using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a particle accelerator located in Switzerland (“The Elusive Particle…,” 2012; see May, 2012 for more information on the LHC). How significant is this find to the believer? If there is a “God Particle,” does that mean the “Big Bang” is true? Does it mean that this particle can create matter? Does it mean that there is no God?

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), located in Switzerland

Why do many call it the “God Particle”? Technically, according to the National Post, the name “God Particle” is an abbreviated form of its original, profane designation—“The God-d*** Particle” (a name used by Nobel physicist Leon Lederman as a draft title for a book), referring to the frustrations scientists have been going through trying to find the Higgs Boson. So, it actually had nothing to do with God. Apparently, however, the name was abbreviated to “The God Particle” to avoid offending readers—as though the abbreviated description is any less profane (“Higgs Boson Hunt Over…,” 2012). The result of this name designation has been to give the impression that the particle is “God-like” and somehow eliminates the necessity of a God in creating the Universe, while substantiating the Big Bang Theory. So, to Big Bang-believers today, the Higgs Boson is not just an energy particle which they believe gives an object its mass, but rather, it is “a theoretical energy particle which many scientists believe helped give mass to the disparate matter spawned by the Big Bang” (“Scientists Close In…,” 2010, emp. added). Big Bang theorists consider its existence “crucial to forming the cosmos after the Big Bang” (2010, emp. added). Therefore, the particle is “god-like” to such sadly deluded individuals, since it, in theory, “gives mass” and helped “form” the cosmos.

Former CERN director general Christopher Llewelyn-Smith, standing left, Lyn Evans, scientific director, standing second left, Herwig Schopper, standing center, Luciano Maiani, standing second right, and Robert Aymard, standing right, wave after the presentation of results during a scientific seminar to deliver the latest update in the search for the Higgs Boson. [Image credit Associated Press, 2012]

In reality, the existence of the Higgs Boson in no way eliminates the need for God. Consider the following. In the 1600s, Creation scientist Isaac Newton, after observing an apple falling to the ground, “deduced that the same force which caused the apple to fall to the ground causes the moon to orbit the Earth” (Pinaire, 2000). From this concept, in time, Newton formally articulated what we now call “Newton’s Laws of Motion,” the second of which says, in essence, that the force an object applies is equal to its mass multiplied by its acceleration. So, an object’s weight on the Earth (i.e., “applied force” on the Earth) is equal to its mass times its acceleration (i.e., the acceleration due to gravity at the location where the object is on the Earth). Question: By discovering gravity, did Newton discover the “God Force” that keeps humans tied to the Earth? Did he disprove the need for God? Certainly not, and no one even suggested such an idea. He merely discovered one of the characteristics of the created order—one of the “ordinances” that God set up to have “dominion over the Earth” (Job 38:33).

A di-photon event from a Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment in search of the Higgs Boson. Also, the purpose of studying LHC particle collision events, according to teh European Organization of Nuclear Research (CERN).

