2/17/17

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Our Duty To God And Country (12:13-17) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

                 Our Duty To God And Country (12:13-17)

INTRODUCTION

1. Teaching in the temple on Tuesday of the Last Week, we’ve seen...
   a. The authority of Jesus questioned by religious leaders - Mk11:20-33
   b. The parable of the wicked vinedressers, directed toward the
      religious leaders - Mk 12:1-12

2. Jesus is then approached by Pharisees and Herodians...
   a. Intending to get Him in trouble with the authorities - Mk 12:13;
      Lk 20:20
   b. Who question Him whether one should pay taxes to Caesar - Mk12:14-15

3. Ever the Master Teacher, Jesus easily dealt with their question...
   a. Seeing through their hypocrisy, He called for a coin - Mk 12:15
   b. He asked whose inscription was on it, and they answered "Caesar’s"
      - Mk 12:16
   c. His reply cause them to marvel - Mk 12:17

4. The reply of Jesus reveals that we have responsibilities to both God
   and country...
   a. There are things that we must render to Caesar (country)
   b. There are things that we must render to God

[What is our duty to God and country?  In this study we shall review
what the Scriptures tell us about our responsibilities as citizens and
as disciples.  We start with...]

I. OUR DUTY TO COUNTRY

   A. PAY TAXES...
      1. This was the point of Jesus in our text - Mk 12:14-17
      2. Paul also taught us to pay taxes - Ro 13:6-7

   B. OBEY LAWS...
      1. We are to submit to the ordinances (laws) of the land 
         - Ro 13:1-5; Tit 3:1
      2. This we do for the Lord’s sake, that we might silence foolish
         men - 1Pe 2:13-16

   C. FEAR AND HONOR...
      1. We are to respect and honor those in positions of authority
         - Ro 13:7
         a. To fear (respect) the king - cf. Pro 24:21
         b. Not to speak evil of our rulers - cf. Exo 22:28; Ac 23:5;
            Tit 3:2; 2Pe 2:10; Jude 8-9
      2. Even as we are to honor all and love the brethren - 1Pe 2:17
      -- Have you noticed that Paul or Peter never had unkind words
         about Nero?

   D. DO GOOD...
      1. We are to be ready for every good work - Tit 3:1
      2. We are to have conduct that is honorable before all 
         - 1Pe 2:11-12,15-16

   E. PRAY...
      1. To make supplications, offer prayers, intercessions, and giving
         of thanks - 1Ti 2:1
      2. To pray for kings and all who are in authority - 1Ti 2:1-3

[Christians are but sojourners and pilgrims in this world (1Pe 2:11).
While our true citizenship is in heaven (Ph 3:20), we are to be a
blessing to those earthly countries in which we sojourn.  Fulfill our
God-given obligations, and we will be an asset to any country in which
we live!  Now let’s review...]

II. OUR DUTY TO GOD

   A. LOVE GOD WITH ALL OUR BEING...
      1. Jesus considered this the greatest commandment of the Law 
         - Mt 22:34-38
      2. Being the greatest command, I would suggest this is our
         greatest duty!

   B. OBEY GOD FROM THE HEART...
      1. If we love God, we will keep His commandments - 1Jn 5:3
      2. Jesus taught that keeping His commandments is evidence of true
         love - Jn 14:15,21,23

   C. MAKE GOD OUR PRIORITY...
      1. His will, His rule, His righteousness, should be our first
         priority - Mt 6:33
      2. Not only over our personal concerns, but even over our duty to
         country
         a. When there is a conflict between duty to God and country,
            God must come first
         b. As stated by Peter:  "We ought to obey God rather than men"
            - Ac 5:27-29
      3. This helps to answer questions that often arise regarding the
         Christian’s duty to government
         a. Can a Christian vote?
         b. Can one serve in political office?
         c. Can one serve in the military or other civic duty?
      4. If such duties come at too high a price (i.e., placing country
         before God), a Christian must obey God rather than men
         a. In some countries, the price may be too high, and Christians
            could not serve in political office or exercise certain
            rights as citizens
         b. Other countries may allow for God to take precedence in
            one’s conduct, permitting Christians to participate in such
            things

CONCLUSION

1. Christians ought to be a blessing for any country in which they
   reside...
   a. A source of revenue, with respect for laws, and reverence for
      those in authority
   b. Contributing to the general welfare, through good deeds and
      fervent prayers

2. Christians can be a blessing to their country......
   a. When Christians render first to God what is His due, and then what
      is due the country
   b. When the country respects the priority that must be given God by
      its citizens

While those in authority might not always understand their proper place,
and expect more of their citizens than what is right, may we who are
disciples of Christ never fail to:

   "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,
   and to God the things that are God’s."
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" The Parable Of The Wicked Vinedressers (12:1-12) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

            The Parable Of The Wicked Vinedressers (12:1-12)

INTRODUCTION

1. Reviewing the events of the Last Week recorded by Mark so far...
   a. Sunday - The triumphal entry and brief visit to the temple 
               - Mk 11:1-11
   b. Monday - The cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the
      temple - Mk 11:12-19
   c. Tuesday - The lesson of the fig tree and the authority of Jesus
      questioned - Mk 11:20-33

2. As we continue our study with chapter twelve, it is still Tuesday of
   the Last Week...
   a. In the temple, Jesus begins to speak in parables - Mk 12:1
   b. Matthew records a trilogy of parables, while Mark just one

[Mark records the parable of "The Wicked Vinedressers" (Mk 12:1-12), its
meaning quite clear...]

I. THE MEANING OF THE PARABLE

   A. THE PARTICULARS OF THE PARABLE...
      1. The vineyard immediately brings to mind Israel
         a. The figure of a vineyard referring to Israel was well-known
            - cf. Isa 5:1-7
         b. But here it is not Israel as a nation per se...
            1) Rather, "the special advantages and opportunities which
               were given to the people as the chosen seed" (W.M. Taylor,
               The Parables of Our Savior)
            2) For later Jesus explains the vineyard (or kingdom of God)
               will be given to others ( "a nation producing its fruit")
               - Mk 12:9; cf. Mt 21:43
      2. The man who planted the vineyard is God
      3. The wicked vinedressers represents Israel’s leaders - Mk 12:12
         a. Their chief priests, scribes, elders, and their followers
            - cf. Mt 21:45
         b. Therefore, the physical nation of Israel as a whole
      4. The servants who were sent in behalf of the landowner
         represents the prophets
         a. As a nation, Israel rejected many of her prophets 
            - cf. 2Ch 36:15-16
         b. Note the plaintive cry of Jesus over Jerusalem later on
            - cf. Mt 23:37
      5. The landowner’s son is Jesus Christ Himself

   B. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REVEAL JESUS’ INTENT...
      1. To help them see why God would be just
         a. In bringing condemnation upon Israel
         b. In giving the blessings of Israel to those more deserving
            - cf. Mt 21:43
      2. Their rejection of Jesus had been foretold - Mk 12:10-11; cf.
         Ps 118:22-23
         a. The "builders" were the religious leaders of the nation
         b. The "stone" they rejected was Christ
         c. Yet, this stone would be made a "chief cornerstone" by God
            Himself
            1) In which God would build something new, i.e., the church
               - cf. 1Pe 2:4-10
            2) Where both Jew and Gentile are members of God’s household
               - Ep 2:19-20

[The main lesson of this parable can be summarized in the words of Ps 2:12...

