5/7/14

From Jim McGuiggan... A prayer in a time of happiness

A prayer in a time of happiness

Holy Father, who is made happy by the safe return of a lost child, I want to express my happiness at the safe return of my recently gravely ill best friend. Thank you!

I want to tell you how very happy I am at her unwavering faith in you even in, especially in, the midst of her great fear. What a lovely thing that is to see. Thank you!

I want to thank you for the truth that her recovery is also the confirmation and illustration of the truth that you hear the prayers of all of us for you have no "pets". Thank you!

I want to thank you for all the prayerful friends and those who though not friends are friendly, brotherly and sisterly, and that in your kindness to my Ethel you speak assurance to them also in the event of the coming of their sore troubles. Thank you!

I want to thank you that the faith you have generated and sustain in us can remain vibrant even in the profoundest sadness and that it knows how to be deliriously happy in a glad day. Thank you!

I want to thank you that there are countless thousands who refuse to give you ultimatums—"make us happy or else"—but who, like their Master, trust you in joy and pain. Thank you!
 jim mcguiggan, and for ethel.


©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com

From Jeff Miller, Ph.D. ... The Laws of Science —by God

 http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4545

The Laws of Science —by God

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The laws of nature have been discovered through extensive scientific investigation—gathering mounds and mounds of evidence, all of which has proven consistently to point to one conclusion. They are, by definition, a concluding statement that has been drawn from the scientific evidence, and therefore, are in keeping with the rule of logic known as the Law of Rationality (Ruby, 1960, pp. 130-131). If anything can be said to be “scientific,” it is the laws of science, and to hold to a view or theory that contradicts the laws of science is, by definition, irrational, since such a theory would contradict the evidence from science.
The laws of science explain how things work in nature at all times—without exception. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a scientific law as “a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena” (2003, p. 1182, emp. added). Notice that the writers use the word “all” rather than “some” or even “most.” There are no exceptions to a law of science. Wherever a law is applicable, it has been found to be without exception.
Evolutionists endorse wholeheartedly the laws of science. Evolutionary geologist Robert Hazen, a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Lab, who graduated with a Ph.D. from Harvard, in his lecture series on the origin of life, states, “In this lecture series, I make an assumption that life emerged [i.e., spontaneously generated—JM] from basic raw materials through a sequence of events that was completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics” (Hazen, 2005, emp. added). Even on something as unfounded as postulating the origin of life from non-life—a proposition which flies in the face of all scientific evidence to the contrary—evolutionists do not wish to resort to calling such a phenomenon an exception to the laws of nature. After all, there are no exceptions to the laws. Instead, they hope, without evidence, that their claims will prove to be in keeping with some elusive, hitherto undiscovered, scientific evidence in the future that will be “completely consistent with the natural laws.” [NOTE: Such an approach is the equivalent of brushing aside the mounds of evidence for the existence of gravity in order to develop a theory that asserts that tomorrow, all humanity will start levitating up from the surface of the Earth. Science has already spoken on that matter, and to postulate such a theory would be unscientific. It would go against the evidence from science. Similarly, science has already spoken on the matter of life from non-life and shown that abiogenesis does not occur in nature, according to the Law of Biogenesis (see Miller, 2012), or in the words of Hazen, abiogenesis is completely inconsistent “with the natural laws of chemistry and physics.” And yet he, along with all atheistic evolutionists, continues to promote evolutionary theory in spite of this crucial piece of evidence to the contrary.] Evolutionists believe in the natural laws, even if they fail to concede the import of their implications with regard to atheistic evolution.
Richard Dawkins, a world renowned evolutionary biologist and professor of zoology at Oxford University, put his stamp of endorsement on the laws of nature as well. While conjecturing (without evidence) about the possibility of life in outer space, he said, “But that higher intelligence would, itself, had to have come about by some ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously” (Stein and Miller, 2008). Dawkins admits that life could not pop into existence from non-life. But why? Because that would contradict a well-known and respected law of science that is based on mounds of scientific evidence and that has no exception: the Law of Biogenesis. Of course evolution, which Dawkins wholeheartedly subscribes to, requires abiogenesis, which contradicts the Law of Biogenesis. However, notice that Dawkins so respects the laws of nature that he cannot bring himself to consciously and openly admit that his theory requires the violation of said law. Self-delusion can be a powerful narcotic.
Famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, highly reveres the laws of science as well. In 2011, he hosted a show on Discovery Channel titled, “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” In that show, he said,
[T]he Universe is a machine governed by principles or laws—laws that can be understood by the human mind. I believe that the discovery of these laws has been humankind’s greatest achievement…. But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot ever be broken. That’s why they are so powerful (“Curiosity…,” 2011, emp. added).
According to Hawking, the laws of nature exist, are unbreakable (i.e., without exception), and apply to the entire Universe—not just to the Earth.
Again, the atheistic evolutionary community believes in the existence of and highly respects the laws of science (i.e., when those laws coincide with the evolutionist’s viewpoints) and would not wish to consciously deny or contradict them. Sadly, they do so, and often, when it comes to their beloved atheistic, origin theories. But that admission by the evolutionary community presents a major problem for atheism. Humanist Martin Gardner said,
Imagine that physicists finally discover all the basic waves and their particles, and all the basic laws, and unite everything in one equation. We can then ask, “Why that equation?” It is fashionable now to conjecture that the big bang was caused by a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum devoid of space and time. But of course such a vacuum is a far cry from nothing. There had to be quantum laws to fluctuate. And why are there quantum laws?...There is no escape from the superultimate questions: Why is there something rather than nothing, and why is the something structured the way it is? (2000, p. 303, emp. added).
Even if Big Bang cosmology were correct (and it is not), you still can’t have a law without a law writer. In “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” Hawking boldly claims that everything in the Universe can be accounted for through atheistic evolution without the need of God. This is untrue, as we have discussed elsewhere (e.g., Miller, 2011), but notice that Hawking does not even believe that assertion himself. He said, “Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur? In a nutshell, did we need a god to set it all up so that the Big Bang could bang?” (“Curiosity…”). He provided no answer to these crucial questions—not even an attempt. And he is not alone. No atheist can provide an adequate answer to those questions.
The eminent atheistic, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, Paul Davies, noted Hawking’s sidestep of that question in the “round table discussion” on the Discovery Channel following “Curiosity,” titled, “The Creation Question: a Curiosity Conversation.” Concerning Hawking, Davies said,
In the show, Stephen Hawking gets very, very close to saying, “Well, where did the laws of physics come from? That’s where we might find some sort of God.” And then he backs away and doesn’t return to the subject…. You need to know where those laws come from. That’s where the mystery lies—the laws (“The Creation Question…,” 2011).
In his book, The Grand Design, Hawking tries (and fails) to submit a way that the Universe could have created itself from nothing in keeping with the laws of nature without God—an impossible concept, to be sure. He says, “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” (2010, p. 180). Of course, even if such were possible (and it is not), he does not explain where the law of gravity came from. A more rational statement would have been the following: “Because there is a law like gravity, the Universe must have been created by God.”
Just as the evidence says that you cannot have a poem without a poet, a fingerprint without a finger, or a material effect without a cause, a law must be written by someone. But the atheistic community does not believe in the “Someone” Who alone could have written the laws of nature. So the atheist stands in the dark mist of irrationality—holding to a viewpoint that contradicts the evidence. However, the Christian has no qualms with the existence of the laws of nature. They provide no problem or inconsistency with the Creation model. Long before the laws of thermodynamics were formally articulated in the 1850s and long before the Law of Biogenesis was formally proven by Louis Pasteur in 1864, the laws of science were written in stone and set in place to govern the Universe by the Being in Whom we believe. Recall the last few chapters of the book of Job, where God commenced a speech, humbling Job with the awareness that Job’s knowledge and understanding of the workings of the Universe were extremely deficient in comparison with the omniscience and omnipotence of Almighty God. Two of the humbling questions that God asked Job to ponder were, “Do you know the ordinances [“laws”—NIV] of the heavens? Can you set their dominion [“rule”—ESV] over the earth?” (Job 38:33). These were rhetorical questions, and the obvious answer from Job was, “No, Sir.” He could not even know of all the laws, much less could he understand them, and even less could he have written them and established their rule over the Earth. Only a Supreme Being transcendent of the natural Universe would have the power to do such a thing.
According to the Creation model and in keeping with the evidence, that Supreme Being is the God of the Bible, Who created everything in the Universe in six literal days, only a few thousand years ago. In the words of the 19th-century song writer, Lowell Mason, “Praise the Lord, for He hath spoken; worlds His mighty voice obeyed; laws which never shall be broken, for their guidance He hath made. Hallelujah! Amen” (Howard, 1977, #427).

