Take Time with the Text by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1130

Take Time with the Text

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In today’s fast-paced, get-it-and-go, instant-messaging world of communications, Christians must resist the temptation to treat the Bible like our latest text message. We hurriedly read incoming messages, abbreviate responses, reply without proofing, and forward without considering possible consequences (cf. James 1:19). We rush through conversations and speed-read everything from school assignments to the Sunday paper. Sadly, the Bible often gets the same treatment.

Unlike many mundane things that we carelessly read in this technologically advanced age, the Bible must be read thoroughly, persistently, and methodically. Since “[a]ll Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16, emp. added) we cannot settle for a Cliffs Notes® version. Since there were many writers from different places, writing to different people in different languages, and since there is a major difference between the Old Testament and New Testament (cf. Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 8:7-13), we must “[b]e diligent,…rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). The context must be considered. Figures of speech must be taken into account. The application of a 3,500-year-old Book must be made carefully.

Divine, biblical truths are not to be taken lightly. They are to be considered in light of life and death, heaven and hell. We cannot simply skim the surface of Scripture, only occasionally contemplating on truth and error, good and evil. Blessings come to the person “who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work” (James 1:25, emp. added; cf. Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:18-20).

We are not only to read God’s Word; we are to meditate on it.

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law he meditates day and night. He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that brings forth its fruit in its season, whose leaf also shall not wither; and whatever he does shall prosper (Psalm 1:1-3, emp. added).

We are to think on it, endeavor to understand it, and take pleasure in reflecting on it (Barnes, 1997; cf. Psalm 119). “To meditate in God’s word is to discourse with ourselves concerning the great things contained in it, with a close application of mind” (Henry, 1997). Just as eating and digesting are two different functions, so are reading and meditating. As Jamieson, et al. noted: “Meditation upon, is to reading the Word what digesting is to eating. Without the slow and lengthened process of digestion, food would not nourish the body: without meditation, the Word read will not nourish the soul” (1997).

In short, Christianity is not a drive-through religion. Effective, soul-nurturing Bible study is not the equivalent of glancing at your favorite Bible verse on your iPhone once a week. Judgment Day is not prepared for by attending a Bible class once a month. Like those noble Bereans who “received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11, emp. added), Christians must continue to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). “My hands also I will lift up to Your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on Your statutes” (Psalm 119:48, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1997), Notes on the Old and New Testaments (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Henry, Matthew (1997), Commentary on the Whole Bible (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Did Jesus Condone Law-breaking? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1276

Did Jesus Condone Law-breaking?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The Pharisees certainly did not think that the Son of God was beyond reproach. Following Jesus’ feeding of the four thousand, they came “testing” Him, asking Him to show them a sign from heaven (Matthew 16:1). Later in the gospel of Matthew (19:3ff.), the writer recorded how “the Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ ” It was their aim on this occasion, as on numerous other occasions, to entangle Jesus in His teachings by asking Him a potentially entrapping question—one that, if answered in a way that the Pharisees had anticipated, might bring upon Jesus the wrath of Herod Antipas (cf. Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29) and/or some of His fellow Jews (e.g., the school of Hillel, or the school of Shammai). A third time the Pharisees sought to “entangle Him in His talk” (Matthew 22:15) as they asked, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (22:17). The jealous and hypocritical Pharisees were so relentless in their efforts to destroy the Lord’s influence that on one occasion they even accused Jesus’ disciples of breaking the law as they “went through the grainfields on the Sabbath…were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat” (Matthew 12:1ff.). [NOTE: “Their knowledge of so trifling an incident shows how minutely they observed all his deeds” (Coffman, 1984, p. 165). The microscopic scrutiny under which Jesus lived, likely was even more relentless than what some “stars” experience today. In one sense, the Pharisees could be considered the “paparazzi” of Jesus’ day.] Allegedly, what the disciples were doing on this particular Sabbath was considered “work,” which the Law of Moses forbade (Matthew 12:2; cf. Exodus 20:9-10; 34:21).

