"CONVERSIONS IN THE BOOK OF ACTS" The 2000 At Solomon's Porch (3:1-4:4)

                   "CONVERSIONS IN THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                 The 2000 At Solomon's Porch (3:1-4:4)

INTRODUCTION

1. In our previous lesson, we considered the conversion of "The 3000 On
   Pentecost"...
   a. Precipitated by the outpouring of the Spirit - Ac 2:1-21
   b. Where Peter proclaimed the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus
      - Ac 2:22-36
   c. In which 3000 souls responded to the gospel commands to repent
      and be baptized - Ac 2:37-41

2. The next example of conversion in Acts is one often overlooked...
   a. Many charts listing examples of conversions in the Book of Acts
      do not include it
   b. Perhaps because little is said about those converted, other than
      "many of those who heard the word believed" - cf. Ac 4:4

3. But since our purpose includes looking at the sermons which led 
   people to Christ, we should certainly consider...
   a. Peter's second gospel sermon, proclaimed on Solomon's Porch in 
      the temple court
   b. A sermon that led 2000 more people to believe in Jesus Christ! 
      - cf. Ac 4:4

[As we did in the previous study, let's begin with...]

I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE CONVERSION

   A. PETER AND JOHN HAD GONE TO THE TEMPLE - Ac 3:1
      1. Christians had been gathering daily in the temple - Ac 2:46
      2. Peter and John arrived at the "hour of prayer, the ninth hour"(3 p.m.)

   B. A MAN LAME FROM BIRTH HAD BEEN HEALED - Ac 3:2-8
      1. Who was left daily at the gate of the temple called
         "Beautiful" - Ac 3:2-3
         a. To ask alms from the people entering the temple
         b. Who asked Peter and John for alms
      2. Peter healed him in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth 
         - Ac 3:4-8
         a. The lame man expected alms
         b. But Peter offered him something much better than silver or gold!
         c. The miracle was immediate and total!

   C. A CROWD HAD GATHERED - Ac 3:9-11
      1. Drawn by the scene of the man walking, praising God; one they
         knew had been lame from birth - Ac 3:9-10
      2. Amazed and wondering, they gathered in the porch called 
         Solomon's - Ac 3:11

[The similarity to the events in Acts 2 are apparent. A miraculous 
event occurs, it attracts the attention of the people.  As before,
Peter uses the opportunity to proclaim Jesus...]

II. THE SERMON AND ITS RESPONSE

   A. JESUS IS PROCLAIMED, AS THE MIRACLE IS EXPLAINED...
      1. Peter explains the true source of the miracle - Ac 3:12-16
         a. It was not by the power or godliness of Peter and John themselves
         b. It was through faith in the One whom the people killed!
            1) God's Servant, Jesus...
               a) Whom the God of their fathers had glorified!
               b) Whom they had delivered up and denied in the presence
                  of Pilate!
               -- Calling Jesus God's "Servant" may be an allusion to
                  Isa 52:13-53:12
            2) The Holy One, The Just, The Prince of Life...
               a) Whom they denied, asking for a murderer to be 
                  released in his stead!
               b) Whom God raised from the dead, as seen by witnesses!
               -- Calling Jesus by these terms emphasized His true 
                  person and power
         c. It was through faith in His name that the lame man was 
            healed; note, however...
            1) It was Peter and John's faith in Jesus, not the lame 
               man's faith
            2) For the lame man had not expected a miracle, but silver
               or gold
      2. Peter acknowledges their ignorance, but still calls upon them
         to repent - Ac 3:17-26
         a. He recognizes that they and their rulers acted in ignorance
         b. That what happened was...
            1) Foretold through God's prophets
            2) Fulfilling God's predetermined plan - cf. Ac 2:23
         c. Yet ignorance is no excuse, so they must "repent and be
            converted" - Ac 3:19
         d. Several reasons to so respond are given - Ac 3:19-26
            1) That "your sins may be blotted out"
               a) Alluding to the ancient practice of erasing mistakes
                  made on papyrus
               b) I.e., another way to describe the remission of sins
                  through Jesus' blood
            2) That "times of refreshing may come from the presence of
               the Lord"
               a) Here is a positive counterpart to the remission of 
                  sins (Stott)
               b) God provides more than just remission of sins, but
                  refreshment for our spirits (Stott)
            3) That God "may send Jesus Christ" (a reference to His 
               second coming)
               a) Who was preached to them before (via the prophets)
               b) Whom heaven must receive until the times of 
                  restoration of all things (of which the prophets of 
                  God had also spoken)
                  1] As an example of the prophets who had spoken, 
                     Moses is quoted
                  2] Others since Samuel have likewise told of these 
                     days
            4) They were "sons of the prophets, and of the covenant"
               God made with their fathers
               a) A covenant made with Abraham, to bless the world in his seed
               b) A promise fulfilled by God through His Servant Jesus,
                  Whom He raised
                  1] Who was sent by God to bless them
                  2] To bless them by turning them away from their sins