REFERENCES

“The Creation Question: A Curiosity Conversation” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.
“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.
Gardner, Martin (2000), Did Adam and Eve Have Navels? (New York: W.W. Norton).
Hawking, Stephen (2010), The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books).
Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).
Howard, Alton (1977), “Praise the Lord,” Songs of the Church (West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing).
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.
Miller, Jeff  (2011), “A Review of Discovery Channel’s ‘Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?’” Reason & Revelation, 31[10]:98-107, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1004&article=1687.
Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.
Ruby, Lionel (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott).
Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).

From Mark Copeland... The Times Of Refreshing (Acts 3:19)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                    The Times Of Refreshing (3:19)

INTRODUCTION

1. As Peter preached his second gospel sermon...
   a. He called on his audience to repent and be converted - Ac 3:19
   b. He promised that their sins would be blotted out - ibid.

2. He also promised that "times of refreshing" will come from the
   presence of the Lord...
   a. What are "the times of refreshing"?
   b. Is it something to experience now, or in the future?

[The word refreshing occurs only once in the New Testament, making it
difficult to ascertain the precise meaning of the word (Kistemaker).  But
let us consider...]

I. THREE POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS

   A. THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST...
      1. Some connect "the times of refreshing" with "the times of
         restoration" - cf. Ac 3:19,21
      2. Blessings accompanying the return of Christ:
         a. "the future times of refreshing when Jesus returns" - C.E.
            Arnold (ZIBBC)
         b. "likely synonymous with the concept of "restoration" in v.
            21" - J.B. Polhill (NAC)

   B. THE BLESSINGS OF SALVATION...
      1. Some view it as general blessings accompanying salvation in
         Christ
      2. A foretaste of what is to come:
         a. "a kind of advance anticipation of the full and final
            'refreshment'" - N.T. Wright (AE)
         b. "periodic seasons in which the forgiven and restored
            believer experiences the refreshing nearness of the Lord" 
            - S.J. Kistemaker (BNTC)
         c. "features of the new age" - F.F. Bruce (NICNT)

   C. THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT...
      1. Others suggest that it refers to "the gift of the Holy Spirit"
         in Ac 2:38; compare:
         a. Repent (2:38) = Repent (3:19)
         b. Be baptized (2:38) = Be converted (3:19)
         c. For the remission of sins (2:38) = That your sins may be
            blotted out (3:19)
         d. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (2:38) = That times of
            refreshing may come (3:19)
      2. Refreshment from the indwelling Holy Spirit in the life of the
         Christ:
         a. "The reference of these words is, doubtless, to the gift of
            the Spirit; for they occupy the same place here that the gift
            of the Spirit did in the former discourse". - J.W. McGarvey
            (ACTS)
         b. "In 2:38 the steps are, (1) Repentance, (2) baptism, (3)
            remission of sins, (4) the gift of the Holy Spirit. Here, the
            order is (1) Repentance, (2) to turn, (3) the blotting out of
            sins, (4) the seasons of refreshing. One passage aids in
            interpreting the other." - B.W. Johnson (PNT)
         c. "A comparison with Peter's promises in 2:38 suggests that
            the Holy Spirit may be the one who brings this refreshment."
            - D.G. Peterson (PNTC)
         d. "people are 'refreshed' in their spirits when the Holy
            Spirit comes to dwell within them." - ESV Study Bible

[All three explanations have merit. But I suggest Peter had in mind the
gift of the Spirit, not only because of similarities between Ac 2:38 and
Ac 3:19, but because what is revealed elsewhere about...]