Jesus responded to the criticism of the Pharisees by giving the truth of the matter, and at the same time revealing the Pharisees’ hypocrisy. As was somewhat customary for Jesus when being tested by His enemies (cf. Matthew 12:11-12; 15:3; 21:24-25; etc.), He responded to the Pharisees’ accusation with two questions. First, He asked: “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?” (12:3-4). Jesus reminded the Pharisees of an event in the life of David (recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1ff.), where he and others, while fleeing from king Saul, ate of the showbread, which divine law restricted to the priests (Leviticus 24:5-9). Some commentators have unjustifiably concluded that Jesus was implying innocence on the part of David (and that God’s laws are subservient to human needs—cf. Zerr, 1952, 5:41; Dummelow, 1937, p. 666), and thus He was defending His disciples “lawless” actions with the same reasoning. Actually, however, just the opposite is true. Jesus explicitly stated that what David did was wrong (“not lawful”—12:4), and that what His disciples did was right—they were “guiltless” (12:7). Furthermore, as J.W. McGarvey observed: “If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end to suffering for the name of Christ, and an end even of self-denial” (1875, p. 104). The disciples were not permitted by Jesus to break the law on this occasion (or any other) just because it was convenient (cf. Matthew 5:17-19). The Pharisees simply were wrong in their accusations. The only “law” Jesus’ disciples broke was the Pharisaical interpretation of the law (which seems to have been more sacred to the Pharisees than the law itself). In response to such hyper-legalism, Burton Coffman forcefully stated:

In the Pharisees’ view, the disciples were guilty of threshing wheat! Such pedantry, nit-picking, and magnification of trifles would also have made them guilty of irrigating land, if they had chanced to knock off a few drops of dew while passing through the fields! The Pharisees were out to “get” Jesus; and any charge was better than none (1984, p. 165, emp. added).

Jesus used the instruction of 1 Samuel 21 to get the Pharisees to recognize their insincerity, and to justify His disciples. David, a man about whom the Jews ever boasted, blatantly violated God’s law by eating the showbread, and yet the Pharisees justified him. On the other hand, Jesus’ disciples merely plucked some grain on the Sabbath while walking through a field, an act that the law did not forbid, and yet the Pharisees condemned them. Had the Pharisees not approved of David’s conduct, they could have responded by saying, “You judge yourself. You’re all sinners.” Their reaction to Jesus’ question, however, was that of hypocrites who had been exposed—silence.

Jesus then asked a second question, saying, “Have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” (Matthew 12:5). Here, Jesus wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge that even the law itself condoned some work on the Sabbath day. Although the Pharisees acted as if all work was banned on this day, it was actually the busiest day of the week for priests.

They baked and changed the showbread; they performed sabbatical sacrifices (Num. xxviii. 9), and two lambs were killed on the sabbath in addition to the daily sacrifice. This involved the killing, skinning, and cleaning of the animals, and the building of the fire to consume the sacrifice. They also trimmed the gold lamps, burned incense, and performed various other duties (McGarvey, n.d., pp. 211-212).

One of those “other duties” would have been to circumcise young baby boys when the child’s eighth day fell on a Sabbath. The purpose of Jesus citing these “profane” priestly works was to prove that the Sabbath prohibition was not unconditional. [NOTE: Jesus used the term “profane,” not because there was a real desecration of the temple by the priests as they worked, but “to express what was true according to the mistaken notions of the Pharisees as to manual works performed on the Sabbath” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 676).] The truth is, the Sabbath law “did not forbid work absolutely, but labor for worldly gain. Activity in the work of God was both allowed and commanded” (McGarvey, n.d., p. 212). Coffman thus concluded: “Just as the priests served the temple on the Sabbath day and were guiltless, his [Jesus’—EL] disciples might also serve Christ, the Greater Temple, without incurring guilt” (p. 167). Just as the priests who served God in the temple on the Sabbath were totally within the law, so likewise were Jesus’ disciples as they served the “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8), Whose holiness was greater than that of the temple (12:6).

