5/26/15

From Mark Copeland... "CONVERSIONS IN THE BOOK OF ACTS" The Twelve Disciples Of John (19:1-10)



                   "CONVERSIONS IN THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                      The Twelve Disciples Of John (19:1-10)

INTRODUCTION

1. In our survey of "Conversions In The Book of Acts", we have 
   considered the following examples of conversion...
   a. The 3000 on Pentecost - Ac 2:1-41
   b. The 2000 at Solomon's Porch - Ac 3:1-4:4
   c. The Samaritans - Ac 8:4-25
   d. The Ethiopian Eunuch - Ac 8:26-40
   e. Saul Of Tarsus - Ac 9:1-19; 22:6-16; 26:12-18
   f. Cornelius And His Household - Ac 10:1-48; 11:1-18
   g. Two Households At Philippi - Ac 16:6-34
   h. The Athenians - Ac 17:16-34
   i. The Corinthians - Ac 18:1-11

2. There were others that we might have considered, but did not...
   a. Those at Antioch of Syria - Ac 11:19-21
   b. Sergius Paulus on the island of Paphos - Ac 13:4-12
   c. Those at Antioch of Pisidia - Ac 13:13-48
   d. Those at Iconium, Lystra and Derbe - Ac 14:1-20
   e. Those at Thessalonica and Berea - Ac 17:1-12
   f. Apollos, who was taught by Aquilla and Priscilla - Ac 18:24-28

3. But in those we examined, I shared the following observations:
   a. The gospel message was one that focused on Jesus...
      1) Who died for our sins
      2) Who was raised from the dead
      3) Who is both Lord and Christ, returning again one day to judge
         the world
   b. The response expected of those who heard was one of...
      1) Faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (which included
         confessing that faith)
      2) Repentance of one's sins
      3) Baptism for the remission of sins

4. Before we conclude this series, I wish to examine one more case of
   conversion...
   a. It is the last example of conversion in Acts (with the possible
      of exception of some in the audience when Paul spoke at Rome 
      - Ac 28:23-24)
   b. It is unique for several reasons, one of which is that it 
      describes a "re-baptism"

[I am referring to "The Twelve Disciples Of John", recorded in Ac 19:
1-10.  As we begin this study, let's review the Biblical record...]

I. THE CONVERSION OF TWELVE "DISCIPLES"

   A. PAUL'S ARRIVAL IN EPHESUS...
      1. He had just started his third journey - Ac 18:22-23
      2. At the end of his second journey, he had made a quick stop at
         Ephesus - Ac 18:19-21
      3. True to his word, he returned to Ephesus - Ac 19:1

   B. PAUL MEETS TWELVE "DISCIPLES"...
      1. He finds some "disciples", who were twelve in number - Ac 19:1b,7
      2. Upon questioning, he learns they were disciples of John the 
         Baptist - Ac 19:2-3
         a. He asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when 
            they believed
            1) As explained in the conversion of "The Samaritans" 
               (Ac 8:4-25), I believe the phrase "receive the Holy Spirit"
               to be a metonymy for receiving a miraculous gift from 
               the Spirit
            2) As an apostle, Paul had the ability to impart spiritual
               gifts - Ro 1:11; 2Ti 1:6
            3) Assuming the "disciples" to have been baptized into 
               Christ, he desired to give them gifts from the Spirit 
               (such as the gifts of tongues and prophesy, cf. 1Co 12:10)
         b. Their immediate answer sparks another question from Paul
            1) They had not heard about a Holy Spirit
               a) They must not have known much of John's own teaching,
                  for he taught about the Holy Spirit - cf. Mt 3:11
               b) They clearly could not have been properly baptized
                  into Christ, for it is a baptism into the name of the
                  Father, Son and Holy Spirit! - cf. Mt 28:19
            2) So Paul inquires into their baptism
               a) He learns that it was John's baptism
               b) Some have suggested that these 12 may have been 
                  converted by Apollos before Apollos himself learned 
                  the truth - cf. Ac 18:24-25

   C. THE TWELVE ARE "RE-BAPTIZED"...
      1. Paul explains that while John did teach a baptism of 
         repentance, he directed people to believe on Jesus who would
         come after him - Ac 19:4
      2. The twelve are then baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus 
         - Ac 19:5
         a. This would be the baptism commanded by Jesus - Mt 28:18-20
         b. And the baptism expected of all would-be disciples of Jesus
            - Ac 2:38; 22:16
      3. Following their baptism, Paul laid hands on them and the 
         Spirit imparted gifts of tongues and prophesy - Ac 19:6-7

[Such was the beginning of a very successful period for the gospel (cf.
Ac 19:8-10).  Again we see what was considered the normal response of
one who wished to become a disciple of Jesus (faith and baptism).

