11/22/17

Australopithicus Sediba: Another Relative We Never Had by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2872

Australopithicus Sediba: Another Relative We Never Had

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.
Recently we wrote about Woman X, an alleged human ancestor that was concocted from a small part of a pinky finger found in the Altai mountains in Siberia (Butt, 2010). A few months before that, we demolished both Ardi and Ida, which was not difficult, since both were foundationless gimmicks that reeked of propaganda masquerading as science (Butt, 2009; Lyons and Butt, 2009). The desperate rate at which the evolutionary science community is pumping out “human ancestors” belies the fact that thinking people are not buying the unfounded concept of human evolution. The cycle of reading about an “amazing” new ancestor, only to discover that the fossils prove nothing, are misrepresented and misinterpreted, and are obviously trumped-up to bolster a decaying corpse of a false theory that was long ago destroyed, is becoming increasingly tiresome.
It is a fact that alleged human evolution defies all the known, provable, testable laws of nature (Harrub and Thompson, 2003). This fact has not dissuaded the evolutionary community from parading yet another “human ancestor” before the world. The latest creature has been dubbed Australopithecus sediba, which means “southern ape, wellspring” (Schmid, 2010). Two skeletons, purportedly of a female, in her late 20s or early 30s, and a male, who may have been eight or nine years old, were discovered in a pit in South Africa (2010).
Are these creatures “links” between monkeys and man? Richard Potts stated: “The ‘missing link’ made sense when we could take the earliest fossils and the latest ones and line them up in a row. It was easy back then” (as quoted in Schmid, 2010). But Schmid went on to write: “But now researchers know there was great diversity of branches in the human family tree rather than a single smooth line” (2010, emp. added). [NOTE: Ironically, just last year, the evolutionary community was using the “missing link” terminology to describe Ida. So, Potts’ “back then” was not so far back as he would like us to believe.] In truth, however, researchers know no such thing. The “single smooth line” idea was jettisoned, not because evolutionists learned more about an alleged human-ape ancestry, but because it became impossible to fit the fossils together in a rational way that could be sustained by the evidence. There were so many contradictions, overlapping dates, and incorrect conclusions, the evolutionary “bush” idea was interjected to “keep the dream alive.”
Australopithicus sediba is yet another example of the mess we have been seeing in the past. For instance, the fossils are supposedly dated at 1.95-1.78 million years ago. Yet this date cannot be scientifically validated. The dating methods used to pinpoint such a precise figure are fraught with error, and have been shown to be incorrect (Morris, 1994; DeYoung, 2005). Furthermore, we are told that the creature has a mosaic of primitive and advanced features. One of the “primitive” features is a small brain, but the researchers noted that “the shape of the brain seems to be more advanced than that of Australophithecines” (Schmid, 2010). What, exactly, does an “advanced brain shape” look like? The only way to determine an “advanced” shape would be to assume that humans evolved from apes and then to suggest that anything closer to the human shape is “advanced.” Yet, if researchers are trying to use these fossils to prove that humans are related to apes, they cannot be granted that assumption in order to link humans to apes. In addition, many modern monkeys have “primitive,” small brains. If there are monkeys alive right now that have small brains like the one found, how can such be considered a “primitive” characteristic, without assuming human evolution—the concept that is purportedly being proven.
Furthermore, since only a few of these creatures have been discovered, “there is no way to know if the gene pool died out or was passed on to others” (Schmid, 2010). Basically, then, we are told that we cannot know if these creatures evolved into humans, or if they simply went extinct. Yet if they have such an “advanced brain” and then they died out, where would our “advanced brains” come from—if not from these creatures? You see the way evolutionists cover their tracks. If they do not find means to link this creature to humans in a way that the public will swallow, then they will relegate it to a side branch, so it is not in-line with true human ancestry, and parade another creature before the public in a few months (or weeks at the current rate).
The amount of speculation and lack of substantiation in the field of paleontology is exasperating. Words and phrases such as “may have,” “might show,” “possibly are,” “could probably show,” “there is no way to know for sure, but,” are the tell-tale signs of unsubstantiated opinion that pepper the human-evolution writings like spots on a Dalmatian. Let’s cut through such mealy-mouth jargon and confidently affirm what we know scientifically as fact. Every experiment ever done on life in nature shows that life can come only from previously existing life of its own kind. No known mechanism exists by which genetic information can be added to a single-celled organism in order for it to eventually evolve into a human. Human consciousness defies all evolutionary based explanations, as does human morality. All available scientific, historic, and biblical information forces an honest observer to conclude that humans were created by a supernatural Creator, and they did not evolve from lower mammals. We will keep repeating these truths as long as the evolutionary community keeps trumpeting new “relatives” we never had.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2009), “Ardi Joins a Long, Infamous List of Losers,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240241.
Butt, Kyle (2010), “Evolution Wrapped Around the Pinky Finger of Woman X,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240342.
DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2009), “Ida—A Missing Link,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240160.
Morris, John D. (1994), The Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Schmid, Randolph (2010), “New Fossils May Fit in Gap Between Apes and Humans,” Yahoo!, [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100408/ap_on_sc/us_sci_new_hominid/print;_ ylt=AhT.dv9Gh0zQIfXB7BQyKz1xieAA;_ylu=X3oDMTBvajZzaTFyBHBvcwMxNQRzZWMDdG9wBH NsawNwcmludA--.

