5/11/14

From Jim McGuiggan... AS DEPENDENT AND WITHOUT CONTROL AS BABIES


AS DEPENDENT AND WITHOUT CONTROL AS BABIES

Who, do you suppose is the most vulnerable group or class in human society? The very old, the very ill or the very poor—they’re all vulnerable and pretty close to helpless, aren’t they? These would certainly come to mind and with good reason but I’d like to isolate the little children who also are utterly dependent and completely vulnerable but especially because they fit into the context of Jesus’ meeting with the rich ruler [a rich young ruler—Matthew 19:20, 22].

Not to be in control, to be helpless, completely dependent—how would that feel? We know of such people in millions, don’t we! We see and hear of the current events in the media, read of the world’s awful wrongs in history and now and then personally experience occasions when we were in that state. Who wants it? Who would want to want it?

Then there’s the other end of that spectrum. What parent hasn’t thrilled at a toddler’s first unaided steps or laughed over the child’s first attempt to use a spoon or parroted the first word? First signs of a coming independence. How sweet it all is! First time to tie shoe-laces, first unaided bicycle ride, first day at school, first job first.., Independence; bye bye helplessness, hello self-dependence and provision, so long “I can’t do it by myself.”

Once tasted and once the healthy awareness comes that I can and should do some things by myself, it’s onwards and upwards and inwards. It’s healthy, this feeling of being in control, and we’re not to apologize for it but like every other good and rich blessing it can become distorted, misused and become as occasion for arrogance.

In Luke18:9-14 there’s this religious teacher who is able truthfully to say that he is morally upright—he even thanks God for his moral power and behavior. Jesus said the man was in trouble! How was that? He was in trouble because he loved his control and used it to prove to himself, God and man that he was ‘not like other men” [Luke 18:11]. He made it clear he wasn’t dependent, wasn’t helpless, wasn’t vulnerable. As Luke puts it, in 18:9, he was one of those upright types who “trusted in themselves.”

Jesus contrasted him with a man who called himself “the sinner” and couldn’t even lift his eyes when he asked God to be merciful to him [18:13-14]. Jesus said the sinner man who knew he needed and begged for mercy got God’s approval and assurance rather than the morally upright man who exalted himself in God’s presence.

From there Jesus moved on to the vulnerable and utterly dependent little children. In saying people won’t enter the kingdom unless they are like children [18:15-17] Jesus wasn’t talking about some character traits we often see in children—he was talking about their sense of utter need and dependence. Those who would enter the kingdom would come to Him in need of blessings and to be blessed by him [18:15].

Then we have the rich man, the rich ruler man, the rich young ruler man [Luke 18:18-23]. To have great wealth is to be powerful and when you are a rich ruler the power is increased and when you’re young and healthy it can be increased even more.

There is no reason to believe that this young man was arrogant. He walked away very saddened but he didn’t walk away fuming [“How dare he…?]. He came so the text suggests seeking assurance. On the whole, does that suggest arrogance? He’s rich, he’s a young man and he’s a ruler and he comes seeking advice and assurance? I prefer to think he didn’t come with a smirk, self-satisfied, just to see what Jesus would say to a splendid example of success like him. Somewhere in him insecurity lurked and he wanted to get it straight.

Jesus gave him no lecture about legalism when he asked what he must do to inherit eternal life. “You trying to earn your way into heaven young man?” None of that! Never entered Jesus’ head that he was trying to earn life. See how in Luke 10:25-27 Jesus dealt with another man who asked the same question but with a poorer spirit. There the man asked what he “must do” and got no lecture about “legalism” and Jesus told him to do what the Bible told him to do.

But though the rich young ruler wasn’t arrogant and he wasn’t trying to earn life with God it appears that Jesus knew that his wealth was a problem for him so he called him to distribute it all to the poor and come and follow the Lord. Jesus was thrilled when Zaccheus only committed to give away half of his wealth [Luke 19:8-10].