The example of "The Twelve Disciples Of John" does raise an interesting
question concerning "re-baptism":  Under what circumstances should one
be baptized again?  Here are some thoughts regarding this question...]

II. IS "RE-BAPTISM" EVER NECESSARY?

   A. OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE TWELVE DISCIPLES...
      1. They had been previously "baptized"
      2. Their baptism, however, was lacking in some way
         a. Even though it was immersion
         b. Even though it was "for the remission of sins" - Mk 1:4
         c. But baptism was not in the name of Jesus - Ac 2:38; 10:48;19:5
            1) That is, by His authority
            2) Which would have been a baptism into the name of the 
               Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son - Mt 28:19
      3. Because their first baptism LACKED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT, 
         "re-baptism" was necessary!
      -- May we not conclude that if an earlier baptism lacks some 
         essential element, then "re-baptism" is necessary?

   B. WHEN "RE-BAPTISM" IS APPROPRIATE...
      1. There are four "essential elements" of Bible baptism
         a. The proper MODE:  a burial (immersion) - Ro 6:3; Col 2:12
         b. The proper AUTHORITY:  in the name of Christ - Ac 19:5
         c. The proper PURPOSE:  remission of sins - Ac 2:38; 22:16
         d. The proper SUBJECT:  penitent believer - Ac 2:38; 8:37;Mk 16:16
      2. When just one of these "essential elements" was lacking, 
         "re-baptism" was commanded
         a. In Ac 19:1-5, the proper AUTHORITY was lacking
         b. Even though their previous baptism had the right MODE, 
            PURPOSE, and SUBJECT
      3. Some cases where "re-baptism" would seem appropriate
         a. If we were baptized by SPRINKLING OR POURING, for the 
            proper mode is immersion
         b. If we were baptized by THE AUTHORITY OF ANYONE OTHER THAN
            JESUS, for the proper authority is Jesus Christ
         c. If we were baptized AS A PUBLIC CONFESSION OF FAITH
            (thinking that we were already saved), for the proper 
            purpose is the remission of sins
         d. If we were baptized BUT WERE NOT PENITENT BELIEVERS, for a
            proper subject is one who believes "with all their heart"
            1) E.g., when one is baptized just because their friends
               are doing it
            2) E.g., Because their spouse, fiance‚ or parents are 
               pressuring them to do it (and they do it to please them,
               not God)
      4. But let me be sure to clarify:
         a. When one is baptized because their "first" baptism lacked
            an essential element...
            1) It is not really "re-baptism!"
            2) For in the strictest sense, that person is finally being
               baptized scripturally for the FIRST time!
         b. When one has been scripturally baptized ONCE...
            1) There is never a need to be baptized again!
            2) Once we have clothed ourselves with Christ in baptism:
               a) The blood of Christ continually cleanses us of our 
                  sins
               b) As we REPENT and CONFESS our sins to God in prayer 
                  - Ac 8:22; 1Jn 1:9

CONCLUSION

1. The example of "The Twelve Disciples Of John" certainly illustrates
   that one can...
   a. Be religious
   b. Have undergone some baptismal experience
   ...and still not be a true disciple of Jesus Christ!

2. One can rest assured that they are a true disciple of Jesus when 
   their baptism had...
   a. The right MODE - immersion
   b. The right AUTHORITY- Jesus Christ
   c. The right PURPOSE - remission of sins
   d. The right SUBJECT - penitent believer
   -- Lacking any of these "essential elements", one should consider 
      being baptized again in order to "make your calling and election
      sure"

3. If we desire to truly be disciples of Jesus Christ, then let's make
   sure...
   a. We proclaim the pure gospel of Jesus Christ, as preached by His
      apostles in the first century A.D.
   b. We have responded to that gospel in the same manner as those who
      heard the good news preached in its purity and simplicity

I pray that this study, "Conversions In The Book Of Acts", has been
beneficial toward that end.


Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

Violence and the Quran by Dave Miller, Ph.D.