   B. THE RESPONSE TO PETER'S SERMON...
      1. A negative response by the religious leaders - Ac 4:1-3
         a. They were greatly disturbed, because in preaching Jesus, 
            Peter preached the resurrection of the dead
         b. The Sadducees in particular denied the idea of a bodily 
            resurrection - Ac 23:6-9
         c. So they had Peter and John placed in custody for trial the
            next day
      2. A positive response by many who heard - Ac 4:4
         a. Many who heard the word "believed"
         b. As many as two thousand men accepted the preaching of Peter!

[The power of the gospel to convict the hearts of men continues to be 
seen, though with some the effect appears to be a hardening of their 
hearts.  As we focus on the sermon and its response, what can we glean
from this example of conversion?]

III. AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONVERSION

   A. OBSERVATIONS REGARDING PETER'S SERMON...
      1. Again we note the Christ-centeredness of Peter's preaching
         a. As in his sermon on Pentecost
         b. While explaining the miracle, he directs their attention to
            Jesus, not the sign
      2. Again Peter's main theme is the resurrection and exaltation of
         Jesus - Ac 3:13-15
         a. The One they killed, God raised from the dead
         b. The One they killed, God has glorified
      3. Yet Peter also introduces a new element...
         a. The coming of Jesus from heaven!
         b. Jesus is coming again! - Ac 3:20-21
      4. The sermon's climax is the call to "repent therefore, and be
         converted" - Ac 3:19
         a. From this we learn that repentance and conversion are not
            same thing
            1) Otherwise, Peter was redundant
            2) I.e., he would have been saying "repent and repent"
         b. Repent (metanoeo) means "a change of mind"
            1) True repentance is brought on by "godly sorrow" - 2 Co 7:9
            2) Such repentance then leads one to "salvation" - 2Co 7:10
            -- Thus they were being called to change their minds 
               regarding Jesus and their sinful ways
         c. What is meant by "be converted"?
            1) The NKJV and KJV suggest a passive act, but the Greek is
               aorist active imperative, implying there is something we
               must do
               a) The key idea is to "turn" or "return"
               b) The NIV has "turn to God" and the NASB has "return"
               -- But how does one turn to God?
            2) Compare Peter's word's Ac 3:19 with Ac 2:38
               a) "Repent" (Ac 2:38) and "Repent" (Ac 3:19)
               b) "Be baptized" (Ac 2:38) and "Be converted" (Ac 3:19)
            3) Could Peter be referring to baptism when he says "be 
               converted"?
               a) When one submits to baptism, they so do with an 
                  appeal for a clear conscience - cf. 1Pe 3:21
               b) In baptism they are calling upon the name of the Lord
                  - Ac 22:16
            -- Therefore I believe the call to "turn" likely involved baptism       
      5. The blessings promised are similar to those found in the first sermon
         a. There is the forgiveness of sins...
            1) Described as the "remission of sins" in the first 
               sermon - Ac 2:38
            2) Described now as having one's sins "blotted out" - Ac 3:19
         b. There is the positive counterpart to the remission of sins...
            1) Described as "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in the first
               sermon - Ac 2:38-39
            2) Described now as "the times of refreshing...from the
               presence of the Lord" - Ac 3:19
            3) I understand Peter to refer to the same thing...
               a) I.e., the Spirit as a gift to the Christian - Ac 5:
                  32; Ga 4:6; Ep 1:13-14
               b) Whom Jesus promised as a refreshing blessing - Jn 7:
                  37-39; cf. also Jn 4:10-14
      6. In this sermon we find a warning
         a. In the first sermon Peter pleaded with the people to "be
            saved from this perverse generation" - Ac 2:40
         b. Now we find a reason why, with Moses' prophecy: "every soul
            who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed
            from among the people" - Ac 3:23

   B. OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE RESPONSE...
      1. As mentioned in the introduction, little is said, other than 
         many "believed" - Ac 4:4
      2. Are we to conclude from this that was all they did?
         a. Did they not also "repent"?
         b. Did they not also "turn"?
      3. I think it fair to conclude that the term "believed" 
         encompassed more than simply an acceptance of the facts that 
         had been proclaimed
         a. That it involved a complete reception of the message preached
         b. That it included an obedience to whatever conditions had 
            been proclaimed by the apostles (such as repentance, 
            turning, baptism)
         c. That just as faith was not explicitly mentioned in the
            first sermon, but is fairly inferred, so also with baptism here