So the young man must have been greedy, selfish, and covetous—yes? No, we have no reason to believe he was any of those particular things though it’s possible he was guilty of that. But when we’re told that Jesus looked on him and “loved him” [Mark 10:31] it’s difficult to see him as having such a character. And when Mark suggests that it was because Jesus loved him that he called him to distribute his wealth and come with him the sense is [to me anyway] that the Lord is moved rather than repelled by this young man. He sees him as in need of love and straight speech rather than contempt. Jesus wanted to bring him in rather than drive him away and it looks to me that the Lord saw the danger that faced this young rich ruler and was trying to save him from it.

In the Luke context that leads up to the young man’s encounter it seems clear that justification, entrance into God’s kingdom or eternal life call for an awareness of full dependence, vulnerability, lack of power or control and it may well be that this was the young man’s trouble. To give away the power that wealth ensures, to step down from an established place of leadership and become one of the band of Jesus with all the uncertainty that that would involve, maybe that was the central problem. “Dispense with all that assures you and promises security in control and leave yourself vulnerable.” Surely that’s something of what Jesus is saying to him.
But we mustn’t miss Jesus’ promise that if he makes such a loving use of his great wealth that he would gain treasure in heaven rather than saying “you will be saved.” Money and its use here is part of the focus. But underneath all that is, “And come and follow me.” Was Jesus inviting him to become part of a band that kept company with Jesus as well as, in general, a disciple? I think so. He was being called to make up his mind about Jesus.

So many dangers! Genuine upright behavior can become a threat to the upright. Feeling no vulnerability, no need of help [“Don’t talk to me as if I were a baby!”] or seeking assurance by what we have—position, wealth or…It’s all grace, we’re entirely dependent on GOD and his gracious provision from beginning to end.

Yes, but how do we respond to that grace? First believe and receive it then work it out!

From Caleb Colley, Ph.D. ... The Jackhammer in Your Backyard

The Jackhammer in Your Backyard

by  Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

If evolution were true, there would be no woodpeckers. Yet there they are, brightly colored birds, daily chipping away at bark on our backyard trees (“Downy Woodpecker,” 2003; “Pileated Woodpecker...,” 1981). Though evolutionists suggest that the woodpecker’s uncommon characteristics are merely adaptations resulting from natural selection (Fergus, n.d.; Ryan, 2003), they cannot satisfactorily explain why these small birds have the ability to drive their beaks powerfully into the side of a tree, and survive to do it again less than a second later.
“Woodpecker” is the common name for just over 200 species (45 in America, 13 in Canada) of animals that are unique among fowl because they frequently cling to, and excavate, tree trunks (see “Woodpecker,” n.d.; “Downy Woodpecker,” 1999; Fergus, n.d.). They “drill” into trees for three distinct purposes: (1) to find food; (2) to attract potential mates; and (3) to build nests (Eckhardt, 2001). The woodpecker’s suspension system allows it to absorb the force of lightning-fast, repetitive strokes on tree trunks. In fact, the bird can peck bark an estimated 20-25 times per second, and strike an estimated 8,000-12,000 times in a day (“Woodpeckers,” 2009; “How Many...?,” 2007).
No other bird can do this. If the kind of force withstood by woodpeckers on a daily basis were applied to the cranium of any other bird, its brain would quickly turn to mush (see “Wondrous Woodpeckers...,” 2002). Moreover, if a human once smacked his head against a tree as hard as woodpeckers do repeatedly, he would suffer serious brain damage, even if he lived through the impact (“Knock on Wood,” 2004).
How do woodpeckers withstand such pressure? What prevents the force applied by the woodpeckers’ mighty neck muscles, and the sudden, swift impact, from literally beating the birds’ brains out? The answer is that their skulls are reinforced with bone, to keep their heads from shattering. David Juhasz wrote:
The forces involved in the woodpecker’s hammering away at trees are incredible, for the suddenness with which the head is brought to a halt during each peck results in a stress equivalent to 1,000 times the force of gravity. This is more than 250 times the force to which an astronaut is subjected in a rocket during liftoff.... In most birds, the bones of the beak are joined to the bones of the cranium—the part of the skull that surrounds the brain. But in the woodpecker the cranium and beak are separated by a sponge-like tissue that takes the shock each time the bird strikes its beak against a tree. The woodpecker’s shock-absorber is so good that scientists say it is far better than any that humans have invented (2001, emp. added).
Consider how the woodpecker takes his position on the tree. Chuck Fergus described this process:
To grip trees, a woodpecker has short, muscular legs and sharply clawed feet. On most species, two toes point forward and two backward. This opposed, “yoke-toed” arrangement lets a woodpecker climb with ease. Stiff, pointed tail feathers catch on the rough bark to brace the hammering body. During molt, the two middle tail feathers (the strongest ones) do not fall out until the other 10 have been replaced and can support the bird’s weight (n.d.).