REFERENCES

Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).

Coffman, Burton (1984), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Dummelow, J.R. (1937), One Volume Commentary (New York: MacMillan).

McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).

Zerr, E.M. (1952), Bible Commentary (Raytown, MO: Reprint Publications).

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

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4704

"Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith"

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

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

“BLIND FAITH”—MANY HAVE IT

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

Sadly many people have such a “faith.” Many people call themselves Christians, and claim to believe in the Bible, but clearly have not read it. They have a “blind faith” which, according to the Law of Rationality (Ruby, 1960, pp. 130-131), is irrational. Their belief in God is not based on the evidence, but is a blind leap into the dark without it. Philosphers call this phenomenon “fideism” (Popkin, 1967, 3:201-202). However, the biblical portrait of faith (Greek, pistis—translated equally as faith, belief, trust, or having confidence in; Arndt, et al., 1979, pp. 661-664) is not what some in Christendom have defined it to be nor what Hollywood has portrayed it to be. It is not “believing when common sense tells you not to,” as the 1947 movie, Miracle on 34^th Street suggested (Seaton). It is not a “leap of faith” like Dr. Jones’ actions in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Spielberg, 1989). The Bible does not advocate a “Feel, don’t think” mentality, like that encouraged by Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars (Lucas, 1999). Biblical faith is based on evidence (Hebrews 11:1). It is trust—comparable to the trust one has in a parent or friend—that is based on proof. We trust someone when he has proven himself to be trustworthy. When one listens to or reads revelation from God’s Word (i.e., what Bible believers call “special revelation”) and the information therein proves to be true, one develops faith in God (Romans 10:17). When one examines the evidence from the created order (i.e., what Bible believers call “general revelation”), and it points to the existence of a supernatural Being as Creator—rather than blind, random, accidental change over time—we learn to trust God based on that evidence.

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

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

BUT WE DON’T

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

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

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

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

ACTUALLY, EVOLUTIONISTS DO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abortion & Mental Health by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1724

Abortion & Mental Health

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

As the abortion debate continues to rage in America, the evidence continues to mount—not only that the pre-born infant is human—but that abortion is also harmful to the mother. For example, University of Oslo researchers conducted a study in which they compared the psychological after-effects of miscarriage and abortion (“Abortion ‘Leaves...,’” 2005). While miscarriage was associated with more mental distress in the six months after the loss of a baby, abortion had a much longer lasting negative effect. Anne Nordal Broen, the leader of the team of researchers, said the responses of the women in the miscarriage group were similar to those expected after a traumatic life event. But the abortion group had more complex responses. Anna Pringle, spokesperson for the anti-abortion charity Life, observed: “This confirms years of experience with women who come to us for counseling after abortion. The emotional suffering can be massive” (“Abortion ‘Leaves...’”). Richard Warren, from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, agreed: “It has always been considered, and this study also shows, that the decision to terminate may bring with it long-standing feelings of anxiety and guilt” (“Abortion ‘Leaves...’”).

Additional evidence comes from New Zealand—a country where abortion is legal. Researchers for the Christchurch Health and Development Study conducted a 25-year longitudinal study on the long-term effects of abortion on the mental health of young women ages 15 to 25. Reporting their results in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, the scientists found that those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, and drug-use disorders. Their conclusion: “The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems” (Fergusson, et al., 2006, 47[1]:16).

These findings are congruent with the Bible’s insistence that abortion, like other sins, is not only spiritually destructive (Miller, 2003), but psychologically and emotionally damaging as well (Proverbs 15:13-15; Isaiah 57:20-21). Those who are acquainted with the God of the Bible and His Word are aware that when His directives are violated, adverse consequences inevitably ensue. Since the Creator has provided His creatures with insight regarding how life is to be lived and how happiness may be achieved, going against His will results, not only in spiritual destruction, but in physical, emotional, and psychological devastation as well. The pagan nations that killed their own children were denounced by God as evil, committing abomination, and engaging in an action that He would never think of commanding them to do (Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35). When Christian ethics are abandoned, the negative ramifications are extensive and far-reaching. Indeed, “[t]he fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10). It is He Who insists that we recognize that “children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3). Conformity to His instructions will result in positive mental health and the peace that “surpasses all understanding” (Philippians 4:7).