   C. LESSONS FOR TODAY...
      1. When preaching the gospel...
         a. We must not lose the Christ-centeredness of our focus
            1) That includes preaching his death, resurrection and 
               glorification
            2) That Jesus provides more than just the forgiveness of 
               sin; but as the Prince of Life, He is the source of 
               every spiritual blessing from above - cf. Ep 1:3
            3) That preaching Christ includes preaching His return from
               heaven, for He is coming again!
         b. The clarion call of the gospel is one of repentance!
            1) Faith and baptism are certainly important even essential
            2) Yet repentance was an important theme of preaching by:
               a) John the Baptist - Mt 3:1-2
               b) Jesus - Mt 4:17; Lk 13:3,5
               -- And now by the apostles - Ac 2:38; 3:19; cf. Lk 24:47; Ac 20:21
      2. When people respond to the gospel, we should expect to see...
         a. A change of mind (repentance), brought about by "godly 
            sorrow" - cf. 2Co 7:9-10
         b. A change of life, as they "turn" from their sins and "turn"
            to God - cf. 2Co 7:11
            1) Implied by the word "converted" (turn)
            2) A process that involves their baptism into Christ, in 
               which they die to sin and rise to walk in newness of 
               life - cf. Ro 6:3-7
         -- All of which can be summarized as having "believed"!

CONCLUSION

1. With this example of conversion, Peter continues to fulfill the 
   commission of his Lord...
   a. To preach the gospel - Mk 16:15-16
   b. To preach repentance and remission of sins in His name - Lk 24:47

2. We saw that not all responded in the same way...
   a. Yes, 2000 heard the word and believed
   b. But some religious people with their preconceived ideas were 
      resistant to the gospel
   -- Sadly, many people today reject the apostolic preaching of the 
      gospel for similar reasons

I pray that such is not the case with you; that as we study the 
preaching of the apostles and responses to it, your heart will be open
to the Word of God.  Especially to this key verse in our study:

   "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
   out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of
   the Lord" (Ac 3:19)

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

 

The Quran and Forgiveness by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=1573

The Quran and Forgiveness

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The Quran forthrightly rejects the crucial role occupied by the death and resurrection of Jesus (Surah4:157-158; 3:55). Consequently, the Quran of necessity must leave the impression that God can simply forgive people if they will repent and submit (i.e., become Muslims). To “believe” means to accept Allah as the one and only God, and to accept Muhammad as Allah’s ultimate and final messenger. Resignation and submission of one’s will to this foundational principle (the shahadas), accompanied by good deeds in life, is the means of forgiveness in the Quran. Consider the following passages (from the celebrated translation by Muslim scholar Mohammed Pickthall):

And as for those who believe and do good works, He will pay them their wages in full (Surah 3:57, emp. added).

Then, as for those who believed and did good works, unto them will He pay their wages in full, adding unto them of His bounty; and as for those who were scornful and proud, them will He punish with a painful doom (Surah 4:173, emp. added).

O ye who believe! If ye keep your duty to Allah, He will give you discrimination (between right and wrong) and will rid you of your evil thoughts and deeds, and will forgive you. Allah is of infinite bounty (Surah 8:29, emp. added).

And those who believed and did good works are made to enter the Gardens underneath which rivers flow, therein abiding by permission of their Lord, their greeting therein: Peace! (Surah 14:23, emp. added).

Say: O My slaves who have been prodigal to their own hurt! Despair not of the mercy of Allah, Who forgiveth all sins. Lo! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful. Turn unto Him repentant, and surrender unto Him, before there come unto you the doom, when ye cannot be helped (Surah 39:53-54, emp. added).

These verses spotlight the Quran’s formula for salvation. Turning from unbelief to Allah is the specific grounds upon which Allah can forgive past sin and extend continuing forgiveness to the believer (cf.Surah 11:3; 26:51; 45:30; 46:31). Not only does the Quran nowhere offer a deeper explanation by which forgiveness may be divinely bestowed (i.e., blood atonement), it states explicitly that it is genuine (i.e., non-hypocritical) belief and good deeds that rectify sin:

And those who believe and do good works and believe in that which is revealed unto Muhammad—and it is the truth from their Lord—He riddeth them of their ill-deeds and improveth their state (Surah 47:2, emp. added).

