5/1/17

"Who hath wounds without cause?" The Scourge Of The Ages By Cliff Goodwin

http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/1999/sep/page20.shtml

"Who hath wounds without cause?"
The Scourge Of The Ages

By Cliff Goodwin

The Preacher of old penned by inspiration of God's Spirit, "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (Ecclesiastes 7:29).  Indeed, man was created in the divine image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), having the volition and moral capability to do good, but sadly he has often veered from the paths of right into schemes of sin and iniquity.  In departing from God and his fellowship, man has traveled countless avenues.  In ancient times it was quite common for man to forsake the true and the living God for dumb idols of wood and gold.  A myriad of human souls have turned away from Jehovah in search of carnal fulfillment in fleshly lusts.  But always lurking in the human background, even from ancient times, is the evil companion modern science has termed "alcohol."  In the great expanse of eternity many a soul will be forever lost due to alcohol and its surrounding sins. Alcohol may be truly called "the scourge of the ages," for drunkenness is recorded in God's Word as early as the postdiluvian life of Noah (Genesis 9:20-24).  The menace of this sin can be traced throughout Old Testament history, and it is condemned in the New Testament as well.  "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying" (Romans 13:13).  "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;" (Ephesians 5:18).  Sadly, however, the day has not come in which man has become wise to alcohol and its both damaging as well as damning effects.  The proverb writer recorded, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise" (Proverbs 20:1).
Also in the book of Proverbs is preserved an inspired description of alcohol as detailed in 23:29-35.  A more vivid and even "sobering" elaboration of alcohol would be hard to find in all of God's Word.  In this passage one is presented with the reality of alcohol's evils.  For example, its bite and sting are compared to those of the serpent and adder respectively (Proverbs 23:32).  In keeping with such a portrayal, one may discern at least three points from the text at hand pertaining to alcohol.
Alcohol is an ANTAGONISTIC substance.  This is to say that alcohol actually opposes its very partaker.  It is true that a sparkling cup may promise some comfort--some little excursion of the mind for a while, but ultimately no solace is found.  The inebriated state will soon pass only to leave the drinker as dejected as before, only afterward the unhappiness is almost always worse.  Alcohol's stairway may be depicted as one which spirals continually downward, only plummeting the drinker deeper and deeper into darkness and despair.  Note from Proverbs 23:29-30 that wine brings not comfort or solace, but rather woe, sorrow and contentions.  It renders one to such a state that he cannot recall the origin of wounds on his own body.  Yes, alcohol is an antagonist indeed, regardless of any false hope or comfort it may offer.
Alcohol is an ALTERING substance.  One only has to witness another person in a drunken state to know that alcohol alters both the body and mind.  Because alcohol is not broken down in digestion, it is absorbed immediately into the bloodstream and carried to the brain and other major organs.  In these tissues and organs its effects are devastating.  A person's speech is often reduced to babbling and his eyes become red and bloodshot (Proverbs 23:29).  But even more, alcohol tears down one's inhibitions.  While drunken a person will do things that he would never do while sober.  The text reveals that the drunken will behold strange women, and their hearts will utter perverse things (Proverbs 23:33).  Acts of lasciviousness, fornication and even adultery are often committed by those who have kneeled at the fount of inebriation.  In the drunken state marriage vows are broken, vain promises are made and rash statements are uttered.  Does anyone really want an inanimate substance to have dominant control of one's own life?
Alcohol is an ADDICTIVE substance.  The closing lines of the given text read, ". . . when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again" (Proverbs 23:35).  Though the hand alcohol deals to the drinker is always a losing one, he seems powerless to refuse when it is time for the next hand.  This is the addictive nature of the substance.  Alcohol is a drug, and like other drugs, it is often not finished with a person when he would long have been finished with it.  Illustrated here would be the digressive nature of sin--sin left alone only worsens and worsens.  Likewise, alcohol depicts the spiraling stairway mentioned above which descends and descends until there is no hope.
The fact that alcohol may be described as "the scourge of the ages" is no excuse for anyone to be under its evil influence today to any degree.  This would include the "social" drinker as well as the alcoholic.  The evils of alcohol are plainly set forth in Proverbs 23:29-35 as well as numerous other passages.  Romans 12:9 reads, "Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good."  If one is to abhor that which is evil, such as drunkenness and such like (Galatians 5:21), then he must abstain from alcohol, the only exception being for medicinal purposes (1 Timothy 5:23).