According to Rolf Heuer, the director of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) (the research center that houses the LHC), whether or not scientists have truly discovered the Higgs Boson still needs to be verified. Heuer said, “It’s a bit like spotting a familiar face from afar. Sometimes you need closer inspection to find out whether it’s really your best friend, or your best friend’s twin” (“Higgs Boson Hunt Over…,” 2012). Assuming the find truly is what it purports to be, the particle will simply be another step in expanding our understanding of how God set up the Universe. Newton discovered that force is equal to mass times acceleration. But the logical next step is to answer questions like, “How is there mass? What gives an object mass?” If scientists’ theory is correct, the Higgs Boson will simply help shed light on those questions—i.e., how did God set up the Universe in such a way that an object has mass? In other words, the Higgs Boson may help us to understand more about how God “framed” “the worlds”—showing us more about how “the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3).
Also, the existence of the Higgs Boson in no way violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e., creating energy or matter from nothing). In nature, nothing can be created or destroyed, but can only change forms, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics (Miller, 2007). So, only a Supernatural force can create something out of nothing. The Higgs Boson particle is not God.
And further, the existence of the Higgs Boson in no way disproves the existence of God. Someone had to create the Higgs Boson in the first place. And the existence of the Higgs Boson in no way verifies the Big Bang Theory, which is riddled with problems—as atheistic scientists themselves highlight frequently (see, for example, the recent article in New Scientist titled, “Bang Goes the Theory” [Gefter, 2012]).
As stated above, evolutionists consider the existence of the Higgs Boson “crucial to forming the cosmos after the Big Bang” (“Scientists Close In…,” 2010, emp. added). Notice that without the existence of this particle, Big Bang theorists recognize that the Universe could not even form after the Big Bang theoretically occurred. Its existence does not prove that the Universe did form in the manner suggested by the Big Bang Theory. Its existence does not even prove that the Universe could form after a hypothesized Big Bang occurred. Further, its existence does not prove that the Big Bang itself could occur at all. Its existence does not prove that matter could exist forever or pop into existence out of nothing, either one of which must be true in order for the Big Bang even to get started. And its existence certainly does not prove that the scientific laws governing the Universe could write themselves into existence. However, without the existence of the particle, theorists know that fundamental tenets of the Big Bang Theory could not happen. It’s another thing to say that they could happen. Thus, the discovery of the particle’s existence does not prove anything in the end, but only allows atheistic cosmologists to cross one of the many chasms that stand in the way of their theory even getting to the starting line in being considered a remote possibility. In other words, the Big Bang has not even reached square one in the realm of proof. It remains firmly in the realm of impossibility. Bottom line: the Creation model still stands as the most logical explanation for the origin of the Universe—the model that is in keeping with all the scientific evidence.
Much more is missing in the quest to substantiate the Big Bang than a little particle can solve, and the list of those missing entities continues to grow, and will continue to do so, until true science—science that is in keeping with the evidence—is allowed to flourish. It has become increasingly popular for cosmologists to label many of these missing “somethings” with the first word, “Dark.” The list of “dark,” missing entities is growing. In truth, if the scientific community would only let the “light” of truth into the picture, the darkness would disappear.

REFERENCES

“The Elusive Particle: 5 Implications of Finding Higgs Boson” (2012), Fox News, July 5, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/05/elusive-particle-5-implications-finding-higgs-boson/.
Gefter, Amanda (2012), “Bang Goes the Theory,” New Scientist, 214[2871]:32-37, June 30.
“Has Quest for the Elusive ‘God Particle’ Succeeded?” (2011), Fox News, April 25, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/25/quest-elusive-god-particle-succeeded/?test=faces.
“Higgs Boson Hunt Over: CERN Scientists at Large Hadron Collider Find ‘God Particle’” (2012), National Post, July 4, http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/04/higgs-boson-hunt-over-cern-scientists-at-large-hadron-collider-find-god-particle/.
May, Branyon (2012), “Is the Large Hadron Collider a Big Bang Machine?” Reason & Revelation, 32[4]:38-45, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1026.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
Miller, Jeff (2011a), “Higgs Boson–the ‘God Particle’?” Reason & Revelation, 31[6]:53, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977&article=1500.
Miller, Jeff (2011b), “Higgs Boson–Update,” Reason & Revelation, 31[10]:101, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/4120.
Pinaire, Chris (2000), “Isaac Newton,” Wichita State University Department of Mathematics and Statistics, http://www.math.twsu.edu/history/Men/newton.html.
“Scientists Close In on God Particle” (2010), Fox News, July 27, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/27/scientists-closing-god-particle/.

The Early Church Did Not Affirm A Gay Eunuch by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=3761

The Early Church Did Not Affirm A Gay Eunuch

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Jeff Miner and John Connoley have co-authored a book titled The Children are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-Sex Relationships. A portion of that book is posted on the Web site www.whywouldwe.net under the title, “The Early Church Welcomed a Gay Man.” The premise of the excerpt on the Web site is that the Ethiopian Eunuch, who was converted in Acts 8 by Philip, was a practicing homosexual. The opening paragraph of the section states: “In the ancient world, eunuchs were widely associated with homosexuality. Here a self-avowed eunuch is welcomed in to the early church without any concerns about his sexual orientation. He was welcomed on the same basis as other people—his faith in Jesus Christ” (2002)