Deism, Atheism, and the Founders by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1654

Deism, Atheism, and the Founders

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
The standard claim by those who wish to minimize the role that Christianity has played in the establishment and propagation of American civilization is that the architects of American political institutions were deists and atheists who did not subscribe to religion in general or Christianity in particular. It is further claimed that they insisted that religion be confined to private life, excluded from public life, i.e., public schools and government. Of course, abundant proof exists to refute this outrageous, though widely believed, claim. But one must go back to the original documents—not history books written in the last fifty years—to allow the Founders to speak for themselves.
Were the Founders “deists”? A standard dictionary definition of the word is: “The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation” (American Heritage..., 2000, p. 479). One would be hard-pressed to identify a Founder that fits this description. Indeed, the writings of the Founders are replete with their belief in and promotion of the Christian religion in its enlarged sense. Even Thomas Jefferson, who probably questioned the deity of Christ, nevertheless advocated and defended true Christianity. In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803, he wrote:
Dear Sir, In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others (“The Thomas Jefferson Papers...,” n.d., emp. added).
Among the small handful of those who were not particularly whetted to the Christian religion, Thomas Paine is conspicuous, especially in his production of Age of Reason. Though he challenged the inspiration of the Bible, denounced the formal world religions, including the perversions of Christianity that were in abundance, and opposed the promotion of any national church or religion, nevertheless he was not an atheist. He claimed to believe in God and afterlife: “I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life” (1794). He also wrote: “Were man impressed as fully and as strongly as he ought to be with the belief of a God, his moral life would be regulated by the force of that belief; he would stand in awe of God and of himself, and would not do the thing that could not be concealed from either” (1794). Paine not only believed in “the certainty of his existence and the immutability of his power,” he asserted that “it is the fool only, and not the philosopher, or even the prudent man, that would live as if there were no God.” In fact, he stated that it is “rational to believe” that God would call all people “to account for the manner in which we have lived here” (1794).
Nevertheless, Paine styled himself a “deist” and hurled some rather uncomplimentary epithets against the Christian religion. But the real issue—one that has been largely ignored by the revisionist historians of the last fifty years—is whether Paine’s views were representative of the Founders and the citizenry of America at the time. The historical record proves that they were not. In fact, Paine’s production of Age of Reason nearly two decades after the Declaration of Independence drew heavy fire from several of the Founders who expressed strong aversion to Paine’s ideas in no uncertain terms. Consider the following examples.
John Adams played a central role in the birth of our nation, as evidenced by a string of significant participatory activities, including delegate to the Continental Congress (1774-1777) where he signed the Declaration of Independence, signer of the peace treaty that ended the American Revolution (1783), two-time Vice-President under George Washington (1789-1797), and second President of the United States (1797-1801). Yet, Adams’ sentiments regarding Paine’s writing were, to say the least, blunt: “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will” (3:421, 1856). “Blackguard” was an 18th century term for a thoroughly unprincipled person—a scoundrel.
Zephaniah Swift, who was a member of the U.S. Congress from 1793-1797, offered a strong reaction to Paine:
[W]e cannot sufficiently reprobate the beliefs of Thomas Paine in his attack on Christianity by publishing his Age of Reason.... He has the impudence and effrontery to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.... No language can describe the wickedness of the man who will attempt to subvert a religion which is a source of comfort and consolation to its votaries merely for the purpose of eradicating all sentiments of religion (1796, 2:323-324).
John Jay was another brilliant Founder with a long and distinguished career in the formation and shaping of American civilization from the beginning. He not only was a member of the Continental Congress from 1774-1776, serving as President from 1778-1779, he also helped to frame the New York State Constitution and then served as the Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court. He co-authored the Federalist Papers, was appointed as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by George Washington (1789-1795), served as Governor of New York (1795-1801), and was the vice-president of the American Bible Society (1816-1821). In a letter dated February 14, 1796, he affirmed:
I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds, and I think they who undertake that task will derive advantages.... As to The Age of Reason, it never appeared to me to have been written from a disinterested love of truth or of mankind (Jay, 1833, 2:266).
Several of the Founders were severe in their denunciations of Paine. John Witherspoon, member of the Continental Congress (1776-1782) and signer of the Declaration of Independence, insisted that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith” (1802, 3:24). Another signer of the Declaration, Charles Carroll, pronounced Paine’s work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion” (as quoted in Gurn, 1932, p. 203). Yet another Declaration signer, Benjamin Rush, called The Age of Reason “absurd and impious” (1951, 2:770). William Paterson, signer of the federal Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court justice appointed by George Washington, became so indignant over those few Americans who seemed to agree with Paine, that he declared: “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God? Oh shame, where is thy blush? Is this the way to continue independent, and to render the 4th of July immortal in memory and song?” (as quoted in O’Conner, 1979, p. 244). [NOTE: Observe that Paterson believed that independence dependedon loyalty to the Christian religion and God.] In a similar vein, John Quincy Adams, referring to Paine’s Rights of Man, insisted that “Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution” (1793, p. 13). Patrick Henry asked: “What is there in the wit, or wisdom of the present deistical writers or professors…? And yet these have been confuted, and their fame decaying; in so much that the puny efforts of Paine are thrown in, to prop their tottering fabric, whose foundations cannot stand the test of time” (as quoted in Wirt, 1817, pp. 386-387, emp. added; cf. Arnold, 1854, p. 250), and the President of the Continental Congress, Elias Boudinot, published The Age of Revelation in direct rebuttal to The Age of Reason (1801).
Even Benjamin Franklin, one of the least religious of the Founding Fathers, though a longtime friend of Paine, viewed Paine’s thinking with great disfavor, as evidenced by Franklin's critique of a previous manuscript written by Paine:
I have read your Manuscript with some Attention. By the Arguments it contains against the Doctrine of a particular Providence, tho’ you allow a general Providence, you strike at the Foundation of all Religion: For without the Belief of a Providence that takes Cognizance of, guards and guides and may favour particular Persons, there is no Motive to Worship a Deity, to fear its Displeasure, or to pray for its Protection. I will not enter into any Discussion of your Principles, tho’ you seem to desire it; At present I shall only give you my Opinion that tho’ your Reasonings are subtle, and may prevail with some Readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general Sentiments of Mankind on that Subject, and the Consequence of printing this Piece will be a great deal of Odium drawn upon your self, Mischief to you and no Benefit to others. He that spits against the Wind, spits in his own Face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any Good would be done by it?.... I would advise you therefore not to attempt unchaining the Tyger, but to burn this Piece before it is seen by any other Person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of Mortification from the Enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of Regret and Repentance. If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it? I intend this Letter itself as a Proof of my Friendship.... (1840, 10:281-282, emp. added).
Sadly, friendless and shunned due to his irreligious views, Thomas Paine died in Greenwich Village, New York City, on June 8, 1809. At the time of his death, most U.S. newspapers reprinted the obituary notice from the New York Citizen, which read in part: “He had lived long, did some good and much harm.” Only six mourners came to his funeral (“Thomas Paine,” n.d.).
The overwhelming majority of the Founders and the bulk of the American population at the beginning of our nation held strong convictions regarding the primacy of the Christian religion over all other religions (as well as no religion at all). What a change has come over the country. God has blessed America in the past—undoubtedly due to the willingness of the Founders and the citizenry to acknowledge Him as the one true God and Author of the one true religion. Now that so many are rejecting the one true God, while accommodating false religions and ideologies, we can well expect that the bestowal of God’s blessings on our national well-being will come to an end. In the words of George Washington:
I am sure there never was a people who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that Agency which was so often manifested during our revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them (1838, 10:222-223).
The psalmist was even plainer: “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God” (Psalm 9:17).