http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=1491

Violence and the Quran

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One would expect an uninspired book to contradict itself or speak ambiguously on various subjects, at times appearing both to endorse and condemn a practice. So it is with physical violence in the Quran. Yet, despite the occasional puzzling remark that may seem to imply the reverse, the Quran is replete with explicit and implicit sanction and promotion of armed conflict, violence, and bloodshed by Muslims. For example, within months of the Hijrah, Muhammad claimed to receive a revelation that clarified the issue:
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things inretaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil) (Surah2:190-194, emp. added).
Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can (Surah 2:216-217, emp. added).
Muhammad was informed that warfare was prescribed for him! Though he may have hated warfare, it was actually good for him, and what he loved, i.e., non-warfare, was actually bad for him! And though under normal circumstances, fighting is not appropriate during sacred months, killing was warranted against those who sought to prevent Muslims from practicing their religion. Killing is better than being persecuted! A similar injunction states: “Sanction is given unto those who fightbecause they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory” (Surah 22:39, emp. added). In fact, “Allah loveth those who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid structure” (Surah 61:4, emp. added).
In a surah titled “Repentance” that issues stern measures to be taken against idolaters, the requirement to engage in carnal warfare is apparent:
Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty: Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His guidance). And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve. Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 9:1-5, emp. added).
The ancient Muslim histories elaborate on the occasion of these admonitions: “[T]he idolaters were given four months’ respite to come and go as they pleased in safety, but after that God and His Messenger would be free from any obligation towards them. War was declared upon them, and they were to be slain or taken captive wherever they were found” (Lings, 1983, p. 323).
Later in the same surah, “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low” (Surah 9:29, emp. added). “Those who have been given the Scripture” is a reference to Jews and Christians. The surah advocates coercion against Jews and Christians in order to physically force them to pay the jizyah—a special religious tax imposed on religious minorities (see Nasr, 2002, p. 166). Muslim translator Mohammed Pickthall explains the historical setting of this quranic utterance: “It signified the end of idolatry in Arabia. The Christian Byzantine Empire had begun to move against the growing Muslim power, and this Surah contains mention of a greater war to come, and instructions with regard to it” (p. 145). Indeed, the final verse of Surah 2 calls upon Allah to give Muslims “victory over the disbelieving folk” (vs. 286), rendered by Rodwell: “give us victory therefore over the infidel nations.” That this stance by the Quran was to be expected is evident from the formulation of the Second Pledge of Aqabah, in which the men pledged their loyalty and their commitment to protecting Muhammad from all opponents. This pledge included duties of war, and was taken only by the males. Consequently, the First Aqabah pact, which contained no mention of war, became known as the “pledge of the women” (Lings, p. 112).
Additional allusions to warfare in the Quran are seen in the surah, “The Spoils,” dated in the second year of the Hijrah (A.D. 623), within a month after the Battle of Badr:
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.... If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them.... And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horsestethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not.... O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty stedfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred stedfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.... It is not for any Prophet to have captivesuntil he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. Had it not been for an ordinance of Allah which had gone before, an awful doom had come upon you on account of what ye took. Now enjoy what ye have won, as lawful and good, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 8:39,57,59-60,65,67-69, emp. added; cf. 33:26).
Muslim scholar Pickthall readily concedes the context of these verses:
vv. 67-69 were revealed when the Prophet had decided to spare the lives of the prisoners taken at Badr and hold them to ransom, against the wish of Omar, who would have executed them for their past crimes. The Prophet took the verses as a reproof, and they are generally understood to mean that no quarter ought to have been given in that first battle (p. 144, emp. added).
So the Quran indicates that at the Battle of Badr, no captives should have been taken. The enemy should have been completely slaughtered, with no quarter given. This very fate awaited the Jewish Bani Qurayzah, when some 700 men were beheaded by the Muslims with Muhammad’s approval (Lings, p. 232). Likewise, members of a clan of the Bani Nadir were executed in Khaybar for concealing their treasure rather than forfeiting it to the Muslims (Lings, p. 267).
Another surah describes how allowances respecting the daily prayers were to be made for Muhammad’s Muslim warriors when engaged in military action:
And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you. And when thou (O Muhammad) art among them and arrangest (their) worship for them, let only a party of them stand with thee (to worship) and let them take their arms. Then when they have performed their prostrations let them fall to the rear and let another party come that hath not worshipped and let them worship with thee, and let them take their precaution and their arms. Those who disbelieve long for you to neglect your arms and your baggage that they may attack you once for all. It is no sin for you to lay aside your arms, if rain impedeth you or ye are sick. But take your precaution. Lo! Allah prepareth for the disbelievers shameful punishment. When ye have performed the act of worship, remember Allah, standing, sitting and reclining. And when ye are in safety, observe proper worship. Worship at fixed hours hath been enjoined on the believers. Relent not in pursuit of the enemy (Surah 4:101-104, emp. added; cf. 73:20).
These verses show that the Quran implicitly endorses armed conflict and war to advance Islam.
Muslim historical sources themselves report the background details of those armed conflicts that have characterized Islam from its inception—including Muhammad’s own warring tendencies involving personal participation in and endorsement of military campaigns (cf. Lings, pp. 86,111). Muslim scholar Pickthall’s own summary of Muhammad’s war record is an eye-opener: “The number of the campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight” (n.d., p. xxvi).