And whosoever striveth, striveth only for himself, for lo! Allah is altogether Independent of (His) creatures. And as for those who believe and do good works, We shall remit from them their evil deeds and shall repay them the best that they did.... And as for those who believe and do good works, We verily shall make them enter in among the righteous (Surah 29:6-7,9, emp. added).

Compare Ali’s translation of these same verses:

And if any strive (with might and main), they do so for their own souls: for Allah is free of all needs from all creation. Those who believe and work righteous deeds, from them Weshall blot out all evil (that may be) in them, and We shall reward them according to the best of their deeds.... And those who believe and work righteous deeds, them We shall admit to the company of the Righteous (emp. added).

Another example is seen in the following Quranic utterance:

Thou seest the wrong-doers fearful of that which they have earned, and it will surely befall them; while those who believe and do good works (will be) in flowering meadows of the Gardens, having what they wish from their Lord. This is the great preferment. This it is which Allah announceth unto His bondmen who believe and do good works. Say (O Muhammad, unto mankind): I ask of you no fee therefore, save lovingkindness among kinsfolk. And whoso scoreth a good deed We add unto its good for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Responsive. Or say they: He hath invented a lie concerning Allah? If Allah willed, He could have sealed thy heart (against them). And Allah will wipe out the lie and will vindicate the truth by His words. Lo! He is aware of what is hidden in the breasts (of men). And He it is Who accepteth repentance from his bondmen, and pardoneth the evil deeds, and knoweth what ye do. And accepteth those who do good works, and giveth increase unto them of His bounty. And as for disbelievers, theirs will be an awful doom (Surah 42:22-26, emp. added).

Where Pickthall has “whoso scoreth a good deed,” Ali renders it: “if any one earns any good We shall give him an increase of good in respect thereof” (vs. 23). The Quran explains that when Allah’s warnings and signs eventually come to pass, “no good will it do to a soul to believe in them then, if it believed not before nor earned righteousness through its faith....He that does good shall have ten times as much to his credit” (Ali’s translation of Surah 6:159,161, emp. added). Such verses underscore the fact that the means by which Allah can forgive sins is the Muslim’s commission of good deeds (cf. Surah 25:70; 39:35; 64:9).

In fact, the good deeds must outweigh the bad deeds on the Day of Judgment: “Then, he whose balance (of good deeds) will be (found) heavy, will be in a Life of good pleasure and satisfaction. But he whose balance (of good deeds) will be (found) light, will have his home in a (bottomless) Pit. And what will explain to you what this is? (It is) a Fire blazing fiercely!” (Surah 101:6-11, Ali’s translation). The Quran even states explicitly that good deeds drive away evil deeds:

And lo! unto each thy Lord will verily repay his works in full. Lo! He is informed of what they do. So tread thou the straight path as thou art commanded, and those who turn (unto Allah) with thee, and transgress not. Lo! He is Seer of what ye do.... Establish worship at the two ends of the day and in some watches of the night. Lo! good deeds annul ill deeds. This is a reminder for the mindful. And have patience, (O Muhammad), for lo! Allah loseth not the wages of the good (Surah 11:111-112,114-115, emp. added).

Allah will, in fact, simply overlook the evil deeds of those who become Muslims: “Those are they from whom We accept the best of what they do, and overlook their evil deeds. (They are) among the owners of the Garden. This is the true promise which they were promised (in the world)” (Surah 46:16, emp. added). Ali renders “overlook” as “pass by.” So according to the Quran, forgiveness from Allah is grounded in and dependent upon the act of becoming a Muslim and maintaining that status with good deeds. No wonder the September 11, 2001 Islamic terrorists could visit a strip bar just prior to their suicidal mission (Farrington, 2001). They understood the Quran’s teaching that good deeds enable God to overlook the bad.

In contrast, the Bible certainly teaches that good deeds are necessary to salvation (Acts 10:35; Romans 2:6). In fact, faith itself is a “work”—a deed that the individual must do (John 6:29). Repentance, confession of the deity of Jesus with the mouth, and water baptism are likewise all necessary prerequisites to the reception of forgiveness from God (Acts 2:38; 17:30; Romans 10:9-10). However, the New Testament teaches that obedience to divinely specified deeds does not make those deeds meritorious, i.e., they do not earn salvation for the individual. They are conditions of salvation—but not the grounds of salvation. They do not erase or rectify past sin. Atonement must still be made for all sins previously committed (Isaiah 59:1-2).