"THE BOOK OF ACTS" Paul's Sermon In Athens (17:16-34) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                  Paul's Sermon In Athens (17:16-34)

INTRODUCTION

1. In Acts, we have several examples of gospel preaching; such include...
   a. Three by the apostle Peter - Ac 2,3,10
   b. Two by the evangelist Philip - Ac 8
   c. One by the apostle Paul - Ac 13

2. The sermons recorded thus far were to those who believed in one God...
   a. Like Jews and Samaritans
   b. Or Gentile God-fearers like Cornelius

3. Now we have an opportunity consider a sermon to pagan philosophers
   who were polytheists

[It was during Paul's second missionary journey, in the city of Athens, Greece...] 

I. THE SETTING

   A. PAUL HAD JUST ARRIVED IN ATHENS...
      1. Known as a center of learning and artistry, but also for its idols
      2. Petronius said that it was easier to find a god than a man in Athens
      3. Provoked by the idolatry, Paul began preaching at every opportunity 
          - Ac 17:16-17
         a. Reasoning in the synagogues with the Jews and Gentile worshipers
         b. Reasoning daily with any in the marketplace

   B. HE ATTRACTED ATTENTION OF PHILOSOPHERS...
      1. In particular, Epicurean and Stoic philosophers - Ac 17:18
         a. Some of whom viewed him as a proclaimer of foreign gods
         b. Because Paul was preaching of Jesus and the resurrection
      2. They brought him to the Areopagus (Mar's Hill) and invited him
         to speak - Ac 17:19-21
         a. A rocky hill about 370 feet high, not far from the Acropolis
            and the Agora (marketplace) in Athens - Holman Bible Dictionary
         b. A place where Athenians and visitors spent their time discussing new ideas
         c. Not having heard of the doctrine of Christ, they wanted to know more

[With such an invitation, you can imagine Paul's delight to accommodate
them (cf. Ro 1:16-17)...]

II. THE SERMON

   A. THEME:  THE GOD THEY DID NOT KNOW...
      1. Acknowledging their devotion, he makes mention of one altar in
         particular - Ac 17:22-23a
         a. An altar with the inscription:  "To The Unknown God"
         b. So devout, they sought to worship a god they did not know
      2. He uses the opportunity to preach concerning the True God they
         did not know! - Ac 17:23b

   B. MAIN POINTS...
      1. God is the creator of the universe - Ac 17:24
         a. He made the world, He is Lord of heaven and earth
         b. As such, He does not dwell in temples made with hands - cf. 1Ki 8:22-30
      2. God is the sustainer of life - Ac 17:25
         a. He gives to all life their breath and what they need - cf. Jm 1:17
         b. Therefore God is not worshipped as though He needs it
      3. God is the ruler of all the nations - Ac 17:26-27
         a. He has created every nation and determined their rise and
            fall - Dan 2:20-21; 4:17
         b. Everything is designed to prompt men to seek God, who is
            not far from any of us
      4. God is the Father of mankind - Ac 17:28-29
         a. From God we come; and in Him we live, move, and have our very being 
         b. Therefore we should not think that God is like any idol of gold, silver or stone
      5. God is the Judge of the world - Ac 17:30-31
         a. What ignorance He may have overlooked in the past, such is no longer the case
         b. He now commands all men everywhere to repent
         c. Why?  Because of the coming Judgment, in which...
            a. God will judge the world in righteousness
            b. God will judge the world through Jesus Christ - Jn 5:22, 26-27; 12:48
         d. As proof such will occur, God has raised Jesus from the dead
      -- These five points are from "The Spirit, The Church, And The World", by John Stott

   C. RESPONSE...
      1. Mentioning the resurrection provoked a response - Ac 17:32
         a. Some mocked (to many at that time, the idea of a bodily
            resurrection was foolishness)
         b. Others were more cordial, offering to listen again at another time
      2. As Paul left, some joined him and believed - Ac 17:33-34
         a. Specifically mentioned are Dionysius the Areopagite, and  Damaris, a woman
         b. Others also joined Paul and believed

[Having considered the setting and the sermon, allow me to make some...]