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1856), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.).
Adams, John Quincy (1793), An Answer to Pain’s [sic] “Rights of Man” (London: John Stockdale).
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
Arnold, S.G. (1854), The Life of Patrick Henry of Virginia (Buffalo, NY: Miller, Orton, & Mulligan).
Boudinot, Elias (1801), The Age of Revelation, or, The Age of Reason Shewn To Be An Age of Infidelity (Philadelphia, PA: Asbury Dickins).
Franklin, Benjamin (1840), The Works of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston, MA: Tappan, Whittemore, & Mason).
Gurn, Joseph (1932), Charles Carroll of Carrolton (New York: P.J. Kennedy & Sons).
Jay, William (1833), The Life of John Jay (New York: J.&J. Harper).
O’Connor, John (1979), William Paterson: Lawyer and Statesman (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press).
Paine, Thomas (1794), Age of Reason, [On-line], URL: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/singlehtml.htm.
Rush, Benjamin (1951), Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L.H. Butterfield (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Swift, Zephaniah (1796), A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham, CT: John Byrne).
“The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827” (no date), Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj1&fileName=mtj1page028.db& recNum=190&itemLink=%2Fammem%2Fcollections%2Fjefferson_papers%2Fmtjser1. html&linkText=6.
“Thomas Paine” (no date), Wikipedia, [On-line], URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine.
Washington, George (1838), The Writings of George Washington, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston, MA: Ferdinand Andrews).
Wirt, William (1817), Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia, PA: James Webster).
Witherspoon, John (1802), The Works of Reverend John Witherspoon (Philadelphia, PA: William Woodard).

Did John the Baptizer Know Jesus or Not? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1599&b=Matthew

Did John the Baptizer Know Jesus or Not?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Early on in Jesus’ ministry, John the Baptizer made one of the most beautiful and powerful declarations in all of Holy Writ about Jesus of Nazareth: “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). Following this glorious, redemptive statement, however, John makes two claims that have been problematic for some. He said about Jesus:
“I did not know Him [previously—EL] but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water…. I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’” (1:31-33, emp. added).
Some wonder how John could not have known Jesus, if (1) he was a relative of the Messiah (Luke 1:36,57-60), and (2) he tried to deter Jesus from letting him baptize Him, saying “I need to be baptized by You, and You are coming to me?” (Matthew 3:14). Why would John say this if he did not already know Who Jesus was? Furthermore, why did John send disciples later in his ministry to ask Jesus, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” (Matthew 11:3, emp. added)? Did John the Baptizer know Jesus or not?
First, simply because Jesus and John’s mothers (Mary and Elizabeth) were relatives (Luke 1:36; see Lyons, 2008) does not necessarily mean that John had ever met Jesus prior to baptizing Him. I have first and second cousins that I never recall meeting, though I have heard my parents talk about them for many years. Just because people are related doesn’t mean they “know” each other. What’s more, when John “grew and became strong in spirit,” he was “in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel” (Luke 1:80, emp. added). Thus, John may have never met Jesus prior to His baptism. But, this does not mean he did not know various things about Jesus.
John obviously knew something about Jesus, or he would not have been hesitant to baptize Him. To “not know” Jesus then, likely had much more to do with not knowing him “officially, as the Messiah” (Vincent, 1997), than anything else. John seemed to believe that Jesus was the Messiah already, but, as J.W. McGarvey noted, “he did not know it” (n.d., p. 107).
His language to the people shows this (John i.26). Many of the people must have known Jesus, but none of them knew him to be the Messiah. Moreover, when John denied that he knew Jesus as Messiah we must not take it that he was ignorant of the past history of Jesus. No doubt he knew in a general way who Jesus was; but as the official forerunner and announcer of Jesus, and as the heaven-sent witness (John i.6,7), it was necessary that the Baptist should receive, by personal revelation from God, as here stated, an indubitable, absolute knowledge of the Messiahship of Jesus. Without this, John would not have been truly qualified as a witness. That Jesus is the Son of God must not rest on hearsay evidence. John kept silent till he could testify of his own knowledge (McGarvey, n.d., 107, emp. added).
Still, since it was “officially” declared to John at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry that He was “the Son of God” (John 1:34), many wonder why (much later) John sent disciples to ask Jesus, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” (Matthew 11:3). Why would John ask this question if he already knew that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God? Is this not contradictory as skeptics allege (cf. McKinsey, 2000, p. 73)?
By supposing that John’s question to Jesus later in His ministry (Matthew 11:3) is somehow a discrepancy, skeptics unjustifiably assume two things. First, they assume that all questions are asked in order to obtain knowledge. But that simply is not the case (see Lyons, 2009). Questions can be asked for a variety of reasons. They may be asked to awaken someone’s slumbering conscience (e.g., “Did you do that?”). They may be asked to bring attention to something (e.g., “What are you wearing?”). They may be asked for the benefit of others (e.g., “What is the right answer to this problem?”). Etc. The fact is, we cannot know for sure exactly why John sent disciples to ask Jesus this question, but there are legitimate possible explanations that exonerate John and the Bible writers.
Skeptics also assume that John’s faith never wavered. They fail to recognize (or accept) that, like other great men of faith who occasionally had doubts (e.g., Moses, Gideon, Peter, etc.), John may have asked this question to Jesus out of momentary unbelief. McGarvey appropriately reminded us that John’s “wild, free life was now curbed by the irksome tedium of confinement…. Moreover, he held no communion with the private life of Jesus, and entered not into the sanctuary of his Lord’s thought. We must remember also that his inspiration passed away with the ministry, on account of which it was bestowed, and it was only the man John, and not the prophet, who made the inquiry” (p. 279, ital. in orig.). John may also have wondered why, if Jesus was a worker of all manner of miracles, was he still in prison. Could Jesus not rescue His forerunner? Could He not save him from the sword of Herod? Jesus’ response to John: “And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me” (Matthew 11:6). John (or John’s disciples) may have needed to be reminded to stay the course, even if they did not understand all of the reasons why certain things happened the way they did (cf. Job 13:15). Whether having a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Corinthians 12:7) or suffering distressing imprisonment, God’s grace is sufficient. His “strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9). Even when, yes, especially when, we are suffering, Jesus reminds His servants, “Blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.”
Did John the Baptizer know Jesus? Certainly he did. The statements John made that some consider conflicting have simply been misunderstood. John came to know Jesus officially as the Son of God when he baptized Him. John declared this Heaven-approved message throughout his ministry. Though John’s faith in the Coming One may have wavered momentarily during his imprisonment, such questioning by the prophet is in no way evidence of discrepancy. Remember: the Bible writers penned a flawless, inspired book (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; cf. John 10:35), which includes brief accounts of many faithful, but imperfect, men. Though “among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11), even he was not perfect.