Much of Christendom has gone awry on this point. Especially since the Protestant Reformation, the pendulum shifted to the extreme, unbiblical contention that all one need do is “believe,” what Martin Luther labeled “sola fide” (faith alone) (cf. Lewis, 1991, pp. 353-358; Butt, 2004). The Quran advocates the equally incorrect opposite extreme of earning forgiveness by human works of merit. The New Testament actually steers a middle course between these two extremes by insisting that no sin can be forgiven without the shed blood of Jesus. Here is the grace of Christianity—God doing for humanity what humanity is powerless to do for itself, i.e., atone for its own sin. This gracious act of God is unmerited, undeserved, and unearned (Ephesians 2:8-9). Nothing humans do can repay God for this indescribable gift (2 Corinthians 9:15). Nevertheless, in order for the alien sinner to access the rich blessing of forgiveness based on the blood of Christ, he or she must render obedience to the Gospel of Christ (Romans 6:16-17; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Hebrews 5:9) through faith, repentance, confession, and baptism (Hebrews 11:6; Luke 13:3; Romans 10:9-10; 1 Peter 3:21). This obedient response to Christ does not earn forgiveness for the sinner, or counteract past misdeeds. Rather, it represents compliance with the divinely (not humanly) mandated prerequisites by which one receives and accepts the gift of salvation that God offers to those who will respond appropriately. [NOTE: The New Testament term that is translated “Gospel,” meaning “good news” (Bruce, 1977, pp. 1ff.), refers specifically to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as the sole means by which sin may be forgiven. Incredibly, the Quran is silent on the need for atonement and Christ’s death on the cross, and yet it speaks approvingly of “Injil” (or “Injeel”), i.e., the Gospel, apparently referring to the revelation that Muhammad thought was revealed to Jesus.]

REFERENCES

Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (1934), The Qur’an (Elmhurst, NY: Tahrike Tarsile Quran), ninth edition.

Bruce, F.F. (1977), The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.

Butt, Kyle (2004), “Martin Luther Speaks on ‘Faith Only’ and Baptism,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1858.

Farrington, Brendan (2001), “FBI Investigates Possible Fla. Links,” [On-line]: URL: http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/questions/stripbar.htm.

Lewis, Jack (1991), Questions You’ve Asked About Bible Translations (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).

Pickthall, Mohammed M. (n.d.), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

David Has Been Found by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=576

David Has Been Found

by	Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

Last summer, archaeologists excavating at Tel Dan (biblical Dan) found a fragment of a stela (inscribed stone) in the remains of a city wall that scholars acclaim as “one of the most important discoveries in the annals of Biblical archaeology” (Wood, 1993, 6[4]:121). The stone fragment seems to have been from a victory stela erected at Dan by a conquering Aramean (Syrian) army. When the Israelites eventually reclaimed the city, they destroyed the stela and used its fragments in various structures (Shanks, 1994, 20[2]:39). Professor Avraham Biran, the archaeologist heading the excavation, has dated the stela to the first half of the ninth century B.C. (Shanks, 1994, 20[2]:38).

Though only thirteen partial lines remain of this once-impressive monument, they contain an unparalleled literary jewel. Lines 8 and 9 explicitly mention the “king of Israel” and the “House of David,” which the conquering army defeated [The drawing on the left depicts the lower portion of the basalt stela from Tel Dan. The engraved inscription is written in paleo-Hebrew.  The two highlighted areas are translated “king of Isreal” and “House of David,” respectively.] These statements are important for several reasons. First, this is the only extant, extrabiblical document that unquestionably mentions the name David (perhaps it also appears in the Mesha stela, better known as the Moabite stone; see Lemaire, 1994). Even more remarkable is the fact that his name appears in the familiar phrase “House of David.” Given the date of the stela, this serves to confirm the biblical usage of this designation (cf. 1 Kings 12:19, 14:8, Isaiah 7:2, et al.).

Second, though critical scholars have tended to minimize the importance of Israel and Judah during this historical period, the inscription supports the significance that the Bible attaches to these two kingdoms. Third, the tentative date of this discovery corresponds historically with 1 Kings 15:9-20 in which Ben-Hadad, King of Syria (Aram), attacked several Israelite cities including Dan. Some scholars argue that the stela is an exact parallel to this sacred account.

However, there seem to be some differences between the details of 1 Kings 15:9-20 and the ancient stela fragment. Most conspicuously, the stela suggests (if accurately translated) that the Syrian army destroyed both Israel and Judah, but the biblical text indicates that Syria and Judah were alliesagainst Israel. These discrepancies do not necessarily mean that either account is inaccurate. It may be that the stela refers to another battle not mentioned in the Bible, and it is very likely that there were several skirmishes involving Syria. But the stela does demonstrate that Syria (Aram) had military conflicts with Israel, lending corroborative testimony to the historical reliability of the biblical text.