What a contrast with Jesus—Who never once took up the sword or encouraged anyone else to do so! The one time that one of His close followers took it upon hiViolence and the Quran  by Dave Miller, Ph.D.mself to do so, the disciple was soundly reprimanded and ordered to put the sword away, with the added warning: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Indeed, when Pilate quizzed Jesus regarding His intentions, He responded: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36)—the very opposite of the Aqabah pact. And whereas the Quran boldly declares, “And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you” (Surah 2:194; cf. 22:60), Jesus counters, “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” and “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:39,44). The New Testament record presents a far higher, more noble and godly ethic on the matter of violence and armed conflict. In fact, the following verses demonstrate how irrevocably deep the chasm is between the Quran and the New Testament on this point:
[L]ove your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? (Matthew 5:44-46).
But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful (Luke 6:27-36).
What an amazing contrast! The New Testament says to love, bless, do good to, and pray for those who persecute you. The Quran says that “persecution is worse than killing” (Surah 2:217)—i.e., it is better to kill your persecutors than to endure their persecutions!
The standard Muslim attempt to justify the Quran’s endorsement of violence is that such violence was undertaken in self-defense (e.g., Surah 42:41). Consider the following Muslim explanation:
At the time when this surah (Surah 2—DM) was revealed at Al-Madinah, the Prophet’s own tribe, the pagan Qureysh at Mecca, were preparing to attack the Muslims in their place of refuge. Cruel persecution was the lot of Muslims who had stayed in Meccan territory or who journeyed thither, and Muslims were being prevented from performing the pilgrimage. The possible necessity of fighting had been foreseen in the terms of the oath, taken at Al-Aqabah by the Muslims of Yathrib before the Flight, to defend the Prophet as they would their own wives and children, and the first commandment to fight was revealed to the Prophet before his flight from Mecca; but there was no actual fighting by the Muslims until the battle of Badr. Many of them were reluctant, having before been subject to a rule of strict non-violence. It was with difficulty that they could accept the idea of fighting even inself-defence [sic].... (Pickthall, p. 33, emp. added).
Apart from the fact that the claim that Muhammad’s advocacy of fighting was justifiable on the ground of self-defense is contrary to the historical facts (since the wars waged by Muhammad and the territorial expansion of Islam achieved by his subsequent followers cannot all be dismissed as defensive), this explanation fails to come to grips with the propriety of shedding of blood and inflicting violence—regardless of the reason. Muslim scholar Seyyed Nasr seems unconscious of the inherent self-contradiction apparent in his own remark:
The spread of Islam occurred in waves. In less than a century after the establishment of the first Islamic society in Medina by the Prophet, Arab armies had conquered a land stretching from the Indus River to France and brought with them Islam, which, contrary to popular Western conceptions, was not, however, forced on the people by the sword(2003, p. 17, emp. added).
In other words, Muslim armies physically conquered—by military force and bloodshed—various nations, forcing the population to submit to Muslim rule, but did not require them to become Muslims! One suspects that, at the time, the distinction escaped the citizens of those conquered countries, even as it surely does the reader.
The Quran appears to have been somewhat influenced by the Law of Moses in this regard. For example, the Quran states: “If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted” (Surah 16:126). Similarly, “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.... And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil)” (Surah2:178-179). One is reminded of the lex talionis [literally “law as (or of) retaliation”] of the Law of Moses. However, whereas the Quran appears to enjoin retaliation, the lex talionis were not intended to promote retaliation. Enjoining retaliation would be in direct conflict with the nature of God. God is never vindictive. The New Testament law does not differ with the Old Testament in the areas of proper values, ethics, mercy, and justice. The “eye for an eye” injunctions of the Old Testament were designed to be prohibitive in their thrust, i.e., they humanely limited and restricted legal punishment to a degree in keeping with the crime. That is, they prevented dispensers of justice from punishing too harshly or too much. They were intended to inculcate into Israelite society the principle of confining retribution to appropriate parameters.
The fact that the author of the Quran failed to grasp this feature of God’s laws is evident in various quranic injunctions: “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Surah 5:38, emp. added).
The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.... And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony—They indeed are evildoers (Surah24:2,4, emp. added).
These latter verses conflict with Mosaic injunction on two significant points. First, on the one hand, itdoubles the more reasonable and appropriate forty stripes (Deuteronomy 25:3)—a number that the Jews were so concerned not to exceed that they counted thirty-nine and stopped to allow for accidental miscount (2 Corinthians 11:24). On the other hand, this eighty increases to one hundred for adultery. Second, the requirement of four witnesses is an unreasonable number. The two or three witnesses of the Bible (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19) strikes a logical medium between the precariousness of only a single witness on the one hand, and the excessive and unlikely availability of the four witnesses required by the Quran.
It is true that the God of the Bible enjoined violent, armed conflict for the Israelites in the Old Testament. He did so in order to eliminate the morally corrupt Canaanite civilizations that inhabited Palestine prior to the Israelite occupation of the land (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-12; Leviticus 18:24-25,27-28). There simply was no viable solution to their condition except extermination. Their moral depravity was “full” (Genesis 15:16). They had slumped to such an immoral, depraved state, with no hope of recovery, that their existence on this Earth had to be ended—just like in Noah’s day when God waited while Noah preached for years but was unable to turn the world’s population from its wickedness (Genesis 6:3,5-7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:5-9).