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2008), “How Were Mary and Elizabeth Related?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=23&article=2532.
Lyons, Eric (2009), “Does God Really Know Everything?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=787.
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McKinsey, Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Vincent, Marvin R. (1997), Word Studies in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

The Lord is our Judge, Lawgiver and King! by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/043-JudgeLawgiverKing.html

The Lord is our Judge, Lawgiver and King!
“For the LORD is our Judge, The LORD is our Lawgiver, The LORD is our King; He will save us” (Isaiah 33:22).
As is true of every effective government, God's kingdom has judicial, legislative and executive powers.
Because in worldly governments, people in power tend to misuse their power, the judicial and the executive powers are separated in democracies. Sometimes the legislative and executive powers are also separated.
God does not misuse His power. He knows everything, including “the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). Because of His holiness, justice, knowledge, wisdom, love, goodness, mercy and power, the Lord is infinitely qualified to serve as Judge, Lawgiver and King.

The Lord is our Judge.
A judge is someone who is authorized to decide questions brought before a court of justice. A judge makes his decision after evaluating the facts and applying the law.
God is “the Judge of all the earth” (Genesis 18:25). “He is coming to judge the earth” (1 Chronicles 16:32). “God is a just judge” (Psalm 7:11). “The Lord shall endure forever; He has prepared His throne for judgment. He shall judge the world in righteousness, and He shall administer judgment for the peoples in uprightness” (Psalm 9:7, 8).
The heavenly Father has appointed His Son, Jesus Christ, to “judge the living and the dead at His appearing” (2 Timothy 4:1). “They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead” (1 Peter 4:5).
God “has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:31).
On your calendar you have no doubt noted important appointments. What could be more important than our appointment with God on Judgment Day? “Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:9, 10).
Judgment Day is drawing near. It is extremely important that we know the basis upon which we will be judged.