No doubt, analysis of and debate over the stela will continue for some time. We can be certain, however, that the name “David” has been found in a ninth-century B.C. text other than the Bible. That incontrovertible fact is yet another ancient witness to biblical credibility.

REFERENCES

Lemaire, Andre (1994), “ ‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[3]:30-37, May/June.

Shanks, Hershel (1994a), “ ‘David’ Found at Dan,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[2]:26-39, March/April.

Shanks, Hershel (1994b), “New Inscription May Illuminate Biblical Events,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[2]:38, March/April.

Wood, Bryant (1993), “New Inscription Mentions House of David,” Bible and Spade, 6[4]:119-121, Autumn.

Atheist Finally “Sobers Up” by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1467

Atheist Finally “Sobers Up”

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Nearly 30 years ago, a debate of significant proportions took place. It was September 20-23, 1976. The place was the campus of North Texas State University in Denton, Texas. The disputants were two longtime professors of philosophy—Thomas B. Warren (whose Ph.D. in philosophy was from Vanderbilt) and Antony G.N. Flew (who was teaching in the University of Reading near London, England). The propositions they debated juxtaposed succinctly the real issue between thorough-going (positive) atheism and thorough-going (biblical) theism. Dr. Flew affirmed, “I know that God does not exist,” and Dr. Warren affirmed, “I know that God does exist.”

Dr. Warren once explained why he selected Antony Flew as his opponent in the debate. His rationale was simple: if those who are on the cutting edge of philosophical thought and who are considered to be the leaders in their chosen area of expertise—the “best of the best” if you will—are unable to defend their position when confronted by a fair and accurate defense of the truth, their error will be exposed. Those who were influenced by these leading men would be forced (like the “domino effect”) to recognize the sterility of the viewpoint they had embraced. Antony Flew had been a leading champion of atheism for decades. His writings dominated philosophical journals, and he was a prolific author [his books included Hume’s Philosophy of Belief (1961), God and Philosophy (1966),Evolutionary Ethics (1967), An Introduction to Western Philosophy (1971), and even a book on logic—Thinking Straight (1975)]. Having taught at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, Flew also served as a visiting professor in many American universities, and conducted numerous debates in the process of defending his atheism.

For the first two nights of the Warren-Flew debate, Flew assumed the affirmative position in an attempt to prove that God does not exist. However, Warren’s kind-but-relentless assault in the negative position seemed to leave Flew battered, bewildered, and disoriented—so much so that when Dr. Warren assumed the affirmative position on the third night of the debate, he spent a few minutes attempting to ascertain the reason for Dr. Flew’s failure, while in the affirmative, to present a sound argument for his atheistic contention in a precise logical way:

It has been suggested that his failure is due to the fact that he is in a foreign country, but such could have little or nothing to do with this proposition. That he is out of his own country has nothing to do with how he handles intellectual material. Neither is his failure due to his not being accustomed to this style of debating. I have heard him in discussion before, and he seemed not to be bothered at all by the kind of format that was involved. Perhaps he did not know the responsibility of an affirmative speaker? But that cannot be so because, in his writings, he constantly chides a man who does not recognize his responsibility as an affirmant. Perhaps because he does not know the arguments? I deny that emphatically. In reading the works of Dr. Flew, I am convinced that he knows the arguments that are involved as well as anybody in the world. Perhaps because he does not understand or accept the law of rationality? The truth of the matter is: he has written very strongly and frequently in defense of it! But he has not acted in harmony with it in thisdiscussion. Ordinarily, when he is writing in the affirmative, and he writes almost constantly of matters that are concerned with God or very closely related to God—at least subjects that are peripheral to the subject of God. In fact, it is the case that he is almost God-intoxicated. He constantly emphasizes in his books that the onus of proof is on the affirmative writer or speaker! But I am afraid that he has not recognized that truth in this discussion (1977, pp. 131-132, emp. in orig.).

In the very next speech—the first negative—Dr. Flew responded to Dr. Warren’s comments in the following words: “Dr. Warren may be assured that I am sobering up from God intoxication. I shall be writing considerably less, if anything, in this area in the future” (p. 143, emp. added). Now, 28 years later, Dr. Flew appears, indeed, to finally have sobered up. At the age of 81, he has announced to the world that, based upon the scientific evidence, he now believes in some type of God (“Famous Atheist…,” 2004). However, do not jump to any premature conclusions. One interviewer spoke with Dr. Flew about his recent adjustments in his thinking, and concluded:

The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn’t really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian—he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind. But he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal “prime mover.” It might not even be conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that, at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a universe exists that can produce complex life. But he is still unsure. In fact, he asked that I not directly quote him yet, until he finally composes his new introduction to a final edition of his book God and Philosophy, due out next year. He hasn’t completed it yet, precisely because he is still examining the evidence and thinking things over. Anything he says now, could change tomorrow (Carrier, 2004).