Additionally, since the nation of Israel was also a civil entity in its own right, the government was also charged with implementing civil retribution upon lawbreakers. However, with the arrival of New Testament Christianity—an international religion intended for all persons without regard to ethnicity or nationality—God has assigned to civil government (not the church or the individual) the responsibility of regulating secular behavior. God’s people who live posterior to the cross of Christ (i.e., Christians) are not charged by God with the responsibility of inflicting physical punishment on the evildoer. Rather, civil government is charged with the responsibility of maintaining order and punishing lawbreakers (Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Observe Paul’s explanation of this dichotomy:
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you 
Violence and the Quran  by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor (Romans 13:1-7,NKJV, emp. added).
One translation (NIV) renders the boldface type in the above quote “an agent of wrath to bring punishment.” But this assignment of judicial and penal retribution to the government is a contrast in Paul’s discussion with what he wrote in the three verses prior to this quotation:
Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:19-21, NKJV, emp. added).
Notice that the very responsibility that is enjoined on the government, i.e., “an avenger to execute wrath” by use of the sword in 13:4, is strictly forbidden to the individual Christian in 12:19, i.e., “donot avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath.” To “give place to wrath” means to allow God’s wrath to show itself in His own appointed way that, according to the next few verses, is by means of the civil government.
True Christianity (i.e., that which is based strictly on the New Testament) dictates peace and non-retaliatory promotion of itself. The “absolute imperative” (Rahman, 1979, p. 22) of Islam is thesubmission/conversion of the whole world. In stark contrast, the absolute imperatViolence and the Quran  by Dave Miller, Ph.D.ive of New Testament Christianity is the evangelism of the whole world, i.e., the dissemination of the message of salvation—whether people embrace it or not (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-47). Absolutely no coercion is admissible from the Christian (i.e., New Testament) viewpoint. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and all other violent activities undertaken in the name of Christ and Christianity have been in complete conflict with the teaching of the New Testament. The perpetrators acted without the authority and sanction of Christ.
Islam seeks to bring the entire world into submission to Allah and the Quran—even using jihad, coercion, and force; Christianity seeks to go into all the world and to announce the “good news” that God loves every individual, that Jesus Christ died for the sins of everyone, and that He offers salvation, forgiveness, and reconciliation. But, each person has free choice to accept or reject without any retaliation by Christians against those who choose to reject. Jesus taught His disciples, when faced with opposition and resistance, simply to walk away: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet” (Matthew 10:14). In fact, on one occasion when a Samaritan village was particularly nonreceptive, some of Jesus’ disciples wished to command fire to come down from heaven to consume them! But Jesus rebuked them and said, “ ‘You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.’ And they went to another village” (Luke 9:55). Muhammad and the Quran stand in diametrical opposition to Jesus and the New Testament.
If the majority of Muslims were violent, that would not pViolence and the Quran  by Dave Miller, Ph.D.Violence and the Quran  by Dave Miller, Ph.D.Violence and the Quran  by Dave Miller, Ph.D.rove that Islam is a religion of violence. The vast majority of those who claim to be “Christian” are practicing a corrupted form of the Christian faith. So the validity of any religion is determined ultimately not by the imperfect, inaccurate practice of the religion by even a majority of its adherents, but by the official authority or standard upon which it is based, i.e., its Scriptures. The present discussion in the world regarding whether or not jihad includes physical force in the advancement of Islam is ultimately irrelevant (cf. Nasr, 2002, pp. 256-266). The Quran unquestionably endorses violence, war, and armed conflict. No wonder a substantial number of Muslims manifest a maniacal, reckless abandon in their willingness to die by sacrificing their lives in order to kill as many “infidels” (especially Israelis and Americans) as possible. They have read the following:
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks.... Andthose who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. He will guide them and improve their state, and bring them in unto the Garden [Paradise—DM] which He hath made known to them (Surah 47:4-6, emp. added).
O ye who believe! Be not as those who disbelieved and said of their brethren who went abroad in the land or were fighting in the field: If they had been (here) with us they would not have died or been killed.... And what though ye be slain in Allah’s way or die therein? Surely pardon from Allah and mercy are better than all that they amass. Whatthough ye be slain or die, when unto Allah ye are gathered?.... So those who...fought and were slain, verily I shall remit their evil deeds from them and verily I shall bring them int
Violence and the Quran  by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
o Gardens underneath which rivers flow—a reward from Allah (Surah 3:156-158,195, emp. added).
Even if the vast majority of Muslims in the world reject violence and refrain from terrorist activity (which would appear to be the case), it is still a fact that the Quran (as well as the example of Muhammad himself) endorses the advancement of Islam through physical force. While Muslim apologist Seyyed Hossein Nasr insists that “the traditional norms based on peace and openness to others” characterize true Islam and the majority of Muslims, in contradistinction, he freely admits that at times Islam “has been forced to take recourse to physical action in the form of defense” (Nasr, 2002, pp. 112,110). This concession cannot be successfully denied in view of the Quran’s own declarations. Hence, the Muslim is forced to maintain the self-contradictory position that, yes, there have been times that Islam has been properly violent and, yes, the Quran does endorse violence, but, no, most Muslims are not violent, and then only in self-defense. As reprehensible and cowardly as Islamic terrorists have shown themselves to be in recent years, an honest reading of the Quran leads one to believe that they, at least, are more consistent with, and true to, their own Scriptures—as revolting an idea as that may be.