The Lord is our Lawgiver.
A lawgiver is someone who is authorized to draft and enact laws. A law is a rule of conduct imposed by authority, which one is obligated to obey, usually with a designated punishment for violation.
“There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy” (James 4:12).
It is extremely important that we know the law of the Lord because compliance or non-compliance will determine whether we spend eternity in heaven or in hell. And eternity is a long, long time.
The law of the Lord must be learned. The Lord was well-disposed towards king Jehoshaphat of Judah because “his heart took delight in the ways of the Lord” (2 Chronicles 17:6). He sent leaders throughout the country to teach the law: “So they taught in Judah, and had the Book of the Law of the Lord with them; they went throughout all the cities of Judah and taught the people” (2 Chronicles 17:9).
Ezra the priest “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).
“The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7).
Of “the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2) Paul wrote, “I delight in the law of God” and “I serve the law of God” (Romans 7:22, 26). He also explained that “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be” (Romans 8:7).
Of the Messianic reign it was predicted, “Many people shall come and say, 'Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, To the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, And we shall walk in His paths.' For out of Zion shall go forth the law, And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:3).
Jesus said, “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him - the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).
The Lord has given us His law. By learning and obeying His law we are getting ready for the day of judgment. 

The Lord is our King.
A king is the sovereign ruler of a kingdom, the highest authority over a realm.
“The Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King” (Jeremiah 10:10).
“I will extol You, my God, O King; and I will bless Your name forever and ever” (Psalm 145:1).
“Sing praises to God, sing praises! Sing praises to our King, sing praises! For God is the King of all the earth; Sing praises with understanding. God reigns over the nations; God sits on His holy throne” (Psalm 47:6-8).
The armed forces of a king support his authority. Our King is Yahweh Zebaoth, Lord of hosts, Lord of heavenly forces.
“Lift up your heads, O you gates! And be lifted up, you everlasting doors! And the King of glory shall come in. Who isthis King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, The LORD mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O you gates! Lift up, you everlasting doors! And the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, He is the King of glory” (Psalm 24:7-10).
When the king of Syria wanted to capture Elisha, “he sent horses and chariots and a great army there, and they came by night and surrounded the city. And when the servant of the man of God arose early and went out, there was an army, surrounding the city with horses and chariots. And his servant said to him, 'Alas, my master! What shall we do?' So he answered, 'Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.' And Elisha prayed, and said, 'LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.' Then the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha” (2 Kings 6:14-17).
At various times God's people were rebuked when they sought help from the Egyptian army, rather than placing their confidence in the power of God: “Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, And rely on horses, Who trust in chariots because they are many, And in horsemen because they are very strong, But who do not look to the Holy One of Israel, Nor seek the LORD!” (Isaiah 31:1).
Our King has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). “He is Lord of lords and King of kings” (Revelation 17:14).
“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God'” (Isaiah 44:6).
To Jesus, who is called 'the First and the Last' in Revelation 2:8, Nathanael said, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (John 1:49).
“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen” (1 Timothy 1:17).
“They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying: 'Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints! Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, For Your judgments have been manifested'” (Revelation 15:3, 4). 
“The LORD shall reign forever and ever” (Exodus 15:18).
When the seventh angel sounded his trumpet, John heard loud voices in heaven saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!” (Revelation 11:15).
And the most wonderful thing about all of this is, that our Judge, Lawgiver and King is also our Savior! “For the LORD is our Judge, The LORD is our Lawgiver, The LORD is our King; He will save us” (Isaiah 33:22). Amen.
Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

Stop and consider by Gary Rose






















Well, this is NEW (to me)! In case you are wondering- it is a lightning bolt INSIDE a waterspout!!! Something I had never even dreamed possible before; something wonderful!!!!

Even in my "golden years", I am still seeing new things; amazing things! Isn't life wonderful? And, at the same time, it is humbling!!!

God has mysteries as yet unrevealed to me and each new day I see the minutest glimpse into what is possible. It causes me to marvel at my own existence and wonder what I may see tomorrow.

And then I thought of Job; how that he felt that he was righteous and did not deserve all that had been happening to him. Then in Chapter 37 of the book titled after the patriarch's name- God says to Job...

14 “Listen to this, Job. 
Stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God.  

What follows (in chapter 38) is a series of questions, which makes me ask myself- could I answer such things? Now, this goes on for a long time (64 questions in all, I believe) and finally ends at the end of chapter 39. 

Of course, this is just a tad too long to present in this post, so I just copied a few verses to think about...


Job, Chapter 38 (World English Bible)
  1 Then Yahweh answered Job out of the whirlwind, 
  2 “Who is this who darkens counsel 
by words without knowledge? 

  3 Brace yourself like a man, 
for I will question you, then you answer me! 

  4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? 
Declare, if you have understanding. 

  5 Who determined its measures, if you know? 
Or who stretched the line on it? 

  6 What were its foundations fastened on? 
Or who laid its cornerstone, 

  7 when the morning stars sang together, 
and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 

  8 “Or who shut up the sea with doors, 
when it broke out of the womb, 

  9 when I made clouds its garment, 
and wrapped it in thick darkness, 

  10 marked out for it my bound, 
set bars and doors, 

  11 and said, ‘You may come here, but no further. 
Your proud waves shall be stopped here?’ 