III. OBSERVATIONS

   A. REGARDING THE SERMON...
      1. Paul used tact - Ac 17:22-23
         a. He acknowledges their spirituality, though misdirected 
         b. We should not hesitate to acknowledge the devotion one might
            have; if in error, our task is to explain "the way of God 
            more accurately" - e.g., Ac 18:24-26
      2. Paul began with the present spiritual condition of his audience - Ac 17:23-27
         a. They believed in supreme beings, but didn't know the True God 
         b. With the Jews he began with the Law, with the Gentiles he
            began with the nature of God; we too should take into 
            consideration where one is spiritually
      3. Paul made use of an accepted authority - Ac 17:28-29
         a. He quotes from one of their own prophets to make his point 
         b. When appropriate, we can appeal to an uninspired authority accepted by others
      4. Paul led his audience to the main themes of the gospel - Ac  17:30-31
         a. Such as repentance, the judgment, Jesus and the resurrection - cf. Ac 17:18
         b. So our ultimate goal in preaching should be the gospel 
            message - e.g., Ac 2:38; 3:19
      5. Paul used the resurrection of Jesus as ultimate proof - Ac 17:31
         a. God has given assurance of the coming Judgment by raising Jesus 
         b. Indeed, if Jesus truly did rise from the dead, it is proof of:
            1) The existence of God
            2) The truthfulness of all of Jesus' claims
            3) The reality of sin, judgment, and the need to repent
         c. This is why we need to develop a strong apologetic for the resurrection of Jesus

   B. REGARDING THE RESPONSE...
      1. People responded in three different ways - Ac 17:32-34
         a. Rejection - "some mocked"
         b. Reluctance - "others said, 'we will hear you again on this matter'"
         c. Reception - "some men joined him and believed"
      2. Of those who responded favorably, it is only said that they "believed" - Ac 17:34
         a. Are we to conclude from this that was all they did?
         b. Did they not also "repent", as commanded in Ac 17:30? 
         c. The term "believed" encompassed more than simply acceptance
            of the facts that had been proclaimed
            1) It involved a complete reception of the message preached
            2) It included an obedience to whatever conditions had been
               proclaimed by the apostles (such as repentance, baptism)
         d. Just as faith was not explicitly mentioned in Acts 2, or
            repentance in Acts 16, but is fairly inferred from what we 
            know in other passages, so also with baptism here
            1) "There is, indeed, much to be said for the contention,
               independently advocated by theologians of varied schools,
               that in the New Testament faith and baptism are viewed as
               inseparables whenever the subject of Christian initiation
               is under discussion, so that if one is referred to, the 
               other is presupposed, even if not mentioned." - G. R. 
               Beasley-Murray, Baptism In The New Testament, p. 272
            2) "Baptism and faith are but the outside and inside of the
               same thing" - James Denny (as quoted by Beasley-Murray, ibid.)
            3) "Where baptism is spoken of faith is presumed, and where
               faith is spoken of baptism is included in the thought" 
               - N. J. Engelsen (as quoted by Beasley-Murray, ibid.) 

CONCLUSION

1. Whether Jew or Gentile, philosopher or simpleton, the gospel of Christ is for all...
   a. Where we begin may vary with the spiritual condition of our audience
   b. Where we end must always be the same:  Jesus is the only way to salvation!

2. When one becomes convicted of their sinful condition and their need 
   for Jesus, the proper response should also be the same no matter who we are...
   a. Faith in Jesus as the Son of God, who died for our sins and was raised from the dead
   b. Repentance from sin
   c. Baptism into Christ for the forgiveness of sins through His blood

One's reaction to the gospel will always be one of three ways: rejection,
reluctance, or reception.  In Athens, people such as Dionysius and 
Damaris exemplified the proper response.  