Here is what Flew has stated about whether he believes in God in the biblical sense:

I do not think I will ever make that assertion, precisely because any assertion which I am prepared to make about God would not be about a God in that sense ... I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations…. My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms (as quoted in Carrier, italics in orig., emp. added).

It’s a step. But Dr. Flew has a long way to go to arrive at the truth concerning God’s existence. Observe that even when an atheist is forced to recognize that the evidence demands that a purposive, intelligent Being lies behind the Creation, he still endeavors to relegate this intelligence to an impersonal force that does not “provide a postmortem salvation.” Why? Because the same Being also would provide a “postmortem condemnation” in which humans will rightly and justly receive punishment for their sinful behavior on Earth. Can’t have that, can we?! It would mean adjusting one’s daily life choices and relegating one’s stubborn pride beneath the will of God.

Flew also stated: “My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads” (“Famous Atheist…,” emp. added). If that were true, he would have already been led to the truth that the God of the Bible exists (just read the Warren-Flew debate!). Indeed, all the available evidence leads to that singular conclusion. The very evidence that Flew now believes indicates the existence of some sort of God, is the same evidence that he once insisted supported atheism! It took him 66 years to arrive at this most recent conclusion (Flew has been a self-avowed atheist since he was 15). But given the current human lifespan, he does not have another 66 years to follow the evidence to where it leads.

REFERENCES

Carrier, Richard (2004), “Antony Flew Considers God—Sort Of,” [On-line], URL: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369.

“Famous Atheist Now Believes in God” (2004), The Associated Press, December 9, [On-line], URL: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976.

Flew, Antony G.N. and Thomas B. Warren (1977), Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

A Crater of Consensus, or False Assurance? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2863

A Crater of Consensus, or False Assurance?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

According to a litany of recent news reports, “the mystery has been solved.” The riddle has been unraveled. A “dream team” of scientists now knows the answer. After much debate over the last several decades, the matter of the great dinosaur demise reportedly has been confirmed, reaffirmed, and settled. At least, that is what the main stream, pro-atheistic, evolutionary media has reported.

On what did a group of evolutionary scientists come to an agreement? The volcano theory? The hay fever theory? The poisonous plant theory? None of these. Forty-one researchers from across the globe believe that everyone can now rest assured that, as many evolutionists had previously thought, dinosaurs became extinct as a result of an asteroid that hit Mexico 65 million years ago (Watson, 2010). According to Kirk Johnson of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, “We assessed the whole picture.... The answer is quite simple.... The Chicxulub crater really is the culprit” (as quoted in Watson). Due to the impact of this seven-mile-wide asteroid and its subsequent effects, including earthquakes, tsunamis, and darkness (as a result of dust and debris), all of the dinosaurs died out.

As with the General Theory of Evolution, these scientists would like us to think that the debate is over. But the debate is far from over, as even some evolutionary scientists are unconvinced by the asteroid theory. For example, Princeton University professor Gerta Keller still believes that the crater at Chicxulub was formed long before dinosaurs became extinct. What’s more, as many creationists have been asking ever since this theory was first proposed (see Lyons and Butt, 2008, p. 210), evolutionist Norman MacLeod of the Museum of Natural History in London, “wonders why, if the asteroid strike was such a doomsday event, some classes of species survived and even thrived” (Watson, 2010).

The truth is, no one knows for sure why the last of the dinosaurs died out. The Noahic Flood certainly would have destroyed countless thousands (or millions) of dinosaurs around the world. Those that survived the Flood (on Noah’s ark) eventually became extinct for unknown reasons. Creationists have proposed logical reasons why they may have died out (see Lyons and Butt, pp. 220-223), but no one can be absolutely certain.

There is one thing that we can know for sure: dinosaur extinction in no way disproves Creation.

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Watson, Traci (2010), “‘Dream Team’ Agrees Huge Asteroid Killed Dinosaurs,” March 4, [On-line],URL: http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/scientists-reaffirm-asteroid-theory-in-dinosaur-deaths/19383600?icid=main|aim|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fscientists-reaffirm-asteroid-theory-in-dinosaur-deaths%2F19383600.