REFERENCES

“Abortion ‘Leaves Mental Legacy’” (2005), BBC News, December 12, [On-line], URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4520576.stm.

Fergusson, David M., L. John Horwood, and Elizabeth M. Ridder (2006), “Abortion in Young Women and Subsequent Mental Health,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47[1]:16, January, [On-line], URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j. 1469-7610.2005.01538.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28abortion%29.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1964.

Different Names, Same Person by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=786&b=1%20Chronicles

Different Names, Same Person

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Names can be rather confusing at times. A teacher might become puzzled on the first day of school when she finds out that half of her students do not immediately respond when she calls roll. The reason: they normally are called by another name than that which appears on the school records. A coach may not immediately recognize a certain player’s identity, because his team speaks of this player (on the opposing team) only by using a nickname. After some investigation, however, the coach soon learns who the player actually is. Millions of individuals through the millennia have worn more than one name. Even at Apologetics Press, nearly half of my co-workers wear derivatives of their full, official name. Our Production Administrator's name is James Monroe, but he prefers to be called Jim. David Lee, our Executive Director, is just Dave to those who know him. Most people in the twenty-first century understand that this is simply the way it is; people often go by more than one name.

When reading the Bible, we need also to remember that people in ancient times frequently had more than one name as well. Keeping this in mind will help clarify various passages that may seem somewhat ambiguous. When studying the book of Genesis, it is helpful to bear in mind that Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Genesis 17:5), and Jacob’s to Israel (Genesis 32:28). Later, while living in Egypt, “Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnath-Paaneah” (Genesis 41:45). Numerous other individuals mentioned in the Bible also were known by more than one name.

• Moses’ father-in-law was known both as Reuel and Jethro (Exodus 2:18; 3:1).
• Gideon acquired the name Jerubbaal because he destroyed the altar of Baal at Ophrah (Judges 6:32; 7:1; 8:29,35).
• Pharaoh Necho changed the name of King Josiah’s oldest son, Eliakim, to Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34).
• The apostle Peter is sometimes called Peter, Simon Peter, Simon, and Cephas (Matthew 14:28; 16:16; 17:25; John 1:42; 1 Corinthians 1:12).
• And Saul is called Paul (Acts 13:9).

Attention needs to be given to how the Bible writers frequently used different names when referring to the same person, because recognition of such name usage may help clarify certain alleged contradictions. Take, for instance, Matthew 1:9. Someone might wonder why Matthew mentioned Uzziah as being the father of Jotham, while 2 Kings 15:1-7 and 1 Chronicles 3:12 call Jotham’s father Azariah. The answer lies in the fact that that both names apply to the same person. Within the same chapter (2 Kings 15), Jotham’s father is called both Azariah (15:7) and Uzziah (15:32). The names are different, but they refer to the same person (cf. 2 Chronicles 26:1-23; Isaiah 1:1).

Countless Bible questions can be answered logically just by acknowledging that the ancients often were just as flexible in their giving of names as people are in the twenty-first century.

How can they hear without a preacher? by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/preachersneeded.html

How can they hear without a preacher?

Everyone needs to hear the gospel!

After Jesus rose from the dead, He told His followers: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15, 16).

Joel prophesied that after God poured out His Spirit, “Whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved” (Joel 2:32). On the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1-4) and Peter preached the good news: “Whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved” (Acts 2:21).

How were his hearers to call on the name of the Lord? Peter told them: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Their sins would be forgiven when they called on the name of the Lord by being baptized in the name of Jesus.

About four years later, after Saul of Tarsus believed and had fasted for three days, Ananias told him: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Saul’s sins were washed away when he was baptized in the name of Jesus. 