  12 “Have you commanded the morning in your days, 
and caused the dawn to know its place, 

  13 that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, 
and shake the wicked out of it? 

  14 It is changed as clay under the seal, 
and presented as a garment. 

  15 From the wicked, their light is withheld. 
The high arm is broken. 

  16 “Have you entered into the springs of the sea? 
Or have you walked in the recesses of the deep? 

  17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you? 
Or have you seen the gates of the shadow of death? 

  18 Have you comprehended the earth in its width? 
Declare, if you know it all. 

  19 “What is the way to the dwelling of light? 
As for darkness, where is its place, 

  20 that you should take it to its bound, 
that you should discern the paths to its house? 

  21 Surely you know, for you were born then, 
and the number of your days is great! 

  22 Have you entered the treasuries of the snow, 
or have you seen the treasures of the hail, 

  23 which I have reserved against the time of trouble, 
against the day of battle and war? 


  24 By what way is the lightning distributed, 
or the east wind scattered on the earth? (emphasis added vs. 24a)




That 24th verse applies to the picture and I have no idea how lightning could be encased inside a waterspout. If you know, please tell me and I will think about your answer.

The point of this post is this: I don't know everything and neither do you. God does, however and those of us who pursue heavenly wisdom will humbly listen to the almighty through his word.

BE A PERSON WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD... AND LEARNS!!!!

11/20/17

"THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS" The Works Of The Flesh - I (5:19-21) by Mark Copeland 

                     "THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS"

                  The Works Of The Flesh - I (5:19-21)

INTRODUCTION

1. Of grave danger to the Christian are the works of the flesh...
   a. They can destroy the liberty we enjoy in Christ - Ga 5:13-15
   b. They prevent us from following the Spirit and doing the things we
      wish - Ga 5:16-17
   c. They keep us from inheriting the kingdom of God - Ga 5:21

2. It is imperative that we know what are the works of the flesh...
   a. Those things that are contrary to the Spirit - Ga 5:17
   b. Those sins which wage war against the soul - cf. 1Pe 2:11

[To aid us in this battle, Paul provides a list of sins that are quite
evident (Ga 5:19-21).  At the top of the list are...]

I. SINS OF MORAL IMPURITY

   A. FORNICATION (Grk., porneia)...
      1. Note:  Some translations begin with 'adultery' which is not
         found in some of the oldest manuscripts; it is certainly
         covered by 'fornication'
      2. Porneia - illicit sexual intercourse - Vine
      3. As used in the New Testament, we find it having at least four
         different applications...
         a. A reference to premarital sex - 1Co 7:1-2
         b. A synonym for adultery - Mt 19:9
         c. A generic term referring to all forms of unchastity 
            - 1Co 6:13,18
         d. A specific sense referring to harlotry and prostitution 
            - Re 2:20-21
      4. It therefore includes any sort of sexual intercourse between
         partners who are not married; e.g., premarital sex, adultery,
         homosexuality, prostitution, incest
      5. God's disdain for such immorality is seen in the fact...
         a. There are seven lists of evil in the writings of Paul
         b. Fornication is listed in five of them, and is the first in
            each of them

   B. UNCLEANNESS (Grk., akatharsia)...
      1. Akatharsia - in a moral sense: the impurity of lustful,
         luxurious, profligate living - Thayer
         a. It originally had reference to dirt or dirtiness in a
            physical sense
         b. In the Greek OT, it is used to denote ritual and ceremonial
            impurity which made it impossible for the worshipper to
            approach God - cf. Lev 22:3-9
         c. It then came to be used in a moral sense, of that moral
            depravity which disgusts the person who sees it
      2. Three ideas are therefore inherent in the word
         a. The quality of that which is soiled and dirty; some minds
            are like that
         b. An impurity where there is a repulsive quality that awakens
            disgust in decent persons
         c. That which separates man from God; in contrast, 
            compare Mt 5:8; Re 3:4