         "Kiss (i.e., pay homage to) the Son, lest He be angry,
            And you perish in the way,
            When His wrath is kindled but a little.
         "Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him."

So obvious was Jesus’ meaning and intent in telling this parable, that
the religious leaders’ would have arrested Him at that moment had it not
been for the people (Mk 12:12).

What application can we make from this parable?  Is there a lesson for
us today that can be drawn...?]

II. AN APPLICATION OF THE PARABLE

   A. GOD OFTEN BESTOWS WONDERFUL PRIVILEGES...
      1. This He had done with the nation of Israel
         a. Like a precious vineyard, God planted Israel in Canaan
         b. He blessed the nation with laws, priests, prophets, and
            other special privileges
         c. He eventually sent His only begotten Son as their Messiah
      2. What about us?
         a. Have we not received wonderful privileges from God?
         b. We enjoy free access to the Word of God, and the freedom to
            worship without fear of persecution; many in the world do not
         c. We are blessed to hear things that prophets, kings, and
            saints of old desired to hear and were not able 
            - cf. Mt 13:16-17

   B. PEOPLE OFTEN MAKE BAD USE OF THEIR PRIVILEGES...
      1. The history of Israel as a nation established by God
         a. They consistently murmured against God in the wilderness
         b. They turned away from God time and again during the period
            of the Judges
         c. They persecuted His prophets, and eventually rejected His
            own Son
      2. What about us?
         a. We have blessings given to us through Christ
            1) The forgiveness of sins through His blood
            2) The aid of the Holy Spirit in putting to death the deeds
               of the body
            3) The joy of fellowship in the family of God
            4) The privilege of sharing the gospel with a dying world
         b. And yet Christians often turn their back on such blessings
            1) They sin, and do not seek forgiveness
            2) They do not seek the help God gives to deal with the
               problem of sin
            3) They neglect their brethren by forsaking the assembling,
               and by not developing close relationships with them
            4) They make little or no effort to spread the precious
               gospel of Christ

   C. JUDGMENT COMES ON THOSE WHO MAKE BAD USE OF THEIR PRIVILEGES...
      1. Again, the nation of Israel is an example
         a. They suffered forty years of wandering in the wilderness
         b. God allowed neighboring nations to be a thorn in their side
         c. They endured Assyrian and Babylonian captivity
         d. God destroyed their temple and their religion by the Syrians
            (167 B.C.) and the Romans (70 A.D.)
         e. He has indeed taken away the kingdom of God from them, and
            given it to a nation bearing the fruits of it - cf. Mt 21:43
      2. What about us?
         a. Consider the words of Jesus - Jn 15:1-2,6; Re 2:4-5,16; 3:1-3
         b. Consider what was written to the Hebrew Christians 
            - He 10:26-31
      3. Clearly, if we do not utilize our special privileges...
         a. God will take away the blessings we have (i.e., the kingdom
            of God)
         b. And give it to someone who appreciates it (i.e., bears the
            fruit of it)

CONCLUSION

1. Truly God has given us wonderful blessings...
   a. He made us worthy to be "partakers of the inheritance of the
      saints" - Col 1:12
   b. He "has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us
      into the kingdom of the Son of His love" - Col 1:13
   c. In Christ we have "redemption through His blood, the forgiveness
      of sins" - Col 1:14
   d. He sent us apostles and prophets of His Son, whose words are in
      the New Testament

2. Let us be careful how we receive them (cf. Jn 13:20), for the next
   time the Beloved Son is sent, He is coming in terrifying judgment!
   - 2Th 1:7-10

Indeed, as Jesus said...

   "For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required;
   and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."
                                                         - Lk 12:48
 

The Beni Hasan Tomb Inscription and the Patriarchal Period by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=4811

The Beni Hasan Tomb Inscription and the Patriarchal Period

by  Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Dewayne Bryant holds two Masters degrees, and is a doctoral candidate at Amridge University. He has participated in an archaeological dig at Tell El-Borg in Egypt and holds professional membership in the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Archaeological Institute of America.]
The patriarchal narratives of Genesis are some of the most beloved passages in the Bible. They are also some of the most heavily criticized. Before the middle of the 20th century, many scholars assumed the historicity of the patriarchs. In the 1970s, two minimalists published what is regarded by many in academia as one of the greatest of one-two punches in the history of biblical studies. John Van Seters (Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975) and Thomas Thompson (The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 1974) each questioned the historicity of the patriarchs. Their study was so influential in academic circles that, since that time, few scholars have written in support of the historicity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Van Seters and Thompson are much like other critics who feel quite comfortable in approaching the Bible with a level of academic condescension and suspicion that is nearly unparalleled in other disciplines. Although their work was helpful in weeding out faulty assumptions and recognizing instances of misuse of archaeology, their objections go too far and are flawed. Scholars have answered them accordingly. In his book The Bible in its World (1977), Kenneth Kitchen first tackled the objections raised against the historicity of the patriarchal narratives. Others scholars have followed (see Millard and Wiseman, 1983; Yamauchi, 1994).
Ancient Near Eastern scholarship has continued to vindicate the patriarchal narratives. One particularly interesting piece of archaeological data comes from the modern village of Beni Hasan, which lies 160 miles south of Cairo. It is home to 39 monumental tombs of Egyptian officials from the Middle Kingdom Period (2050-1650 B.C.), in addition to a few tombs from the Old Kingdom Period (2686-2186 B.C.). The tomb of a nomarch (governor) named Khnumhotep II is particularly interesting for the study of the patriarchs.
The walls of Khnumhotep’s tomb contain paintings portraying scenes from his life. The most famous, however, is a depiction of a caravan from Canaan. The accompanying hieroglyphic inscription indicates that there were 37 members of this caravan. The exact purpose of their visit is debated among scholars, but most agree that it was some kind of commercial venture (Hoffmeier, 1996, p. 61).
The differences between the Egyptians and the Canaanite merchants depicted in the scene is immediately obvious. While the Egyptians wear their customary white linen kilts, the merchants wear multi-colored garments. The clothing worn by the men is a sign of their wealth. This calls to mind the passim of Joseph that sparked jealousy in his brothers (NOTE: the Hebrew word passim, or “coat,” is difficult to understand because it appears only twice in the Old Testament. While interpretations include “long-sleeved,” “multi-colored,” and “decorated,” it would appear that being multi-colored would be an attractive possibility, since to have such a garment would be quite costly). The merchants also have full heads of hair with beards. This differed from Egyptian men, who shaved their heads and faces (cf. Genesis 41:14).
The Beni Hasan tomb painting recalls two important details about the patriarchal narratives in Genesis. First, each of the patriarchs spent time in Egypt. The fact that they traveled in groups—as in the case of Jacob prior to his encounter with Esau (Genesis 33), as well as his move to Egypt with the extended family (Genesis 46)—also fits the biblical text.
Second, the fact that the merchants move relatively freely in Egypt is reminiscent of Egyptian-Canaanite relations prior to the Hyksos invasion. Prior to the arrival of the Semitic rulers known as the Hyksos (c. 1750 BC), Egyptian rulers allowed settlers from Canaan to settle temporarily in the northeastern corner of the country during times of famine (although they did build a line of forts to regulate the visits of these visitors). The border was permeable, and visits from Canaanite people were often permitted. This changed after the Egyptians drove the Hyksos from Egypt.
The Hyksos were foreign rulers who took control of the northern part of Egypt. Scholars are uncertain whether they came to power by peaceful infiltration or military invasion. What is indisputable is that this takeover engendered hatred on the part of the Egyptians. After the Hyksos had been expelled by pharaoh Ahmose I (c. 1560 B.C.), the Egyptians became somewhat xenophobic and had a particular dislike for Canaanite peoples (often calling them “wretched Asiatics”). The fact that the book of Genesis preserves this memory of Egypt’s permeable borders means that the stories had to exist prior to seventeenth century B.C., when the Hyksos invaded. Later Hebrew scribes could not have known these historical details and would have had no reason to invent them.
Although the patriarchs are not mentioned by name in any extant historical or archaeological sources, this should not be cause for concern among Christians. Archaeology rarely speaks to any single individual, especially when it comes to those who are not nationally or internationally known (e.g., kings, high-ranking political officials, and important religious figures). It also shows that the narratives in Genesis fit with the proper time period. Later scribes could not have known some of the details presented, meaning that the text of Genesis is not a later fiction as many critics attempt to claim. Far from showing the unreliability of the Bible, archaeology has proved to be one of Scripture’s strongest allies.