Judging by the title of the section, one would assume that the authors, or the Web site operators, have Scriptural evidence to defend the boldly stated concept that the “early church welcomed a gay man.” A closer look, however, shows the opposite. The “evidence” is nothing of the sort. The authors correctly state that many eunuchs who lived during the first-century were homosexuals. The article title then implies that since many Eunuchs in the first-century were homosexuals, and the man in Acts 8 was a eunuch, that means he must have been a homosexual. This false implication is a classic logical fallacy known as “proof by example.” Just because some examples in a particular category have a certain characteristic, that does not imply that all do. For instance, if some eunuchs were Ethiopian, then would all eunuchs be Ethiopian? Of course not.

The authors, in spite of the misleading title, recognize the problem with such reasoning, and attempt to protect themselves by stating: “We have no way of knowing whether the Ethiopian eunuch was in fact gay. But we do know he was part of a class of people commonly associated with homosexuality and that this fact was completely irrelevant to whether he could become a Christian.” Notice, however, that while they make this statement near the end of the section, the title reads: “The Early Church Welcomed a Gay Man.” So, which is it? The fact of the matter is, there is no possible way to logically contend that we know the eunuch was gay.

The irony of the article lies in the fact that we have other texts that specifically state that the early Church did welcome homosexuals—once they repented of their sinful lifestyle and stopped practicing homosexuality. First Corinthians 6:9-11 explains that unrighteous people, such as fornicators, idol worshippers, adulterers, and homosexuals will not (and cannot) “inherit the Kingdom of God.” Verse 11 of that passage, however, states: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (emp. added). In truth, all homosexuals, fornicators, adulterers, and sexually immoral people are welcomed to follow Jesus and be added to His Church—if, and only if, they are willing to repent of their sexual sins and live the righteous life that God calls them to live. So, yes, the early Church welcomed all kinds of sinners, including homosexuals, based on their repentance and faithfulness to Christ. But faithful churches did not welcome those into their fellowship that refused to abandon their sexually immoral lifestyles (1 Corinthians 5).

REFERENCES

Miner, Jeff and John Connoley (2002), “The Early Church Welcomed a Gay Man,” http://www.whywouldwe.net/site/the-early-church-welcomed-a-gay-man.

Miller, Dave (2004), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2577.

God’s Just Destruction of the Canaanites by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1630&b=Exodus

God’s Just Destruction of the Canaanites

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the 1930s and 40s, the Nazi regime committed state-sponsored genocide of so-called “inferior races.” Of the approximately nine million Jews who lived in Europe at the beginning of the 1930s, some six million of them were exterminated. The Nazis murdered approximately one million Jewish children, two million Jewish women, and three million Jewish men. The Jews were starved, gassed, and experimented on like animals. In addition, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime slaughtered another three million Poles, Soviets, gypsies, and people with disabilities (see “Holocaust,” 2011 for more information). Most sane people, including Christians and many atheists (e.g., Antony Flew, Wallace Matson), have interpreted the Nazis’ actions for what they were—cruel, callous, and nefarious.
Some 3,400 years before the Holocaust, the God of the Bible commanded the Israelites to “destroy all the inhabitants of the land” of Canaan (Joshua 9:24). They were to conquer, kill, and cast out the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Exodus 23:23; Deuteronomy 7:1-2; Joshua 3:10). After crossing the Jordan River, we learn in the book of Joshua that the Israelites “utterly destroyed all that was in the city [of Jericho], both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword…. [T]hey burned the city and all that was in it with fire” (Joshua 6:21,24). They also “utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai” (Joshua 8:26), killing 12,000 men and women and hanging their king (8:25,29). In Makkedah and Libnah, the Israelites “let none remain” (Joshua 10:28,30). They struck Lachish “and all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword” (10:32). The Israelites then conquered Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, Debir, and Hazor (10:33-39; 11:1-1). “So all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took and struck with the edge of the sword. He utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded” (Joshua 11:12).
God had the Israelites kill countless thousands, perhaps millions, of people throughout the land of Canaan. It was genocide in the sense that it was a planned, systematic, limited extermination of a number of nation states from a relatively small area in the Middle East (cf. “Genocide,” 2000; cf. also “Genocide,” 2012). But, it was not a war against a particular race (from the Greek genos) or ethnic group. Nor were the Israelites commanded to pursue and kill the Canaanite nations if they fled from Israel’s Promised Land. The Israelites were to drive out and dispossess the nations of their land (killing all who resisted the dispossession), but they were not instructed to annihilate a particular race or ethnic group from the face of the Earth.
Still, many find God’s commands to conquer and destroy the Canaanite nation states problematic. How could a loving God instruct one group of people to kill and conquer another group? America’s most well-known critic of Christianity in the late 1700s and early 1800s, Thomas Paine (one of only a handful of America’s Founding Fathers who did not claim to be a Christian), called the God of the Old Testament “the Mars of the Jews, the fighting God of Israel,” Who was “boisterous, contemptible, and vulgar” (Paine, 1807). Two centuries later, Richard Dawkins (arguably the most famous atheist in the world today), published his book The God Delusion, which soon became a New York Times bestseller. One of the most oft-quoted phrases from this work comes from page 31, where Dawkins called God, a “racist, infanticidal, genocidal…capriciously malevolent bully” (2006). According to one search engine, this quote (in part or in whole) is found on-line approximately one million times. The fact is, critics of the God of the Bible are fond of repeating the allegation that, because of His instruction to the Israelites to kill millions of people in their conquest of Canaan, the God of the Bible has (allegedly) shown Himself to be an unruly, shameful, offensive, genocidal, “evil monster” (Dawkins, p. 248; cf. Hitchens, 2007, p. 107).