   C. LEWDNESS (Grk., aselgia)...
      1. Aselgia - also translated as lasciviousness, licentiousness,
         sensuality
      2. The basic meaning of the word
         a. In the NT it seems to be linked with sexual excess in a
            public way
         b. Barclay distinguishes three characteristics of this sin:
            1) It is wanton and undisciplined action
            2) It has no respect for the persons or rights of anyone
               else
            3) It is completely indifferent to public opinion and to
               public decency
      3. The general idea is one of shameless behavior
         a. Thayer defines this word by giving these examples:
            1) "filthy words"
            2) "indecent bodily movements"
            3) "unchaste handling of males and females"
         b. This word is one that best describes...
            1) What is often seen in much of modern dance, music,
               theater
            2) What goes on at many concerts, and on many talk shows
         c. The context in which it is often found in the Scriptures
            helps to understand this word 
            - cf. Ro 13:11-14; Ep 4:17-19;1Pe 4:1-4

[With these three words (porneia, akatharsia, aselgia), we learn that
"the works of the flesh" involve sins of moral impurity.  As we continue
with Paul's list, we note that they also involve...]

II. SINS OF IDOLATRY AND SORCERY

   A. IDOLATRY (Grk., eidololatreia)...
      1. Eidololatreia - image worship - Strong
      2. Concerning idolatry as commonly considered...
         a. In the beginning stages of idolatry, no one worships the
            idol or image itself
            1) The idol simply served two purposes:
               a) To localize the god it represents
               b) To visualize the god it represents
            2) It is simply designed to make it easier to worship the
               god represented by the idol
         b. Inevitably, however, people will wind up worshipping the
            idol or image itself
            1) We see this in various forms of Catholicism
            2) Where the leaders say the image is not an idol, only an
               'icon'
            3) But who can deny that the average worshipper begins to
               view the image itself as something holy and to be
               revered?
            4) Thus that which is 'created' begins receiving adoration
               rightfully due the 'Creator'
         c. According to Ro 1:18-23, the basic error of idol worship is
            the worship of the 'created thing' rather than the 'Creator
            of all things'!
      3. Concerning idolatry as that which displaces God...
         a. Idolatry is not just the adoration or worship of images
         b. Paul defines 'covetousness' as idolatry - Ep 5:5; Col 3:5
            1) Any strong desire for material things that replaces our
               desire for God is a form of idolatry!
               a) Our hearts are such that they are drawn to whatever is
                  our treasure - Mt 6:21
               b) If our treasure is earthly things, our heart
                  (devotion) is drawn away from God
            2) We cannot serve material things and God at the same time!
               - Mt 6:24
         c. Thus we can be idolaters when we make things other than God
            Himself our priority in life, such as:  our job, house,
            hobby, family

   B. SORCERY (Grk., pharmakeia)...
      1. Pharmakeia is found to be used in three ways
         a. Medically, to the use of drugs with no bad meaning at all
         b. The misuse of drugs so as to poison, not cure
         c. The practice of sorcery and witchcraft, which often used
            drugs to cast spells and alter the behavior of others
      2. The practice of witchcraft and sorcery is strongly condemned
         - Exo 22:18; Re 21:8
      3. Examples of this sin today...
         a. There is an increasing number of religions based upon the
            occult, and that make use of drugs in their religion
         b. The "recreational" use of drugs also falls into this
            category
            1) Remember that altering the behavior of others through
               such drugs was a basic function of sorcery and witchcraft
            2) What is the difference between using drugs to alter
               others' behavior and your own?
            3) This is not to discount the proper medicinal use of drugs
            4) But just as the Bible condemns drunkenness, which is an
               altered state brought on by alcohol (a drug), so it would
               seem to condemn similar use of other drugs

CONCLUSION

1. In this study we have seen that the works of the flesh include...
   a. Sins of moral impurity (fornication, uncleanness, lewdness)
   b. The sins of idolatry and sorcery
   -- Our next study will survey sins violating the law of love

2. William Barclay observed that each of these sins is a perversion of
   something good...
   a. Fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness - perversions of the
      sexual instinct which in itself can be a beautiful thing as part
      of true love between a man and a woman
   b. Idolatry - a perversion of worship
   c. Sorcery - a perversion of the proper use of drugs
   -- He also noted:  "The awfulness of the power of sin lies precisely
      in its ability to take the raw material of potential goodness and
      turn it into the material of evil."

3. Because of the power of sin to corrupt, we need divine help to break
   free from its bondage...
   a. Jesus promises freedom from the bondage of sin - Jn 8:31-36
   b. He sent the Holy Spirit to deliver on that promise 
      - Ro 8:12-13; Ga 5:16

Have you responded in obedience to the gospel that you might enjoy true
freedom from the corrupting power of sin...? - cf. Ac 2:38-39

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)