REFERENCES

Hoffmeier, James L. (1996), Israel in Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Kitchen, Kenneth A. (1977), The Bible in its World: The Bible & Archaeology Today (Carlisle: Paternoster Press).
Millard, Alan and Donald J. Wiseman (1983), Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).
Thompson, Thomas (1974), The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Van Seters, John (1975), Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Yamauchi, Edwin (1994), “The Current State of Old Testament Historiography” in Faith, Tradition and History. Alan R. Millard, James K. Hofmeier, and David W. Baker, eds. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).

Non-Religion on the Rise in America by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3742

Non-Religion on the Rise in America

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Three extensive surveys over the past 20 years have revealed that a growing number of Americans are becoming less and less religious. In 1990, 8.2% of Americans claimed to be non-religious, most notably agnostics and atheists (Kosmin, 1991). In 2001, that number had jumped to 14.1% (Kosmin, et al., 2001), and by 2008 it had reached 15% (Kosmin and Keysar, 2009). Based upon a combined total of 217,742 residential households surveyed (an average of 72,580 per effort) in the contiguous United States, the percentage of non-religious Americans has almost doubled in two decades. Whereas in 1990, one out of every 12 Americans claimed to be non-religious, today nearly one out of every six Americans claims no religious affiliation. [NOTE: The percentage of non-religious individuals would be even higher were it not for the many millions of Catholic Hispanics who have migrated to the United States over the past two decades.]

Sadly, the America that we inhabit today is a very different country (religiously speaking) than it was when I grew up in the 1980s, and drastically dissimilar to the country in which my father was reared in the 1940s. In 1947, for example, 89% of Americans identified themselves as Christian Protestants or Catholics, in addition to the millions of other “religious” Americans (e.g., Jews, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.; Gallup and Lindsay, 1999, p. 7), which would have left comparatively very few skeptics, agnostics, and atheists.

The odds of you crossing paths with an atheist, agnostic, or skeptic at some point in the next few months are pretty high. The likelihood of your children, grandchildren, nephews, or nieces running into atheistic professors or skeptical students in high school or college is very high (considering many public schools and universities are breeding grounds for non-religious Americans). More than ever, Christians need to equip themselves with the tools and weapons to help them “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Timothy 6:12). “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

Being the time of the year when many are purchasing items for others, we hope that you will consider equipping your friends and family members with soul-saving, life-enriching materials. Why not order your younger children or grandchildren a subscription to Discovery, A.P.’s monthly children’s magazine on Scripture and science? Why not consider arming your teens with Truth Be Told: Exposing the Myth of Evolution? Why not purchase multiple copies of our newest book A Christian’s Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism and give them away to college students who may very well be struggling for the first time in their lives with knowing how to defend their belief in the one true God of the Bible? At the very least, why not send your friends or family members a link to this site, where they can join the millions of others who have obtained thousands of pages of free electronic Christian evidence material?

The Lord has blessed Apologetics Press with a 30+ year history. During that time, supporters of this work have enabled us to produce a plethora of material on Christian evidences. We believe that making available solid materials on the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, etc. is more important today than ever before in America’s history. Are you armed and ready for the fight? Have you helped to prepare your family and friends for this eternally important spiritual warfare? Why not take action today and make a difference? Please feel free to call upon us if we can be of any assistance (1-800-234-8558).

REFERENCES

Gall, George Jr. and Michael Lindsay (1999), Surveying the Religious Landscape: Trends in U.S. Beliefs (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing).

Kosmin, Barry (1991), The National Survey of Religious Identification, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCwQFjAD&url= http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jewishdatabank.org%2FArchive%2FNSRI1990- Research_Report_with_Selected_Tabulations.pdf&ei= nH_1TIvqG8WBlAfd5Jz4BQ&usg=AFQjCNHASEXKYZTsxzKlRe24U8-4foBJQA.

Kosmin, Barry A., Egon Mayer, and Ariela Keysar (2001), American Religious Identification Survey, www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris.pdf.

Kosmin, Barry A. and Ariela Keysar (2009), American Religious Identification Survey, www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf.