Thus, one “calls on the name of the Lord” for salvation by being baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). But first the gospel must be preached.

Preachers are needed to take the gospel to everyone in the world.

The missionary assignment of Jesus calls for dedicated evangelists, who know God’s word well, to fan out into the whole world with the gospel.

Paul was so thankful for God’s grace that he preached the gospel the rest of his life. We need grateful men today who will dedicate their lives to preaching the gospel.

As Paul explains: “‘Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:13, 14).

Does God want you to preach?

All tasks in the church are important (Romans 12:4-6). Each Christian dedicates his whole life to God and uses his abilities to serve God.

You no doubt are serving well now, but more preachers are urgently needed, men who are willing to dedicate their lives to proclaiming the gospel.

We can all pray that such men will arise. Jesus said: “The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest” (Luke 10:2). And we all can help to send.

What characteristics are needed to preach the gospel?

Not everyone who wants to preach, ought to preach. Paul left Timothy at Ephesus to “charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3). Some had turned aside to idle talk, “desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm” (1 Timothy 1:7).

To be a faithful preacher, you must know the truth. Paul was “a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Timothy 2:7). When Paul preached, he spoke the truth.

The world already has too many men who preach lies. So please do not preach unless you preach the truth. “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). “He who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully” (Jeremiah 23:28).

To know the truth you must know the Scriptures. Strive to be “mighty in the Scriptures” like Apollos (Acts 18:24). Follow the example of Ezra: “For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezra 7:10). First, he prepared his heart. To do what? (1) To seek the law of the Lord (2) and to do it (3) and teach it. Before you can proclaim the truth, you must know the truth and apply it to your own life.

Preaching requires faith. You must depend on God, not man. Men will betray you. Your brethren will disappoint you. Many will oppose you. But you can always depend on God and you must look to Him for support.

One must be humble to preach. This has to do with faith. Humble men trust, not in themselves but in God. Arrogant men trust in themselves. A preacher’s goal must be to glorify God, not to glorify himself.

If you think you lack the ability to preach, you are right! Paul asked, “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Corinthians 2:16). Yet, God may want you to preach anyway, because then you will trust in Him and the power of His word, and not in your own ability. 

When God called Moses, he objected: “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should bring the children of Israel out of Egypt?” (Exodus 3:11). “Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3). Because Moses was humble, God could do great and powerful things through him. What was God’s reply? “I will certainly be with you” (Exodus 3:12). What did Jesus say after He gave the great commission? “And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).

When God called Jeremiah, he objected: “Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I cannot speak, for I am a youth” (Jeremiah 1:6). What did God reply? “Do not say, ‘I am a youth,’ for you shall go to all to whom I send you, and whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of their faces, for I am with you to deliver you” (Jeremiah 1:7, 8). Jeremiah explains further: “Then the Lord put forth His hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me: ‘Behold, I have put My words in your mouth’” (Jeremiah 1:9).

Jeremiah was to place his confidence in God’s word, not in his own ability to speak. Jeremiah was an inspired prophet. God revealed to him directly what he was to say.

Preachers today are not inspired. They must study the Scriptures to know what to preach. But when, on the basis of that study, they preach the word, God’s word is in their mouth, and they can preach forcefully and with confidence. As Paul says: “‘The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith which we preach)” (Romans 10:8).

You do not have to be an orator to preach the gospel. God’s word is powerful enough to accomplish God’s purposes.¹

Paul was not an impressive speaker. Faultfinders said of him: “For his letters ... are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible” (2 Corinthians 10:10).

Paul placed his confidence, not in his own ability, but in the power of the gospel. He wrote: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is God’s power unto salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16 RD).

Someone who preaches, deserves support.

“The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Timothy 5:18). “And how shall they preach unless they are sent?” (Romans 10:15).