II. THE REFRESHING GIFT OF THE SPIRIT

   A. THE METAPHOR OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT...
      1. A blessing promised by God in Isaiah - Isa 44:3
         a. "I will pour water on him who is thirsty"
         b. "I will pour My Spirit...and My blessing"
      2. A blessing promised by Jesus in John - Jn 7:37-39
         a. "If any one thirsts, let him come to Me and drink"
         b. "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water"

   B. THE REFRESHING NATURE OF THE SPIRIT...
      1. God's love is poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit - Ro 5:5
      2. Assistance in putting to death the deeds of the body - Ro 8:12-13
      3. Endearment engendered to God ("Abba, Father") - Ro 8:14-16; Ga 4:6
      4. Righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit - Ro 14:17
      5. Abundance of hope by the power of the Holy Spirit - Ro 15:13
      6. Washing, sanctification, and justification by the Spirit - 1Co 6:11; Tit 3:4-7
      7. A deposit (guarantee) of our inheritance - 2Co 1:21-22; 5:5;
         Ep 1:13-14
      8. Strengthening with might the inner man - Ep 3:16,20
      9. Producing the nine-fold fruit of the Spirit - Ga 5:22-23

   C. THIS REFRESHMENT IS AVAILABLE, PROVIDED...
      1. We do not grieve the Spirit - Ep 4:29-31; cf. 1Co 6:18-20; 1Th 4:3-8
         a. Through sinful conduct instead Christ-like conduct
         b. Because our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit
         c. We have been called to holiness, and God has given us of
            His Spirit
      2. We do not quench the Spirit - 1Th 5:19-20; cf. Ep 6:17
         a. By despising prophesies, i.e., the Word of God
         b. For the Word of God is the sword of the Spirit

CONCLUSION

1. Exactly what "the times of refreshing" means might be uncertain...
   a. Whether present or future, "refreshing times" are promised to
      Christians
   b. The Holy Spirit in particular qualifies as a refreshing gift for
      the Christian!

2. In light of what the Spirit does for the Christian, how tragic it
   would be...
   a. If we were to quench the Spirit through sinful conduct and
      neglect
   b. When He is given to Christians in order to quench our spiritual
      thirst!

If you desire to be "refreshed" with "living water", then believe,
repent, and be baptized that you might receive the promised gift of the
Holy Spirit (Jn 7:37-39; Ac 2:38-39; 3:19)...!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

From Gary... What is unsafe???


Sex is important! Safe sex is likewise of great value. To me, for someone to even have to stress the importance of getting married and remaining faithful is incredulous!!!  The opposite sex has been designed that a normal life is one of being joined to a mate for life- not for using and discarding. Without the commitment of marriage, how can children be raised properly? But, the ungodly will always challenge God's ways; even those who pretend to follow God!!! Here is but one example...
  

Mark, Chapter 10 (NASB)

Mar 10:2  Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.
Mar 10:3  And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?"
Mar 10:4  They said, "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY."
Mar 10:5  But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6  "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
Mar 10:7  "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
Mar 10:8  AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9  "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Mar 10:10  In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again.
Mar 10:11  And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
Mar 10:12  and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."


If God joins to people together, who are we to separate this union???  God designed men and women to compliment one another's nature and become complete. To disregard the value of marriage is to hold what God has made in contempt and therefore fight against God!!!  Guess who is going to lose in that confrontation???