Infant Baptism by Moisés Pinedo


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2709

Infant Baptism

by  Moisés Pinedo

Rooted in the idea that infants bear Adam’s sin (“original sin”) is the perceived need to baptize babies to free them from this “sinful nature” and “from the power of darkness” (Cathecism..., 1994, 1250). It has also been declared that
[t]he sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth (1250).
Some well-meaning people who disagree with infant baptism have opposed it strictly because they see it as an imposition of one’s will on someone who is incapable of making his or her own decisions. While making one’s own choices is critical in regard to salvation, the argument against imposing the wishes of others on someone else should not be the determining factor in whether or not infant baptism is practiced. The only determinant should be whether God authorizes or requires it. After all, if God has commanded us to baptize babies, we should obey His command, even if the world calls it an imposition. But, if there is no biblical reason to follow this practice, we should not impose something purposeless on our children. With this understanding, the following parallel has been drawn:
If my newborn son is born with an illness, should I deny him medicine arguing that he is not consciously receiving it? Would I say that it would be better to wait until he has sufficient ability to reason? (Domínguez, 2006, emp. added).
Of course, infant baptism might be a necessity if original sin were passed down through the generations. However, children do not inherit the sins of their parents, so, ultimately, no one can inherit the sin of Adam (cf. Exodus 32:32-33; Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:20; Pinedo, 2009). Therefore, babies and little children do not have “sickly souls,” nor do they need baptism for spiritual healing. No one would give penicillin to a baby who is not sick and does not need it. No one would take his newborn son to the hospital so that he could undergo surgery to remove a nonexistent tumor. Similarly, no one should subject a baby to a baptism that is designed to forgive sins which he or she cannot commit (cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21).
The Bible never gives a command, provides an example, or implies that infant baptism should be administered. There is not a single Bible verse that mentions it. Therefore, some Catholics have tried to find biblical support for infant baptism by arguing from the silence of Scripture. Using Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:15, where Jesus commissioned His disciples to preach and baptize, it has been suggested that the disciples would “consequently go forward in the practice of infant baptism, unless restrained and prohibited by a special interdict” (Hibbard, 1843, p. 95). This argument is fallacious because it suggests that where the Bible does not record a prohibition, everything is acceptable. The Bible does not prohibit “pet baptism.” So, should we proceed to “baptize” them?
Others have suggested that the word “creature” in Mark 16:15 may include babies. However, this word is limited by the context in which it appears. The Greek word for “creation” (ktisis) is used to designate the act of creation or the creative actions in progress. It also refers to the product of creation (see Vine, 1966, 1:254,255). In its general usage, this word includes not only babies, but also the totality of what was created, i.e., animals and plants, as well as everything inanimate. Fortunately, the context helps us to understand that baptism should be performed on “every creature” who is able to be taught the Gospel and believe it (Mark 16:15-16). This automatically excludes animals, plants, and inanimate things—as well as babies and little children who cannot yet understand or believe the Gospel.
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus told the apostles to “[g]o therefore and make disciples of all nations” (emp. added). A disciple is a person who learns at the feet of another. This certainly cannot include infants. In verse 20, Jesus told His apostles to teach the new disciples to “observe all things” that He commanded. The disciples were not only to learn, but also to observe or practice what they had learned. The truth is obvious: the Gospel was preached to, heard, and believed by people who were able to understand, believe, and obey.
But, what about the biblical accounts of entire families being baptized? Is it possible that babies were members of those families, and that they were also baptized? The Catholic Catechism explores this “possibility” and states:
There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized (1994, 1252, emp. added).
Some Catholic leaders have gone even further. In his book, The Faith of our Fathers, Archbishop James C. Gibbons declared:
The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul, although containing only a fragmentary account of the ministry of the Apostles, plainly insinuate that the Apostles baptized children as well as grown persons. We are told, for instance, that Lydia “was baptized, and her household,” by St. Paul; and that the jailer “was baptized, and all his family.” The same Apostle baptized also “the household of Stephanas” (1891, p. 308, emp. added).
Although at first glance this argument may seem valid, it is actually an assumption lacking biblical support. First, it is hasty to conclude that when the Bible writers referred to the “household” of someone, they always included every member of the family. Second, there is no biblical evidence that those households included babies or young children. Since there is no way to prove that there were babies in the households in question, nor that the word “household” necessarily included babies, these passages do not endorse infant baptism.
In fact, the context of these passages in Acts speaks loudly against infant baptism. Concerning the Philippian jailer, Luke tells us exactly which members of “all his family” (Acts 16:33) were baptized. They were those who were taught the Word by Paul and Silas (16:32), and those who rejoiced with the jailer, having “believed in God” (16:34). Can babies be taught the Word and believe in God, understand the sacrifice of His Son, and immediately act upon faith? Can they rejoice as a result of their obedient faith? Concerning Lydia, Luke tells us that “the Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). Those who were baptized had hearts and minds that were open to the Word. Do babies have open hearts and discerning minds? The New Testament clearly teaches that baptism was performed on people who were taught the Word, who had open hearts, who carefully listened to and obeyed the Word, and who rejoiced because they made the conscious decision to follow Christ.
Using Colossians 2:11-12, another attempt to defend infant baptism has been based on the idea that baptism “replaces” circumcision. According to this argument, since “circumcision was done to infants,” then infant baptism is a biblical practice (“Infant Baptism,” n.d.). Although Paul used circumcision to illustrate the time when people “put off” sin and become Christians (in baptism—Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27), he never taught, promoted, or commanded infant baptism (cf. Lyons, 2003). Consider these points: (1) Paul made a comparison between circumcision and baptism, not infant baptism. The comparison was between the “cutting off” (of the flesh) in circumcision and the spiritual “cutting off” (of sin) which occurs at baptism. (2) Circumcision was commanded only for the descendants of Abraham, and proselytes (Genesis 17:12-13; Exodus 12:48), but baptism is for all nations (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16). (3) Circumcision was performed only on male babies (Genesis 17:10), but baptism is for men and women (Galatians 3:28; Acts 8:12). (4) Circumcision was performed on the male infant’s eighth day (Genesis 17:12), but baptism is to be performed when one believes and repents (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). (5) Many people were circumcised before becoming Christians (Philippians 3:5), and others were circumcised afterward even though it was optional (Acts 16:3; cf. 15:1-29). If baptism replaced circumcision, how could they both be performed at the same time, among the same people, and under the same covenant (Brents, 1874, pp. 345-347)? (6) Paul declared that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision is worth anything, nor uncircumcision (Galatians 5:6). Colossians 2:11-12 does not justify nor advocate infant baptism.
If the Bible does not support infant baptism, when and how did this practice begin? Catholics acknowledge that “[i]n the course of the fourth century it became quite common for people to be born into Christian families, and by the next century, in the whole Mediterranean world, this was the common pattern. This means that the process of baptism changed considerably. Infant baptism became the general pattern” (Orlandis, 1993, p. 35; cf. Koch, 1997, p. 116). In A.D. 418, the Council of Carthage officially accepted this practice and enacted a condemnation for those who opposed it (see “Canons,” n.d., 2). This is one more piece of evidence that infant baptism is not commanded by God, but rather is a man-made tradition.
Finally, according to Catholicism, what happens to the babies who do not receive baptism soon after they are born? According to the Catholic Catechism, babies are born with sin, and should be baptized so they may be “freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God” (1994, 1250). In other words, little babies are condemned in spiritual darkness and separated from any spiritual blessing. The provincial Council of Cologne even declared that “[f]aith teaches us that infants...are excluded from the kingdom of heaven if they die [unbaptized]” (quoted in “The Existence of Limbo...,” 2006, bracketed item in orig.) Nevertheless, it is also declared that
[a]s regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism (Catechism..., 1994, 1261, emp. added).
On one hand, Catholicism asserts that little children, without baptism, are in spiritual bondage, while, on the other hand, it wants us to believe that “there is a way of salvation for those children who died without baptism.” Does this mean that little children are contaminated with original sin at birth but are liberated from this sin at death? If there is a “way of salvation for those children who died without baptism,” why should Catholics baptize their babies at all?
Such incongruity can only be the result of a doctrine that lacks biblical authority. Infants are gifts from God, pure and unblemished by the world (Psalm 127:3). As they grow, precious little ones can learn what sin is, and what its consequences are. Hopefully, as accountable persons they will realize their need for forgiveness from God, and, ultimately, they will choose between believing and being baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16), and disobeying and living eternally separated from God (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