Most birds have three toes in the front of the foot and one in the back, but the woodpecker’s X-shaped (zygodactyl) feet are perfect for climbing, allowing the woodpecker to move in any direction on a tree trunk (see “Wondrous Woodpeckers...,” 2002; Bassett, n.d.; “The Malayan Woodpecker,” 2002 ). In addition to the amazingly well-designed X-shaped feet, the woodpecker needs its stiff—yet elastic—tail feathers to press against the tree in order to support its weight while it drills the trunk (“Woodpecker,” n.d.).
Next, consider the woodpecker’s tongue. Often extending five times farther than the beak itself, the tongue is so thin that it can reach into ants’ nests in trees. The tongue is also sticky, so it catches the ants and pulls them directly into the woodpecker’s mouth. The tongue’s adhesive, however, does not prevent the woodpecker from eating. The ants’ defense mechanism is no problem either, because the tongue comes complete with a system that negates ant poison (see Yahya, 2004). Juhasz commented:
How does the woodpecker know it has caught the insects? The Creator has given it a tongue with a hard spearhead with bristles pointing rearward, which is attached by tiny fibres of the protein collagen. As the tongue probes a tunnel, the impact of the spearhead on any object jams the head back along the shaft. Nerve endings are precisely located in the fluid-filled spaces between the collagen fibres. They provide the brain with information about the type of material contacted; thus, the woodpecker knows whether it has secured an insect or hit the hard wood of a tree. Once the insects stick to its tongue, the woodpecker pulls them from the tree, then pulls in its long tongue and scrapes the insects off into its mouth (2001).
Consider the beak itself. Like a chisel, it is capable of penetrating even the hardest of wood, and, unlike manmade saws, its point never needs sharpening.
It is argued, however, that because some woodpeckers are different from others (some find their prey on the ground instead of in trees, for example), they all must have evolved from a common ancestor, and that some woodpeckers are merely at different stages of evolution. For example, Juan Garelli wrote concerning the Galapagos:
There are, on the different islands of that archipelago, 14 different species of finch. The 14 species fill many of the roles we should expect—on another continent—to be played by other, unrelated birds. One of them, for instance, is a woodpecker finch. It has evolved a long woodpecker-beak but not a long tongue; it therefore makes use of a twig, held in its beak, to extract insects from bark.
If all the 14 species had been created separately, why are they all finches? If a woodpecker would serve as a woodpecker in the rest of the world, why should it be a finch that acts as a woodpecker on the Galapagos? But the facts make sense if the species all evolved from a common ancestor. If a single finch colonized the Galapagos and then speciated into the present 14 forms, we should expect them all to be finches: they all descended from a finch. The fact that they are finches is known from the homologies that define a finch. If they had been created separately, we should not expect them to share all the finch-homologies. The woodpecker would be the same woodpecker as anywhere else in the world; it would not have finch-defining traits. The Galapagos finches, therefore, provide evidence of evolution (n.d.).
Ryan adds:
The genetic changes necessary for such a modification are quite minor. No new structures are required, merely an extended period of growth to lengthen an existing structure. It is likely that in ancestral woodpecker species which began to seek grubs deeper in trees, those woodpeckers with mutations for increased hyoid horn growth had a fitness advantage, as they could extend their tongue farther to reach prey. Some woodpeckers have no need for long tongues, and thus genes which shortened the hyoid horns were selected for. The sapsucker, for example, drills tiny holes in trees and then uses its short tongue to eat the oozing sap on the tree’s surface (and insects which stick to it) [2003, parenthetical item in orig.].