REFERENCES

Lings, Martin (1983), Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International).
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2002), The Heart of Islam (New York: HarperCollins).
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2003), Islam (New York: HarperCollins).
Pickthall, Mohammed M. (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).
Rahman, Fazlur (1979), Islam (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition.
Rodwell, J.M., trans. (1950 reprint), The Koran (London: J.M. Dent and Sons).

Do Christians Sin? by Kyle Butt, M.A.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=919

Do Christians Sin?

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

A quick reading through the small epistle of 1 John reveals a number of verses that seem to disagree with each other. For instance, in 1 John 1:8,10 the author assures his readers that all people have sinned. In 2:1, John seems to indicate that even Christians will sin and therefore need Jesus Christ to be their advocate. Yet, 3:6 has John on record as saying: “Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.” In verse 8 of chapter 3, John wrote: “He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning.” And verse 9 states: “Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.” Steve Wells, in his work, The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, wrote concerning these verses in chapter 3: “Earlier in this letter (1:8,10) John assured us that everyone sins. Yet in these verses he claims that Christians don’t sin” (Wells, 2003).
Are these verses examples of contradictions within the Bible? If they are not, what do they mean? Do Christians sin, or don’t they?
The answers to these questions actually are much simpler than it may, at first, appear. When we compare other translations of 3:6,8,9, we see that the actual Greek wording of the verses makes a major difference in the understanding of the passages. R.C.H. Lenski translated 3:6 as follows: “Everyone remaining in him does not go on sinning; everyone continuing to sin has not seen him, nor has he known him” (1966, pp. 457-458, emp. added). Lenski translated verse 9: “Everyone that has been born from God does not go on doing sinning because his seed remains in him; and he is not able to go on sinning because he has been born of God” (p. 462, emp. added). The New International Version translates 3:6: “No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him” (emp. added).
Lenski explained that 1 John 3:6,9 uses a Greek construction called the present durative, which should be translated “does not go on sinning” (pp. 458,462). John, then, is saying no more in these verses than what Paul was saying in Romans 6:1-2, when he stated: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any long in it?” Numerous other verses teach that Christians will commit sins, even after they have been washed in the blood of Christ (cf. Romans 7:14-25; Philippians 3:12-13). However, John is saying that any person who rebelliously continues to sin, making it his or her usual, habitual way of life, is not following God. In 1 John 3:9, the Greek present infinitive means to habitually sin without compunction. In more practical terms (to offer an example), it is one thing for a Christian to slip up and commit an act of sexual immorality for which he or she is penitent. It is altogether another thing for a person to live as a prostitute and claim to be “having fellowship with the Father” (1 John 1:6).
Therefore, it is easily shown that no discrepancies exist between the verses under discussion in 1 John. Furthermore, it is refreshing to know that when a Christian does sin, “we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”

REFERENCES

Wells, Steve (2003), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible [On-line], URL: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/index.html.
Lenski, R.C.H. (1966), The Interpretation of the I and II Epistles of Peter, the Three Epistles of John, and the Epistle of Jude (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Biological Clocks: Evidence for a Clockmaker by Will Brooks, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1125

Biological Clocks: Evidence for a Clockmaker

by Will Brooks, Ph.D.