REFERENCES

Brents, T.W. (1874), The Gospel Plan of Salvation (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1987 reprint).
“Canons” (no date), Council of Carthage [On-line], URL: http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Council_Of_Carthage_May_1_418.html.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), (Mahwah, NY: Paulist Press).
Domínguez, J. (2006), “Baptism of Children, Infants, and Babies” [“Bautismo de los Niños, de los Infantes, de los Bebés”], [On-line], URL: http://biblia.com/cpb/bautismo.htm.
“The Existence of Limbo: A Common Doctrine from Which It Would be Rash to Depart...” (2006), [On-line], URL: http://www.tldm.org/news8/Limbo.htm#_ednref20#_ednref20.
Gibbons, James C. (1891), The Faith of Our Fathers (Baltimore: John Murphy).
Hibbard, F.G. (1843), Christian Baptism: In Two Parts (New York: G. Lane & P.P. Sandford).
“Infant Baptism” (no date), Catholic Answers, [On-line], URL: http://www.catholic.com/library/infant_baptism.asp.
Koch, Carl (1997), A Popular History of the Catholic Church (Winona, MN: Saint Mary’s Press).
Lyons, Eric (2003), “Does Baptism Replace Circumcision?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2287.
Orlandis, José (1993), A Short History of the Catholic Church, trans. Michael Adams (New York: Scepter).
Pinedo, Moisés (2009), “Are Children Born With Sin?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240109.
Vine, W.E. (1966), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell).

Does the Development of Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria Support Neo-Darwinian Evolution? by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=5372

Does the Development of Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria Support Neo-Darwinian Evolution?

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

It is not uncommon to hear evolutionists claim that bacteria evolving a resistance to antibiotics are proof positive that Darwinian evolution (i.e., macroevolution) is true. Is that claim valid?
There is no question that bacteria can change or “evolve” in some sense. Fred Tenover, Director of the Office of Antimicrobial Resistance at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, summarized the ways in which bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics, explaining that bacteria can sometimes be intrinsically resistant to antimicrobial agents, but in other cases, there can be an acquisition of resistance.1 De novo mutation can lead to such change or resistance genes can be acquired from other organisms through conjugation (where two bacteria join, pooling or exchanging their genetic information), and rarely, DNA transposition (i.e., transformation and transduction) can lead to bacterial resistance to antibiotics, where genetic information is absorbed by or transported into bacteria from outside sources.2 The question is whether such changes imply that, (1) neo-Darwinian evolution is true (i.e., that creatures can evolve across phylogenic boundaries into a completely different kind of creature over time) or rather that (2) only microevolution or diversification of the bacteria “kind” (Genesis 1:11ff.) is true, i.e., small changes within bacteria that lead “to new varieties within a species,”3 which, based on the observed evidence, operate within strict boundaries that disallow evolution across phylogenic boundaries. More specifically, when bacteria change through mutation, does that mean that the standard, modern evolutionary model, neo-Darwinism, is true (i.e., that mutations coupled with natural selection provide the mechanism for evolution from a single-celled organism to humans)?
In response, first note that although bacteria can change through the three aforementioned mechanisms, the bacteria are still bacteria after the change. They have not changed into a different kind of creature, and therefore, such changes would fall under microevolutionary change or diversification within the bacterium “kind.” To suggest that because bacteria can change, a bacterium can, therefore, eventually change into a buffalo, is well beyond the actual evidence and requires a blind “faith” to accept.
Also keep in mind that it is misleading to claim that “bacteria evolve” anything—as though they intentionally improve themselves in response to a need. Evolutionary biologist and Distinguished Professor at Stony Brook University in New York Douglas J. Futuyma explained that “the adaptive ‘needs’ of the species do not increase the likelihood that an adaptive mutation will occur; mutations are not directed toward the adaptive needs of the moment.... Mutations have causes, but the species’ need to adapt isn’t one of them.”4 Bacteria cannot control any change that occurs in them. They cannot intentionally mutate as a response to antibiotics, and yet such intention is what evolutionists have suggested causes evolution—like the Lamarckian portrait of a horse straining to eat leaves from a tall tree and eventually evolving a long neck in order to accommodate that need. In the case of bacterial mutations, most of these mutations occur at random in a population of bacterial cells. Some mutations happen to enable bacteria to be resistant to a particular antibiotic, and others do not.
Further, consider that mutations do not add information to the genome, and the creation of information is necessary to evolve a single cell into a human.5 Repeatedly copying the old 1972 Atari video game “Pong” will not one day cause it to spontaneously “evolve” into “Madden NFL 17” for PlayStation 4 or Xbox One, regardless of the copying errors that are produced along the way. In the same way, mutations will not generate the information necessary to evolve a creature into a human.6 Information is always the product of a mind or sender.
As an example, consider bacteria in the presence of an antibiotic. If a mutation caused the export pump of a certain bacterium to be over-expressed, the change may allow that bacterium to remove the antibiotic more efficiently and, therefore, allow it to survive in the presence of the antibiotic. At the same time, neighboring bacteria may not survive the same conditions since their pumps were not over-expressed. So, bacteria without the mutation are selected against, and the mutated bacterium predominates. Notice, however, that this mutation did not require any new information, but, rather, involved changing existing information.
Finally, consider this important question: are mutated bacteria really better off, over-all? Evolution requires an over-all upward trend in an organism’s state. Creatures must progress and become more complex over time in order for evolution to be true; but mutations, overwhelmingly, show a downward trend in species.7 In those cases where mutations lead to beneficial outcomes, like those that lead to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the change can actually tend to make those bacteria less viable over-all—e.g., outside of the environment where the antibiotic was present.8 In the example of a bacterium with an over-expressed pump, in the absence of the antibiotic, it may not be advantageous to the bacterium for its pump to be over-expressed. In humans, genetic mutations that lead to, for instance, a milk allergy, might cause those individuals with the allergy to temporarily fare better if they live in areas where there are breakouts of infectious microbes in cow’s milk. Over-all, however, the milk allergy could cause them to be deficient in calcium and potassium. Those with the sickle-cell trait—where one parent passes a mutated hemoglobin gene to a child and the other passes a normal gene9—do not die from having the trait, and they also tend to have a resistance to malaria because of it.10 Does that mean that those with the sickle-cell trait are more fit, over-all, in comparison to those without it? Have they really evolved to a higher life form by acquiring the trait? Certainly not. Those with the sickle-cell trait can have serious health problems, and their children are more likely to develop the dangerous disease sickle-cell anemia, depending on the genes passed on by the other parent.11 The negatives of the mutated hemoglobin outweigh the positives. The Second Law of Thermodynamics—the Universe is gradually deteriorating and decaying—demands that continual digression and deterioration occur in the genome, not progression toward higher beings as evolution requires. Genetic entropy is the rule.12
Bottom line: bacteria, and all living organisms, change over time, in harmony with how God created creatures in the beginning. God created distinct “kinds” of creatures during the Creation week, and representatives from many of those kinds were brought onto the Ark before the Flood. Those representatives had sufficient genetic potential to cause an immense amount of diversity to come about within those respective kinds over the centuries since the Flood.13 Though the primary mechanism for that change is still being investigated, mutations do generate a degree of change in species. Those mutations, however, according to the evidence, do not have the potential to turn bacteria into something other than bacteria. Indeed, the Earth consistently “[brings] forth the living creature according to its kind” (Genesis 1:24).14