Garelli and Ryan wrote about microevolution (small-scale changes that result in minor biological variations, but not new kinds of animals), which is responsible for much of the diversity among animals (see Butt, 2005). But Garelli and Ryan did not document macroevolution, which is necessary for Darwinian evolution to be true. Some species of woodpeckers have changed over time, but they all remain woodpeckers. Woodpeckers do not “evolve” into other kinds of animals. To better comprehend this distinction, consider some questions to which evolutionists cannot provide adequate answers:
  • Even though woodpeckers possess powerful mechanisms for drilling, they prefer trees that have visible signs of internal decay (“Pileated Woodpecker Cavities...,” n.d.). At what point did naturalistic evolution “grant” the woodpecker capability to “shop around” for the most suitable tree for excavation?
  • Inherent in the suggestion that the woodpecker is the result of random mutations that took place over millions of years, is that there was a time when the bird possessed some, but not all, of its capabilities. If we grant, for the sake of argument, that mutations are positive and that, given enough time, evolution could produce entirely new biological structures (concessions we do not grant), then what need motivated a woodpecker to “mutate” or “evolve” new traits that it did not possess? Did the first woodpecker that pecked trees do so because it ran out of worms on the ground and then decided to look for worms in trees? If so, how did the woodpecker know that it needed to evolve a highly specialized beak, tongue, set of feathers, and skull, as well as a claw structure, which had to be different from every other claw structure on Earth? And what scientific behavioral measures did it take to initiate evolution?
  • Could a woodpecker decide to evolve a new trait in the first place? If so, what motivated it to make such a decision? Why does the woodpecker not make such decisions now?
  • If a woodpecker, of a species that eats insects from trees, had a tongue that had not yet evolved, but needed to access food deep inside a tree trunk, would the bird have survived for long? If it had not yet “discovered” that it needed a highly specialized tongue to pull the ants into its mouth (and to keep the ants from hurting him), what would it have done, since it surely did not have enough time to “evolve” a totally different, entirely unique, specialized tongue before it died?
  • If a woodpecker ran out of food on the ground, why would its appetite for ants have been so strong that it required the bird to overlook the danger of eating ants, and motivated it to evolve a special tongue for ingesting them? Would it not have preferred only less
    dangerous insects?
  • What about the beak? If a woodpecker’s beak were not sharp and sturdy, would not the fir
    st woodpecker have been doomed to death or permanent injury on the first attempt to hammer a hardwood tree?
  • How did the first full-fledged woodpecker know that food (and a suitable location for nesting) was available inside trees, when the woodpecker’s ancestors had
    not a clue?
  • How did the woodpecker learn that effective communication can be performed by hammering its
    beak on bark?
  • What animal gave birth to the first woodpecker?
  • How did the immediate descendant of the first full-fledged woodpecker know that it also shoul
    d look for food in trees?
Juhasz added:
[H]ow could the woodpecker have evolved its special shock-absorbers? If it had started without them, then all the woodpeckers that were alive would have beaten out their brains long ago. Therefore, there should be no woodpeckers left. And if there had ever been a time when woodpeckers did not drill holes in trees they would not have needed the shock-absorbers anyway (2001).
Finally, we should also address the claim that woodpeckers are pests, and in no way beneficial. Woodpeckers help control insects (one woodpecker can eat up to 2,000 ants in one day) and limit the spread of tree diseases by destroying insect carriers. Also, the roosting holes created by woodpeckers are frequently used by birds of many other species (Clench and Austin, 1995, 15:90).
The fact is, woodpeckers are here, and they do things that defy Darwinism. Unlike evolutionists, creationists can adequately explain the woodpecker without contradicting their convictions concerning origins: God created the woodpecker with unique characteristics, and endowed it with particular instincts that cause it to do what it does. Woodpeckers are strong evidence for a divine Designer, as are all other
living organisms.