[EDITORS NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. staff scientist Will Brooks, who holds a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.]
If one were to ask a clockmaker, “Could this device have constructed itself?” the reply would most certainly be “No.” Clocks are complex instruments designed to accurately and repeatedly keep time to the millisecond. The complexity reaches all the way down to the system of gears and shafts which drive the instrument. It would be inconceivable even to consider the idea that such an instrument would evolve naturalistically over time, eventually reaching a point when it is ready to keep accurate time without missing a single second. Yet, this is exactly what evolutionists would have us to believe regarding an even more complex instrument, the cell division cycle—our own biological clock. [NOTE: The following discussion of cell division is based on Alberts, et al., 2002.]
The cell division cycle is a coordinated sequence of events that drives the division and reproduction of all cells from the single-celled amoeba to cells in the human body. The complexity and coordination of this cycle is staggering. The cell cycle is divided into four primary phases: G1, S, G2, and M.
G1, or the Gap 1 phase, is the time in which cells carry out all of the normal processes of the cell. Some cells remain in this phase for very long periods of time. But, when appropriate stimuli are encountered by a cell, a round of cell division is triggered. This point of no return is known as the restriction point. Once a cell passes this point, it must complete the entire cell cycle and return once more to G1. After a cell reproduces, it must prepare for the next phase of the cell cycle: S-phase or DNA synthesis phase. This preparation requires activating countless genes and making many new proteins that are used only during this one phase of the cell cycle. Once every component is ready, S-phase may begin.
During the DNA synthesis phase, the cell must make an exact copy of its nuclear DNA. This duplication is important because both new cells that will result from cell division must contain equal and identical copies of the parental cell DNA. One human cell contains roughly four billion base pairs of DNA. Copying all of this DNA without error is no small task, yet the cell does so incessantly.
Following completion of DNA synthesis, the cell enters the second gap phase, G2. During this period, the cell prepares for physical division, which involves the production of a whole new set of proteins. At the same time, all those proteins used during S-phase are degraded, since they are no longer needed, and their presence would only promote more DNA synthesis. After all the proper proteins are made and degraded, the cell is ready for physical separation, which takes place during mitosis or M-phase.
Mitosis involves the separation of chromosomes, followed by the separation of the cell. Human cells have 46 pairs of chromosomes when they enter mitosis. Each pair must be separated in the appropriate way in order for each daughter cell to have two copies of the 23 human chromosomes. Once again, this is no small feat. Even one mistake leads to abnormal chromosome numbers in the daughter cells and is harmful—often lethal—to the cell. Yet, the cell achieves this separation without error over and over. At the conclusion of mitosis, two cells result, each identical to the other. Both cells are now once more in G1-phase, able to enter another round of cell division. This cycle is repeated time after time, like clockwork.
In a physical clock or watch, a system of gears and shafts are designed to keep the clock moving, keeping precise, accurate time. What are the driving forces, the gears and shafts if you will, of the cell division cycle? Our cells have their own mechanism for keeping things moving. Two families of proteins lie at the heart of cell cycle progression. They are called cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinases (Cdks). These two groups of proteins work in a cooperative manner to promote each action that takes place during the cell cycle. How they work to keep the biological clock ticking is amazing!
Cyclin-dependent kinases function as enzymes, with the ability to link a small phosphate group (-PO4-3) onto a variety of proteins. This linkage serves as an “on” switch for the targeted protein. By phosphorylating (linking a phosphate) to proteins in the cell, Cdks work to turn on and off other proteins that play roles in the cell cycle. But, Cdks themselves need an “on switch,” which comes from the cyclin proteins. Cyclins are able to bind to cyclin-dependent kinases in order to form a stable protein complex between the two. Once bound together, Cdks are free to phosphorylate their repertoire of targets to promote all the activities of the cell cycle.
It might seem, then, that all cyclins and Cdks are active all of the time and throughout the cell cycle, but they are not. This is where the clockwork activity of the cell is truly seen. During each phase of the cell cycle (G1, S, G2, and M), a different set of cyclin and Cdk proteins are active. Therefore, each pair of proteins is able to promote only those activities which should occur during a phase. For example, during the DNA synthesis phase (S-phase), only those proteins that play a role in making new DNA are activated. This action prevents the phases from occurring out of order or at the wrong time. But, how is only one pair of cyclin-Cdk proteins active at a time? The answer comes in the form of another cyclical event.
Unlike the Cdk proteins, which are always present in the cell, cyclin proteins come and go in a cyclical manner—which accounts for the name cyclin. Production of these proteins is coordinated with the cell cycle phases. When a cell receives signals to undergo division, the G1-cyclins are expressed by the cell. They then partner with G1-Cdks, which already are present to promote those G1 activities of the cell. Additionally, G1 cyclin-Cdks initiate expression of the next group of cyclins—the S-phase cyclins. Once expressed, S-phase cyclin-Cdk partners promote activities of S-phase and turn on the G2-cyclins. This cycle continues for each phase of the cell cycle. Figure 2 illustrates this feature by showing the levels of S-phase cyclin throughout the cell cycle.
This amazing process of cyclin expression is also coupled with cyclin destruction. Once a new cyclin is present in the cell, the previous cyclin is destroyed, which effectively ends the previous cell cycle phase. This constant repetition of cyclin protein production and destruction is the driving force behind every event in the cell division cycle.
Together, the cell cycle and the cycle of cyclin protein production/destruction are an amazingly designed system of events. Such complexity is inexplicable on the basis of naturalism. In this case, the clockmaker is the intelligent Designer, God. It would be impossible for a six-foot-tall grandfather clock or even a small watch to construct itself gradually and start ticking. Equally impossible, the cell could never appear, ready to “tick” through the highly coordinated process of cell division. Just as clocks are constructed by an intelligent designer, the cell cycle is clear evidence for intelligent design in the Universe.