Was God’s Campaign Against Canaan Immoral?

How could a supremely good (Mark 10:18), all-loving (1 John 4:8), perfectly holy God (Leviticus 11:44-45) order the Israelites to slay with swords myriads of human beings, letting “none remain” in Canaan? Is such a planned, systematic extermination of nations not equivalent to the murderous actions of the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s, as atheists and other critics of Christianity would have us believe? In truth, God’s actions in Israel’s conquest of Canaan were in perfect harmony with His supremely loving, merciful, righteous, just, and holy nature.

Punishing Evildoers is Not Unloving

Similar to how merciful parents, principals, policemen, and judges can justly administer punishment to rule-breakers and evildoers, so too can the all-knowing, all-loving Creator of the Universe. Loving parents and principals have administered corporal punishment appropriately to children for years (cf. Proverbs 13:24). Merciful policemen, who are constantly saving he lives of the innocent, have the authority (both from God and the government—Romans 13:1-4) to kill a wicked person who is murdering others. Just judges have the authority to sentence a depraved child rapist to death. Loving-kindness and corporal or capital punishment are not antithetical. Prior to conquering Canaan, God commanded the Israelites, saying,

You shall not hate your brother in your heart…. You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself…. And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself (Leviticus 19:17-18,33-34; cf. Romans 13:9).

The faithful Jew was expected, as are Christians, to “not resist an evil person” (Matthew 5:39) but rather “go the extra mile” (Matthew 5:41) and “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39). “Love,” after all, “is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10; cf. Matthew 22:36-40). Interestingly, however, the Israelite was commanded to punish (even kill) lawbreakers. Just five chapters after commanding the individual Israelite to “not take vengeance,” but “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), God twice said that murderers would receive the death penalty (Leviticus 24:21,17).

The Wickedness of the Inhabitants of Canaan

The Canaanite nations were punished because of their extreme wickedness. God did not cast out the Canaanites for being a particular race or ethnic group. God did not send the Israelites into the land of Canaan to destroy a number of righteous nations. On the contrary, the Canaanite nations were horribly depraved. They practiced “abominable customs” (Leviticus 18:30) and did “detestable things” (Deuteronomy 18:9, NASB). They practiced idolatry, witchcraft, soothsaying, and sorcery. They attempted to cast spells upon people and call up the dead (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).
Their “cultic practice was barbarous and thoroughly licentious” (Unger, 1954, p. 175). Their “deities…had no moral character whatever,” which “must have brought out the worst traits in their devotees and entailed many of the most demoralizing practices of the time,” including sensuous nudity, orgiastic nature-worship, snake worship, and even child sacrifice (Unger, p. 175; cf. Albright, 1940, p. 214). As Moses wrote, the inhabitants of Canaan would “burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:30). The Canaanite nations were anything but “innocent.” In truth, “[t]hese Canaanite cults were utterly immoral, decadent, and corrupt, dangerously contaminating and thoroughly justifying the divine command to destroy their devotees” (Unger, 1988). They were so nefarious that God said they defiled the land and the land could stomach them no longer—“the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25).