REFERENCES

Bassett, David V. (no date), “The Wonderful Woodpecker: Jehovah’s Jaw-Jarring Jackhammer,” [On-line], URL: http://www.creationevidence.org/ cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/qustn_mon/ qustn_mon.html.
Butt, Kyle (2005), "What Do the Finches Prove?," [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3051.
Clench, Mary Heimerdinger and Oliver L. Austin, Jr. (1995), “Birds,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica), 15:1-112.
“Downy Woodpecker” (1999), Canadian Wildlife Services, [On-line],URL: http://www.britishcolumbia.com/Wildlife/wildlife/birds/cw/cw_ downywoodpecker.html.
“Downy Woodpecker” (2003), Nature of New England, [On-line], URL: http://www.nenature.com/DownyWoodpecker.htm.
Eckhardt, Liesl (2001), “Melanerpes carolinus,” ed. Phil Myers, [On-line], URL: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/ accounts/information /Melanerpes_carolinus.html.
Fergus, Chuck (no date), “Woodpeckers,” Pennsylvania Game Commission, [On-line], URL: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/PGC/w_notes/woodpeck.htm.
Garelli, Juan (no date), “Social Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://attachment.edu.ar/socialevl.html.
“How Many Pecks Can a Woodpecker Peck?” (2007), Wild Bird Centers, [On-line], URL: http://www.wildbird.com/species-w.html.
Juhasz, David (2001), “The Incredible Woodpecker,” [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/woodpecker.asp.
“Knock on Wood” (2004), National Wildlife Federation, [On-line], URL: http://www.nwf.org/gowild/kzpage.cfm?siteid=3&departmentid= 76&articleid=188.
“The Malayan Woodpecker” (2002), PageWise,[On-line], URL: http://mama.essortment.com/malayanwoodpeck_rizb.htm.
“Pileated Woodpecker Cavities: Master Builders of the Forest” (no date), Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, [On-line], URL: http://www.fmf.ca/PW/PW_report8.pdf.
“Pileated Woodpecker: Dryocopus pileatus” (1981) [On-line], URL: http://www.otterside.com/htmfiles/woodp5.htm.
Ryan, Rusty (2003), “Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker’s Tongue,” [On-line], URL: http://omega.med.yale.edu/~rjr38/Woodpecker.htm.
“Woodpecker” (no date), Defenders of Wildlife, [On-line], URL: http://www.kidsplanet.org/factsheets/woodpecker.html.
“Woodpeckers,” (2009), Defenders of Wildlife, [On-line], URL: http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/woodpeckers.php.
“Wondrous Woodpeckers: The Design of a Birdbrain” (2002), Project Creation, [On-line], URL: http://www.projectcreation.org/Spot
lights/2002/Jan02.htm.
Yahya, Harun (2004), “The Design of the Woodpecker,” [On-line], URL: http://harunyahya.com/70wood
pecker_sci28.php.

From Mark Copeland... Communal Christianity (Acts 4:32-37)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                    Communal Christianity (4:32-37)

INTRODUCTION

1. The first church in the local sense was the church at Jerusalem...
   a. Noted for its dedication to apostolic doctrine and brotherly love
      - cf. Ac 2:42-47
   b. Which continued to exist as described by Luke in our text - cf.
      Ac 4:32-37

2. The example of the Jerusalem church has often led some to ask...
   a. Did the church practice communism as we know it today?
   b. Is having "all things in common" to be the norm for all churches?

[In an effort to answer such questions, let's begin by reviewing what is
revealed about...]