Endnotes

1 Fred C. Tenover (2006), “Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria,” The American Journal of Medicine, 119[6A]:S3-S10.
2 Joe Deweese (2015), “What is Horizontal Gene Transfer, and Does it Support Evolution?” Reason & Revelation, 35[9]:100-105.
3 “Microevolution” (2014), Biology-Online.org, http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Microevolution.
4 Douglas J. Futuyma (1983), Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon Books), pp. 137,138.
5 Note that the second and third mechanisms listed in paragraph two involve the addition of genetic information to bacteria, but it is a pooling of already existing information, not the generation of new information. The information already had to exist.
6 Jeff Miller (2014), “God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 34[1]:2-10.
7 Ibid.
8 Luke McNally and Sam P. Brown (2016), “Visualizing Evolution As It Happens,” Science, 353[6304]:1096-1097, September 9. The authors acknowledge that “[a] key factor slowing the spread of antibiotic resistance is the cost of resistance; resistance mutations generally reduce growth in the absence of the antibiotic” (p. 1097, emp. added).
9 “Sickle Cell Trait” (2016), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/sicklecell/traits.html.
10 “Protective Effect of Sickle Cell Trait Against Maleria-Associated Mortality and Morbidity” (2012), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/sickle_cell.html.
11 “Sickle Cell Trait” (2016), American Society of Hematology, http://www.hematology.org/Patients/Anemia/Sickle-Cell-Trait.aspx.
12 J.C. Sanford (2008), Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications), Kindle file.
13 Nathaniel T. Jeanson (2016), “On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity: Genetic Clocks, Population Growth Curves, and Comparative Nuclear Genome Analyses Suggest Created Heterozygosity in Combination with Natural Processes as a Major Mechanism,” Answers Research Journal, 9[2016]:81-122.
14 Special thanks to biochemist Dr. Joe Deweese for reviewing this article and offering helpful suggestions.

Mommas Can Murder, but Daddies Can't? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=915

Mommas Can Murder, but Daddies Can't?

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Few things enrage a community more than finding out that a pregnant woman has been murdered. Towns struck with such an atrocity often rise up and declare that justice must be served: “Violators should be charged with two counts of murder, not just one.” In recent times, men committing such heinous crimes have been charged with double murder. From Missouri to California, from Ohio to Utah, prosecutors have been pushing for maximum penalties by charging men, who allegedly have killed their pregnant wives (or girlfriends), with two counts of murder. In one particular case in California, a man, who police and prosecutors believe kicked and punched his pregnant girlfriend, was charged with assaulting the mother and murdering the baby (whom the mother was carrying in the womb).
It is encouraging to know that our judicial system has seen fit to prosecute those who murder unborn babies, and to make the guilty pay the highest penalties allowed. In these situations, our judicial system has treated the unborn baby as he/she really is—a human being (cf. Jeremiah 1:4-5; Luke 1:39-44). “A person guilty of murdering an unborn child is guilty of murdering a person.” This is what we are being told over and over again by those who seek to charge men, who take the lives of a woman and her unborn baby, with double murder.
Wait a minute! How can an unborn child be considered a human being in one situation (when a man takes the life of a woman and her baby), but then, when a pregnant woman wants to take the life of her unborn child, the baby becomes an “appendage” of the mother’s body. “The baby is not a human being, just an extra lump of tissue that the mother can discard at will.” If the father intentionally kicks a baby while in the mother’s womb, killing the child, he likely will be sentenced to prison, or possibly to death (and rightly so—Genesis 9:6). On the other hand, if a mother goes to an abortion clinic and pays a doctor to insert a pliers-like instrument into her uterus literally to pull and shred the baby into pieces, snapping the spinal cord, and crushing the skull, she has done nothing illegal?
How, in the name of common sense, can our courts rule that when a woman takes the life of her own child, “it is a choice,” but when someone else takes that life, “it is murder”? Such reasoning makes no sense. Abortion-rights activists, at least, are consistent in this regard (see White, 2003). As Heather Boonstra, senior public policy associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, stated: “The law cannot hold both that a pregnant woman is two persons and at the same time allow her to have an abortion” (2001).
Something must change! The laws on the books today in America regarding the rights of an unborn child must be enforced—consistently. The “hands that shed innocent blood,” whether mother or father, are abominable to the Lord and His people (Proverbs 6:17). Let us pray to the Almighty regarding this matter, and work to encourage our government officials to uphold the value of human life by one day reversing the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

REFERENCES

“Los Angeles Times Looks at Growing Debate Over Fetal Rights Laws in States” (2001), Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, [On-line], URL: http://report.kff.org/archive/repro/2001/5/kr010529.3.htm
White, Nicole (2003), “Proposal on Double Murder Charges Fuels Abortion Battle,” The Miami Herald, [On-line], URL: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5607355.htm, April 11.