But a real preacher will preach whether he is supported or not. What preacher could be more dedicated and capable than Paul? Yet often he lacked support (1 Corinthians 4:11; Philippians 4:11-15). Paul worked with his hands as a tentmaker to supplement his support (Acts 18:3; 1 Corinthians 4:12). Lack of support is no excuse for not preaching.

If you preach, you are a preacher, whether you are supported or not. Many preachers through the centuries have supported themselves. Rita’s father and my father were both self-supporting preachers. Someone who is supported has more time for study and can more easily go to distant places.

To preach, you must be willing to sacrifice. Most gospel preachers could earn more money doing something else.

You must be willing to suffer. Paul wrote: “For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day” (2 Timothy 1:12). To Timothy Paul wrote: “You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ” (2 Timothy 2:3).

The world is lost in sin. The gospel is God’s power to save. But first, people must hear the gospel. And how shall they hear without a preacher? Preachers are needed. Who will dedicate the rest of his life to preaching the gospel? Let us all pray that God will send workers into His vineyard. And let us support those who are preaching the gospel throughout the world. Amen.

Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise. Permission for reference use has been granted.

Footnotes:

---

¹ “For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, and do not return there, but water the earth, and make it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:10, 11).

---

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

Time, centricity and choice by Gary Rose

I saw this saying some time ago and liked it so much that I decided to save it for future use; today is that day. This saying made me think why people stop doing things. To me, it breaks down into three segments, each increasingly more important.

First is the concept of absolutes. As long as there is life- there is hope; the situation may change. Just because we think something is over, does not mean that it is over. Often, God works in our lives on a different timescale than we can comprehend. Suppose God is working a work that will only come to fruition at the very end of your life? Don't give up- God may not be finished with you yet!!! 

Second is the concept of centricity. God is the focal point of all existence, not you! Get over yourself and look to God for direction and stop trying to direct everything in your life!

Lastly, is the concept of finality. How many people commit suicide each year without giving thought that they are applying a permanent solution to a temporary problem?

The Bible encourages us to go to God when we need help and not to rely just on our own ability to deal with life.

Here are to examples: Judas, who made a wrong decision and Peter who chose the right path....

Matthew, Chapter 27 (WEB)

¹ Now when morning had come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:  ² and they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pontius Pilate, the governor. ³ Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that Jesus was condemned, felt remorse, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,  ⁴ saying, “I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood.”

But they said, “What is that to us? You see to it.” 
  ⁵ He threw down the pieces of silver in the sanctuary, and departed. He went away and hanged himself. 

Compared to...

Matthew, Chapter 26 (WEB)

 ⁶⁹ Now Peter was sitting outside in the court, and a maid came to him, saying, “You were also with Jesus, the Galilean!” 

  ⁷⁰ But he denied it before them all, saying, “I don’t know what you are talking about.” 

  ⁷¹ When he had gone out onto the porch, someone else saw him, and said to those who were there, “This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.” 

  ⁷² Again he denied it with an oath, “I don’t know the man.” 

  ⁷³ After a little while those who stood by came and said to Peter, “Surely you are also one of them, for your speech makes you known.” 

  ⁷⁴ Then he began to curse and to swear, “I don’t know the man!” 

Immediately the rooster crowed.  ⁷⁵ Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Then he went out and wept bitterly. (emp. added, vs. 75)

AND...

Matthew, Chapter 28 (WEB)

¹⁶ But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had sent them.  ¹⁷ When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted. (emp. added vss. 16f.) ¹⁸ Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.   ¹⁹  Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,   ²⁰  teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. 

Both were disciples of Jesus. Judas did not turn to either his fellow disciples or God, but applied a permanent solution to a temporary problem. He could have repented and remained faithful, but CHOSE NOT TO!!!

Peter, had remorse (he wept bitterly) but chose to trust God, gain strength from the fellowship of his brethren (Jesus' disciples) and eventually submit to the will of God. 

All this is not just restricted to suicide, it applies to a great many other things in life. Look to God for direction and your life will change for the better! 

And never, ever stop trying as long as you have one more breath to take.