America’s “Sudden Catastrophe” by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2796

America’s “Sudden Catastrophe”

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Scanning the social landscape of America, one is struck by a number of cultural factors that characterize the present condition of society. Consider the following four. First, Americans have shifted dramatically away from instruction in the Christian religion and respect for the authority of the Bible. The public school system and the scientific community are thoroughly ensconced in an anti-religion, evolutionist posture. Statistics show that fewer Americans attend church, read their Bibles, or retain commitment to the precepts of Jesus Christ. Even among those who maintain an affiliation with the “formal” aspects of religion, churches have become “seeker sensitive” in their thrust, providing centers of entertainment and strictly positive, “feel good,” anecdotal talks in place of Bible-based, soul-strengthening sermons. Sermons that stir the soul and convict the conscience are decried as “too negative” and “hell-fire and brimstone preaching.” Yes, Americans are rejecting religious instruction and authority.

Second, Americans have distorted the notion of justice. In many ways, the criminal justice system has become a laughing stock, earning the distrust and dismay of large segments of the population. Since the 1960s shift from the rights of the victim to the rights of the criminal, America’s laws and sense of justice have been gradually restructured and redefined. Prisons are full to overflowing, resulting in unjust early release programs. Having committed crimes “deserving of death” (Acts 25:11; Romans 1:32), inmates continue to live on death row for years and years. “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecclesiastes 8:11). On one hand, criminals commit multiple heinous crimes, inflicting injury and death on law-abiding citizens, only to be released on technicalities to continue their vile rampage on the security and well-being of the innocent. On the other hand, Christian parents can apply proper discipline to their children and be brought before authorities for child abuse and imprisoned. Yes, Americans are violating the rules of eternal justice.

Third, for over 150 years, Americans shared a common and virtually universal moral framework. As political sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville observed of America in the 1830s: “Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent; the consequence is, as I have before observed, that every principle of the moral world is fixed and determinate” (1835, 1:304-305, emp. added). Since World War II, Americans have steadily relaxed the moral sensibilities that once governed society, providing citizens with certainty and stability in their daily behavioral choices. The rigid parameters that once gave society cohesion, defining what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, have all but evaporated. From abortion and embryonic stem-cell research to same-sex relations, clear cut moral distinctions have become blurred in the minds of many people. Yes, Americans are trifling with the injunctions of morality.

Fourth, liberal politicians and activist judges are running amok throughout the country. Foolish, ungodly decisions have been perpetrated on the public—from the removal of Ten Commandment monuments from public places and the banning of prayers in city council and school board meetings, to the redefinition of marriage and accommodation of easy divorce. Even Supreme Court justices are looking to foreign courts to guide their judicial decisions and thwart the intentions of the Framers. Their reinterpretation of the Constitution that results in the expulsion of God from the public square constitutes an illicit tampering with the foundations of the nation. Yes, Americans are recklessly destroying the political constitution that holds us together.

In view of these most unfortunate circumstances, consider the words from a speech delivered on February 23, 1852 by second generation American, Daniel Webster, who offered the following chilling prophecy:

[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity (1903, 13:492-493, emp. added).

This uncanny, prophetic anticipation of America’s current condition is being fulfilled before our very eyes. All that remains to happen is the judgment that is inevitable—since God remains consistent with His actions throughout world history (Genesis 19:13; Psalm 9:17; cf. “calamity” in 2 Chronicles 7:22).

REFERENCES

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1835), Democracy in America (New York, NY: Alfred Knopf, 1994 reprint).

Webster, Daniel (1903), The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company).

From Gary... To my friends...

Sounds like something from Ireland, doesn't it? Anyway- beautiful sentiments!!! Which made me think of all the thousands of you who monthly look at the things I write. What should I say to you? Paul gives me a good example...

Philippians, Chapter 1 (WEB)

 2 Grace to you, and peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.  3 I thank my God whenever I remember you,  4 always in every request of mine on behalf of you all making my requests with joy,  5 for your partnership in furtherance of the Good News from the first day until now;  6 being confident of this very thing, that he who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.  7 It is even right for me to think this way on behalf of all of you, because I have you in my heart, because, both in my bonds and in the defense and confirmation of the Good News, you all are partakers with me of grace.  8 For God is my witness, how I long after all of you in the tender mercies of Christ Jesus. 

  9  This I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and all discernment;  10 so that you may approve the things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense to the day of Christ;  11 being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. 

During the past seven or so years, I have been blessed with many new internet friends, many from all over the world.  I wish to say thank you for visiting!! May God bless you all!!!!

Your friend,

Gary