The Longsuffering of God

Unlike the foolish, impulsive, quick-tempered reactions of many men (Proverbs 14:29), the Lord is “slow to anger and great in mercy” (Psalm 145:8). He is “longsuffering…, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Immediately following a reminder to the Christians in Rome that the Old Testament was “written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope,” the apostle Paul referred to God as “the God of patience” (Romans 15:4-5). Throughout the Old Testament, the Bible writers portrayed God as longsuffering.
Though in Noah’s day, “the wickedness of man was great in the earth” and “ever intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5), “the Divine longsuffering waited” (1 Peter 3:20). (It seems as though God delayed flooding Earth for 120 years as His Spirit’s message of righteousness was preached to a wicked world—Genesis 6:3; 2 Peter 2:5.) In the days of Abraham, God ultimately decided to spare the iniquitous city of Sodom, not if 50 righteous people were found living therein, but only 10 righteous individuals.
And what about prior to God’s destruction of the Canaanite nations? Did God quickly decide to cast them out of the land? Did He respond to the peoples’ wickedness like an impulsive, reckless mad-man? Or was He, as the Bible repeatedly states and exemplifies, longsuffering? Indeed, God waited. He waited more than four centuries to bring judgment upon the inhabitants of Canaan. Although the Amorites were already a sinful people in Abraham’s day, God delayed in giving the descendants of the patriarch the Promised Land. He would wait until the Israelites had been in Egypt for hundreds of years, because at the time that God spoke with Abraham “the iniquity of the Amorites” was “not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16). [NOTE: “The Amorites were so numerous and powerful a tribe in Canaan that they are sometimes named for the whole of the ancient inhabitants, as they are here” (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, 1997).] In Abraham’s day, the inhabitants of Canaan were not so degenerate that God would bring judgment upon them. However, by the time of Joshua (more than 400 years later), the Canaanites’ iniquity was full, and God used the army of Israel to destroy them.
Yes, God is longsuffering, but His longsuffering is not an “eternal” suffering. His patience with impenitent sinners eventually ends. It ended for a wicked world in the days of Noah. It ended for Sodom and Gomorrah in the days of Abraham. And it eventually ended for the inhabitants of Canaan, whom God justly destroyed.

What About the Innocent Children?

The children of Canaan were not guilty of their parents’ sins (cf. Ezekiel 18:20); they were sinless, innocent, precious human beings (cf. Matthew 18:3-5; see Butt, 2003). So how could God justly take the lives of children, any children, “who have no knowledge of good and evil” (Deuteronomy 1:39)? The fact is, as Dave Miller properly noted, “Including the children in the destruction of such populations actually spared them from a worse condition—that of being reared to be as wicked as their parents and thus face eternal punishment. All persons who die in childhood, according to the Bible, are ushered to Paradise and will ultimately reside in Heaven. Children who have parents who are evil must naturally suffer innocently while on Earth (e.g., Numbers 14:33)” (Miller, 2009). [NOTE: For a superb, extensive discussion on the relationship between (1) the goodness of God, (2) the contradictory, hideousness of atheism, and (3) God bringing about the death of various infants throughout history, see Kyle Butt’s article “Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?” (2009).]

CONCLUSION

Though the enemies of the God of the Bible are frequently heard criticizing Israel’s conquest of Canaan, the fact is, such a conquest was in complete harmony with God’s perfectly loving, holy, and righteous nature. After patiently waiting for hundreds of years, God eventually used the Israelites to bring judgment upon myriads of wicked Canaanites. Simultaneously, He spared their children a fate much worse than physical death—the horror of growing up in a reprehensible culture and becoming like their hedonistic parents—and immediately ushered them into a pain-free, marvelous place called Paradise (Luke 16:19-31; 23:43).