Does God Tempt People? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2679&b=James

Does God Tempt People?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In his February 12, 2009 debate with Kyle Butt, Dan Barker alleged that he “knows” the God of the Bible cannot exist because “there are mutually incompatible properties/characteristics of the God that’s in this book [the Bible—EL] that rule out the possibility of His existence.” Seven minutes and 54 seconds into his first speech, Barker cited James 1:13 and Genesis 22:1 as proof that the God of the Bible cannot exist. Since James 1:13 says: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (KJV), and Genesis 22:1 affirms that “God did tempt Abraham” (KJV) to sacrifice his son, Barker asserted that God is like a married bachelor or a square circle—He cannot logically exist.
If Genesis 22:1 actually taught that God really tempted Abraham to commit evil and sin, then the God of the Bible might be a “square circle,” i.e., a logical contradiction. But, the fact of the matter is, God did not tempt Abraham to commit evil. Barker formulated his argument based upon the King James Version and only one meaning of the Hebrew word (nissâ) found in Genesis 22:1. Although the word can mean “to tempt,” the first two meanings that Brown, Driver, and Briggs give for nissâ in their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament is “to test, to try” (1993). Likewise, the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (1997) defines the word simply “to test” (Jenni and Westermann, 1997, 2:741-742). The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament agrees that nissâ is best translated, whether in secular or theological contexts, as “testing” (Botterweck, et al., 1998, 9:443-455). For this reason, virtually all major translations in recent times, including the NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, and RSV, translate Genesis 22:1 using the term “tested,” not tempted.
When David put on the armor of King Saul prior to battling Goliath, the shepherd realized: “I cannot walk with these, for I have not tested (nissâ) them” (1 Samuel 17:39, emp. added). Obviously, this testing had nothing to do with David “tempting” his armor; he simply had not tested or tried on Saul’s armor previously. God led Israel during 40 years of desert wanderings “to humble...and test” them (Deuteronomy 8:2, emp. added), not to tempt them to sin. Notice also the contrast in Exodus 20:20 between (1) God testing man and (2) trying to cause man to sin. After giving Israel the Ten Commandments, Moses said: “Do not fear; for God has come to test (nissâ) you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin” (Exodus 20:20, emp. added). If one were to use Barker’s reasoning that nissâ must mean “to tempt,” regardless of the context, then he would have to interpret Exodus 20:20 to mean that God tempted Israel to sin, so that they will not sin.
When a person interprets the Bible, or any other book, without recognizing that words have a variety of meanings and can be used in various senses, a rational interpretation is impossible. Many alleged Bible contradictions, including several of those that Dan Barker mentioned in the Butt/Barker Debate, are easily explained simply by acknowledging that words are used in a variety of ways. Is a word to be taken literally or figuratively? Must the term in one place mean the exact same thing when in another context, or may it have different meanings? If English-speaking Americans can intelligibly converse about running to the store in the 21st century by driving a car, or if we can easily communicate about parking on driveways, and driving on parkways, why do some people have such a difficult time understanding the various ways in which words were used in Bible times? Could it be that some Bible critics like Barker are simply predisposed to interpret Scripture unfairly? The evidence reveals that is exactly what is happening.
Rather then contradicting James 1:13, Genesis 22:1 actually corresponds perfectly with what James wrote near the beginning of his epistle: “My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing” (1:2-4, emp. added). By instructing Abraham to sacrifice his promised son (cf. Hebrews 11:17), God gave Abraham another opportunity to prove his loyalty to Him, while Abraham simultaneously used this trial to continue developing a more complete, mature faith.

REFERENCES

Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (1998), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles B. Briggs (1993), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westerman (1997), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

There will be false teachers among you by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/falsetea.html


There will be false teachers among you
Jeremiah lived 600 years before Christ. Jacob's descendants had divided into two kingdoms: Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Many of the people served idols and were immoral.
God called Jeremiah to make His message known. He was a true prophet of God. There were also many false prophets in the land, who told the people what they wanted to hear. In Jeremiah, chapter 23, God warns the people not to listen to false prophets. And He warns the false prophets, that He will punish them. From this chapter we learn important truths that can help us avoid false teachers today.
Peter warns Christians of all ages: “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways” (2 Peter 2:1,2).
There were false prophets in the Old Testament, there will be false teachers among us as well.
Jesus warned: “Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many” (Matthew 24:11). The fact that there are many false teachers among us and that many people listen to them is simply a fulfillment of the word of Christ.
He also said: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15). False teachers are false not only in doctrine but also in their appearance. They pretend to be something they are not. On the inside they are vicious wolves who kill and scatter the sheep. But they wear a sheepskin to trick the sheep.
Paul told the elders at Ephesus: “For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:29,30).
John warned: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).
These warnings of Christ and His apostles would be futile if there were no way to distinguish between those who speak the truth and those who teach error.
When one considers the thousands of preachers and priests in the world, it is obvious that most of them are not speaking for God because they teach conflicting things.
One man I baptized started reading the Bible because different priests in his own church were teaching different things.
His reaction was: “Since the priests say different things, I will read the Bible for myself. What it says will certainly be right.” The first time I met him he said: “I don't know where it will lead me, but I have decided to do what the Bible says.” I thought, “If he really means that, he will become a Christian.” And he did. Have we decided to do what the Bible says?
God has given us the Holy Scriptures so we can test the spirits.
What does God think about false teachers? “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture!” (Jeremiah 23:1). They will be punished for their evil deeds: “You have scattered My flock, driven them away, and not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for the evil of your doings” (Jeremiah 23:2).
In verses 9 and 10 Jeremiah laments the terrible state of the land “because of the prophets.” “For both prophet and priest are profane” (verse 11). Profane means 'secular', 'not holy'.
The prophets and priests were supposed to be spiritual and holy. Instead, they were secular.
A tourist visiting a monastery in Italy was astounded by a sign in botched English: “We harbor all kinds of diseases and have no respect for religion. Please donate some small arms for our hospital.”
False teachers do indeed harbor all kinds of spiritual diseases and have no respect for true religion.
A preacher was invited to work with a small church of Christ in a mission area. He replied that he was willing to come if he could have a big salary and a house that was nice enough to impress the business people of the community.
Beware of false prophets, preachers and priests. They are more concerned about worldly things than spiritual values. Jesus said to the religious leaders: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.” ... “Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:25 and 28).
In Jeremiah 23, God says that He will bring disaster on the false prophets. The prophets of the northern kingdom caused Israel to err through idol worship. (Do some religious leaders today encourage people to bow down before images?)
Of the prophets in the southern kingdom, God says: “Also I have seen a horrible thing in the prophets of Jerusalem: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they also strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns back from his wickedness. All of them are like Sodom to Me, and her inhabitants like Gomorrah” (Jeremiah 23:14).
False teachers strengthen the hands of evildoers. This is explained in verse 17: “They continually say to those who despise Me, 'The Lord has said, “You shall have peace” '; and to everyone who walks according to the dictates of his own heart, they say, 'No evil shall come upon you.' ”
This explains why false teachers are so popular! They are politically correct. They go along with the times. They adapt their message so it will not offend society. They tell people what they want to hear.
Are people who follow their own heart in our time told by some religious leaders that no evil will come upon them? Do some religious leaders condone the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah? Do some preachers say that no evil will come upon those who Jesus says commit adultery because of divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:31,32; 19:9)?
Beware of false prophets, preachers and priests who tickle the itching ears of evildoers (2 Timothy 4:3,4).
“For from the prophets of Jerusalem profaneness has gone out into all the land” (Jeremiah 23:15). They were profane themselves, and profaneness spread from them to the whole country. We live in a secular society. We must be careful that we do not become a secular church by listening to bootlicking false teachers.
“Thus says the Lord of hosts: 'Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless; they speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:16). False teachers tell you what they think, rather than what God says.
Because of the neglect of the false prophets, the people did not repent: “I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in My counsel, and had caused My people to hear My words, then they would have turned them from their evil way and from the evil of their doings” (Jeremiah 23:21,22).
We have been warned. We must distinguish between what comes from God and what comes from man: “ 'The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream; and he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat?' says the Lord. 'Is not My word like a fire?' says the Lord, 'and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?' ” (Jeremiah 23:28,29).
If a man has a dream and wants to tell it, ok, but he should not claim that it came from God. Man's word is chaff. God's word is nutritious grain. They who have God's word must speak it faithfully. It is powerful, like a burning fire and a hammer that pulverizes rocks.
Peter said: “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11).
How can we distinguish between the word of man and the word of God? Through Isaiah, God commanded the people: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20). We recognize false teachers by comparing what they say with the word of God.
There are false teachers among us, just like there were false prophets in the Old Testament. Do not listen to them. False teachers are secular, more concerned about popularity than purity. Their profaneness spreads like cancer. False teachers strengthen the hands of evildoers, comforting them in their sin rather than calling them to repentance. God has given us the Scriptures so we can know the difference between the word of man and the word of God. “To the law and to the testimony!” Beware of false teachers.
Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.
Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Reflections on the past, the present and the future by Gary Rose