I. COMMUNAL CHRISTIANITY IN JERUSALEM

   A. THEY HAD ALL THINGS IN COMMON...
      1. Mentioned twice by Luke - Ac 2:44; 4:32
      2. Involving the selling of possessions, goods, homes, lands - Ac 2:45; 4:34
      3. Dividing the proceeds among all, as any had need - Ac 2:45;
         4:34-35

   B. SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, GOOD AND BAD...
      1. Joses (Barnabas) - Ac 4:36-37
         a. Sold a piece of land
         b. Brought the proceeds to the apostles
      2. Ananias and Sapphira - Ac 5:1-4
         a. Sold a possession
         b. Kept back part of the proceeds, lied about it
      3. Needy widows - Ac 6:1
         a. Recipients of a daily distribution
         b. But Hellenist widows were being neglected
 
[Without question the early church in Jerusalem practiced what could be
called a form of "communal" Christianity.  But was it communism?  Is it
to be the norm for churches today?  Consider some...]

II. OBSERVATIONS ABOUT COMMUNAL CHRISTIANITY

   A. IT WAS NOT COMMUNISM...
      1. Communism:  advocacy of a classless society in which private
         ownership has been abolished and the means of production and 
         subsistence belong to the community
      2. Communism requires that people of a society sell their
         property and give the proceeds to the community (or state)
      3. In the Jerusalem church the selling and giving was done
         freely, not out of compulsion
      4. As was giving by Gentile churches later on - cf. 2Co 8:12; 9:7

   B. IT WAS NOT THE NORM FOR ALL...
      1. Ananias and Sapphira did not have to sell their possession,
         nor did they have give the full amount; their sin was lying 
         about the actual amount - cf. Ac 5:1-4,7-8
      2. Some in Jerusalem kept their homes; e.g., Mary - Ac 12:12
      3. Christians elsewhere had their homes
         a. Aquila and Priscilla, in Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome - Ac 18:1-3; 1Co 16:19; Ro 16:3-5
         b. Nymphas, near Colosse - Col 4:15
         c. Philemon, near Colosse, with a guest room - Phm 1:2,22
      4. Rich Christians were commanded to do good, be rich in good
         works, ready to give, willing to share, but it had to be of 
         their own free will - 1Ti 6:17-19

CONCLUSION

1. The example of the church in Jerusalem is an inspiration to all...
   a. Of brotherly love
   b. Of free-will giving

2. It may have occurred due to unique circumstances...
   a. Many new converts had been visiting from other nations on
      Pentecost - Ac 2:1-11
   b. Staying after conversion to learn more, their resources would
      soon be exhausted
   c. Those who lived in Jerusalem were willing to sell possessions to
      help them

3. But the "communal Christianity" practiced there should not be viewed
   as...
   a. Communism or the approval of it
   b. Required (the norm) for all churches

Rather, "communal Christianity" as practiced in Jerusalem can be
considered a viable option, should the need for benevolence arise, and
where it can be practiced without any sort of compulsion...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

From Gary... Jesus' turn to drive- move over!!!!


I am the oldest of my siblings, so growing up, I was required to be the first in everything.  More often than not, I wished I had an older brother to lead me, but alas, that was not my fate. So, I did the best I could and in retrospect, I wish I could have led better. As someone who has been adopted into the heavenly family, I do have an elder brother; one who loves and guides me. And with all my heart, I hope that I always put HIM in the drivers seat!!!  Consider this...

Romans, Chapter 8 (NASB)
Rom 8:1  Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
Rom 8:3  For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4  so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Rom 8:5  For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6  For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
Rom 8:7  because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
Rom 8:8  and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9  However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
Rom 8:10  If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11  But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
Rom 8:12  So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--
Rom 8:13  for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Rom 8:14  For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
Rom 8:15  For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"
Rom 8:16  The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
Rom 8:17  and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.  Words of comfort and encouragement. The thing is- Jesus didn't just talk, he acted. He provided an example of how to follow our Heavenly father, as the words ""Abba! Father!"" show. Jesus really did let God's will be done in his life and so should everyone who calls themselves a CHRISTIAN!!!  Move over, let God rule and relax; when God drives, the destination is always HEAVEN!!!