REFERENCES

Albright, William F. (1940), From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins).
Butt, Kyle (2003), “Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1201.
Butt, Kyle (2009), “Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=260.
Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin).
“Genocide” (2000), The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
“Genocide” (2012), Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide.
Hitchens, Christopher (2007), God is Not Great (New York: Twelve).
“Holocaust” (2011), Encyclopedia.com, http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Holocaust.aspx#1.
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Miller, Dave (2009), “Did God Order the Killing of Babies?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2810.
Paine, Thomas (1807), “Essay on Dream,” http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/paine/dream.htm.
Unger, Merrill F. (1954), Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Unger, Merrill F. (1988), “Canaan,” The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

How Kids Get into Trouble by Richard Mansel

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/trouble.html

How Kids Get into Trouble

In our crime-ridden society, Christian parents are more concerned that their children grow into good adults. They want them to maintain pure lives uncluttered by the miseries around them. Drugs, smoking, alcohol and unmarried sex are endangering children at an ever increasing rate and at progressively younger ages.
Consider a new study released by the University of Minnesota and published in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health. It is the largest study of its kind concerning adolescence.
The principal investigator of this study, Dr. Robert Blum, wrote, "How young people do at school and what they do with their free time are the most important determinants for every risky behavior we studied." Later, the article says, "substantial time 'hanging out' and other factors were three to eight times more likely to predict a sex, drugs and booze-filled lifestyle."
The article continues, "Parents should be on guard if they see their kids struggling with school or spending large blocks of unsupervised time with sketchy friends, the study found." Blum said, "Parents should know that if a teen's friends smoke or drink, the chances go up substantially that the teen will also smoke or drink or engage in other problem behaviors. It's very clear that parents need to know who their children's friends are and what they spend their time doing."
In our society, with an increasing cost of living and the availability of adult toys, more and more children are left unsupervised. If both parents work as a result of legitimate financial need that is one thing. If they work to buy bigger houses, cars and boats then is the loss of their children worth their covetousness? Are we sacrificing a generation on the altar of greed? Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:33, "Do not be deceived, 'Evil company corrupts good habits.'" Or, as is fitting for our age. "Covetous parents corrupt the good habits of children."
Parents should consider child-rearing their primary function. Paul's point, as applied here, is that these friends have become substitute role models and, as immature adolescents, they are ill-fitted for the job. They will do what their lusts tell them to do.
Repeated studies have shown that children whose parents are active in their lives, are more likely to avoid immoral behavior. Parents are to instruct their charges in mature, moral decision-making based on God's principles. If parents leave the 'instruction' to their children's friends, then they need not be surprised when their children grow up with different principles and moral beliefs than their own. Will it be the children's fault entirely?
Richard Mansel

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

Beyond beautiful! by Gary Rose

This picture brings back a memory from long ago- Mr. Rodgers. Mr Rodgers used to say something like: Its a beautiful day in the neighborhood.  His pleasant attitude and easy-going way is something I am unlikely to ever forget.  And today is a beautiful day out there- very pleasant indeed!!!

And what makes it pleasant?  The Psalmist says....

Psalm 118 (World English Bible)

 ¹⁹ Open to me the gates of righteousness. 
I will enter into them. 
I will give thanks to Yah. 

  ²⁰ This is the gate of Yahweh; 
the righteous will enter into it. 

  ²¹ I will give thanks to you, for you have answered me, 
and have become my salvation. 

  ²² The stone which the builders rejected 
has become the cornerstone.

  ²³ This is Yahweh’s doing. 
It is marvelous in our eyes. 

  ²⁴ This is the day that Yahweh has made. 
We will rejoice and be glad in it! (emp. added vss. 22-24)

Nice days come and go, but the God of Heaven (Yahweh) has made a way of righteousness for me, even ME!!!  The stone the builders rejected (Jesus) seems brighter to me than any warming sun or gentle breeze that could ever be.  Marvelous, simply marvelous!!! I will rejoice in today because I have hope in "the stone", the foundation of my future. Rejoice, be glad; there is something more wonderful ahead of us- life beyond life and joy beyond joy- forever!!!!!

Amen and Amen!!!!