REFERENCE

Alberts, Bruce, et al. (2002), Molecular Biology of the Cell (Oxford: Garland Science).

A Stomach That Can’t Digest Evolution by Kyle Butt, M.A.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2044

A Stomach That Can’t Digest Evolution

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

It cost the British government about 1.8 million dollars. British scientists call it the first artificial stomach ever made. Commercial food companies are looking to it for help. Dr. Marin Wickham holds the patent on this amazing contraption. This new machine is about the size of a five gallon bucket. It is designed to mimic human digestion. Its advanced plastics and metals can withstand the corrosive qualities of the acids and enzymes used in digestion. Once food is placed in the receiving funnel, computer software determines how long the food stays in one place. The model attempts to copy real muscle contractions in the stomach that help humans digest their food. The machine is a technological wonder (see “Scientists Build....,” 2006).
One very important point needs to be noted about this artificial stomach: it is complex, expensive, and took hundreds or thousands of hours to design and build. But it still cannot accomplish all the processes of a real human stomach. Yet we are to believe that the human stomach evolved over millions of years by random, chance processes with no intelligent agent responsible for any of its construction.
Notice how descriptions of the artificial stomach demand the presence of intelligence. The model has computer software that regulates when the food moves. Such computer programs can be designed and implemented only by intelligent beings. Wickham also noted that “our knowledge of what actually happens in the gut is still very rudimentary but we hope that this model can help fill in some of the blanks” (“Scientists Build....,” emp. added). This technologically savvy stomach was created in an attempt to learn more about what actually happens in the stomach, since our most advanced research has only rendered a “rudimentary” knowledge of gut activity. Dr. Stephen Bloom, “head of metabolic medicine at Imperial College in London,” was quoted as saying: “The stomach is an extraordinarily complex organ, so you cannot create a model that will undertake all of these functions” (“Scientists Build....,” emp. added).
In summary, then, brilliant men and women designed a modern marvel which cost almost two million dollars that attempts to mimic human digestion. But the real human stomach it attempts to model is so complex that no machine humans can build will ever fill in all the blanks of our rudimentary knowledge of the human stomach. The only logical conclusion is that the human stomach must have been designed by an intelligence far superior to that of the humans who possess only a rudimentary knowledge of the stomach. It is no wonder that the psalmist poetically said that humans have been fearfully and wonderfully made (see Psalm 139:14).
The designers of the artificial stomach stated: “It’s so realistic that it can even vomit.” It is high time the thinking world followed suit and “vomited out” the illogical notion of evolution.

REFERENCES

“Scientists Build World’s First Artificial Stomach” (2006), [On-line], URL:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15655255/wid/11915773?GT1=8717.

An Alabama Lawmaker by Dave Miller, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1512

An Alabama Lawmaker

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Alabama State Representative Alvin Holmes recently issued a challenge, offering $5,000 to anyone who can show him the biblical passage stipulating marriage as being solely between a man and a woman (McGrew, 2005). Okay, here they are:
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27).
Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Genesis 2:22-24).
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:3-6).
Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband (1 Corinthians 7:2).
The word translated in the above Genesis verses as “woman” and “wife” is the common Hebrew word for female (ishah), even as “father and mother” refer to a man and a woman. The Greek terms that are translated “man” (aner) and “wife” (gune) in the above verses from Matthew and Corinthians likewise connote gender as being male and female. This is the case throughout the New Testament. For example, in an extensive discussion of husbands and wives in Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul consistently uses the Greek term for “female” to refer to the wife, and the Greek term for “male” to refer to the husband.
The Bible never refers to a marriage as consisting of two men or two women. The Bible never refers to a man’s “wife” as being a male, or a woman’s “husband” being a female. And that’s not a matter of “my interpretation versus your interpretation.”

REFERENCES

McGrew, Jannell (2005), “Holmes Stands Behind Bible-verse Quest,” Montgomery Advertiser, February 11, [On-line], URL: http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWSV5/storyV5ALVINW.htm.