A photo-shopped picture of a lady (I think its a lady, anyway), so what? Well, look at the eye. When I see Roman numerals, I think of the Roman empire. This entity ruled much of western civilization for about a thousand years and its effect on humanity is still seen today. I couldn't help but think of its greatness and the empires that preceded it and a vision of prophecy...


Daniel, Chapter 2 (World English Bible)
 1 In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; and his spirit was troubled, and his sleep went from him.  2 Then the king commanded that the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans be called to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king.  3 The king said to them, “I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit is troubled to know the dream.” 

  4 Then the Chaldeans spoke to the king in the Syrian language, “O king, live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation.” 

  5 The king answered the Chaldeans, “The thing has gone from me. If you don’t make known to me the dream and its interpretation, you will be cut in pieces, and your houses will be made a dunghill.  6 But if you show the dream and its interpretation, you will receive of me gifts and rewards and great honor. Therefore show me the dream and its interpretation.” 

  7 They answered the second time and said, “Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation.” 

  8 The king answered, “I know of a certainty that you are trying to gain time, because you see the thing has gone from me.  9 But if you don’t make known to me the dream, there is but one law for you; for you have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me, until the situation changes. Therefore tell me the dream, and I will know that you can show me its interpretation.” 

  10 The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, “There is not a man on the earth who can show the king’s matter, because no king, lord, or ruler, has asked such a thing of any magician, or enchanter, or Chaldean.  11 It is a rare thing that the king requires, and there is no other who can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.” 

  12 Because of this, the king was angry and very furious, and commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be destroyed.  13 So the decree went out, and the wise men were to be slain. They sought Daniel and his companions to be slain. 

  14 Then Daniel returned answer with counsel and prudence to Arioch the captain of the king’s guard, who had gone out to kill the wise men of Babylon.  15 He answered Arioch the king’s captain, “Why is the decree so urgent from the king?” Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel.  16 Daniel went in, and desired of the king that he would appoint him a time, and he would show the king the interpretation. 

  17 Then Daniel went to his house and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions:  18 that they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret; that Daniel and his companions would not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.  19 Then the secret was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.  20 Daniel answered, 

“Blessed be the name of God forever and ever; for wisdom and might are his. 


  21 He changes the times and the seasons. 
He removes kings, and sets up kings. 
He gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to those who have understanding. 
(emp. added, vs 21 GDR)

  22 He reveals the deep and secret things. 
He knows what is in the darkness, 
and the light dwells with him. 

  23 I thank you, and praise you, 
you God of my fathers, 
who have given me wisdom and might, and have now made known to me what we desired of you; 
for you have made known to us the king’s matter.” 

  24 Therefore Daniel went in to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon. He went and said this to him: “Don’t destroy the wise men of Babylon. Bring me in before the king, and I will show to the king the interpretation.” 

  25 Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said this to him: “I have found a man of the children of the captivity of Judah who will make known to the king the interpretation.” 

  26 The king answered Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, “Are you able to make known to me the dream which I have seen, and its interpretation?” 

  27 Daniel answered before the king, and said, “The secret which the king has demanded can’t be shown to the king by wise men, enchanters, magicians, or soothsayers;  28 but there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets, and he has made known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days. Your dream, and the visions of your head on your bed, are these: 

  29 “As for you, O king, your thoughts came on your bed, what should happen hereafter; and he who reveals secrets has made known to you what will happen.  30 But as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but to the intent that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that you may know the thoughts of your heart. 

  31 “You, O king, saw, and behold, a great image. This image, which was mighty, and whose brightness was excellent, stood before you; and its appearance was terrifying.  32 As for this image, its head was of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze,  33 its legs of iron, its feet part of iron, and part of clay.  34 You saw until a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet that were of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces.  35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors. The wind carried them away, so that no place was found for them. The stone that struck the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
(emp. added, vss. 31-36 GDR)


  36 “This is the dream; and we will tell its interpretation before the king.  37 You, O king, are king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory.  38 Wherever the children of men dwell, he has given the animals of the field and the birds of the sky into your hand, and has made you rule over them all. You are the head of gold. 

  39 “After you, another kingdom will arise that is inferior to you; and another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth.  40 The fourth kingdom will be strong as iron, because iron breaks in pieces and subdues all things; and as iron that crushes all these, it will break in pieces and crush.  41 Whereas you saw the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but there will be in it of the strength of the iron, because you saw the iron mixed with miry clay.  42 As the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom will be partly strong, and partly broken.  43 Whereas you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, they will mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they won’t cling to one another, even as iron does not mix with clay. 

  44 “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, nor will its sovereignty be left to another people; but it will break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it will stand forever.  45 Because you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God has made known to the king what will happen hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.”
(emp. added, vss. 44f GDR)

 A vision of four kingdoms, which came to power, ruled and faded into history. Then, in the days of those kings (vs. 44) God set up another kingdom that will never be destroyed and that kingdom is his church. The church that God established is eternal and is the will of God, because God alone sets up kingdoms (vs. 21).

God's will be done, now and forever!!!  Amen!!!!