Are you willing to imitate their example...?
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2013

"THE BOOK OF ACTS" Two Mindsets In Berea (17:10-15) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                   Two Mindsets In Berea (17:10-15)

INTRODUCTION

1. Following "The Tumult In Thessalonica" (Ac 17:1-10)...
   a. Paul and Silas were sent away by night to Berea - Ac 17:10
   b. Where once again they went into the synagogue of the Jews - cf. Ac 17:1-3

2. The city of Berea...
   a. Its name means "a place of many waters"
   b. Was located near natural springs
   c. One of the most populous cities of Macedonia

3. The Jews of Berea...
   a. Described as "more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica" (NKJV)- Ac 17:11
   b. Other translations describe them as "more noble" (ESV), "more open-minded" (HCSB)
   c. He used a word (eugenesteros) that originally meant high born but
      came to have a more general connotation of being open, tolerant,
      generous, having the qualities that go with "good breeding."
      - Polhill, J. B. (1995). Acts. The New American Commentary (Vol.
      26). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[The mindset of the Berean Jews is worthy of emulation by all people
today.  But in what way were they more "noble" or "open-minded"...?]

I. THE NOBLE BEREANS

   A. THEIR RECEPTION OF PAUL'S WORDS...
      1. First, they received his words with all readiness (NKJV) - Ac 17:11
         a. Other translations say "with all eagerness" (ESV)
         b. This suggests a willingness to listen so as to understand, 
            to give Paul a fair hearing
      2. This willingness to give a fair hearing...
         a. Was taught in the Law - Deut 13:14
         b. Was exemplified by Nicodemus - Jn 7:50-51
      3. The "Berean attitude" involves first seeking to understand what someone is saying
         a. Often in religious discussions, people are unwilling to
            understand what others believe
         b. Then they argue without understanding another's position,
            which is folly - Pr 18:13

   B. THEIR STUDY OF GOD'S WORDS...
      1. Second, they searched the Scriptures daily (NKJV) - Ac 17:11
         a. Other translations say "examining the Scriptures daily" (ESV)
         b. This suggests a willingness to let the Scriptures be their authority
      2. This willingness to let the Scriptures be their authority...
         a. Was taught in the Law - Deut 4:1-2
         b. Is taught in the New Testament - 2Ti 3:16-17; Re 22:18-19
      3. The "Berean attitude" involves study of God's word to confirm 
         what someone is saying
         a. Often in religious discussions, people simply believe what
            others have told them
         b. Arguing what they've always believed, hindering their ability
            to learn the truth - 2Ti 3:7

[Because of the mindset of those in Berea, the Word of God bore fruit
(Ac 17:12).  We emulate the mindset of "The Noble Bereans" only when we
apply both principles:

   *  Listen carefully to understand others 

   *  Study the Scriptures diligently to determine what is true

Otherwise, we are susceptible to developing a different mindset: 
becoming more like...]

II. THE IGNOBLE THESSALONIANS

   A. LIKE OTHERS BEFORE THEM...
      1. The unbelieving Jews in:
         a. Jerusalem - Ac 6:9-14
         b. Antioch of Pisidia - Ac 13:50
         c. Iconium - Ac 14:2
      2. Harassing Paul from town to town
         a. Like the unbelieving Jews from Antioch and Iconium - Ac 14:19
         b. So did the unbelieving Jews from Thessalonica - Ac 17:13

   B. LIKE SOME TODAY...
      1. Among denominations, attacking churches of Christ
         a. Misrepresenting their views regarding the church, baptism
         b. Calling them by prejudicial names (e.g., "Campbellites", "a cult")
      2. Among mainstream churches of Christ, attacking more conservative brethren
         a. Misrepresenting their views regarding church cooperation, benevolence, etc.
         b. Calling them by prejudicial names (e.g., "anti", "orphan haters")
      3. Among conservative churches of Christ, attacking some less conservative than they
         a. Presuming those who oppose them just have no respect for the Scriptures
         b. Calling them by prejudicial names (e.g., "liberal")

CONCLUSION

1. Because of the persecution of the unbelieving Jews from Thessalonica...
   a. Paul was forced to leave Berea - Ac 17:14
   b. Arriving in Athens, to await the arrival of Silas and Timothy - Ac 17:15

2. The noble Bereans provide a mindset sorely needed today...
   a. Giving others a fair hearing
   b. Examining all things in the light of God's Word

3. The ignoble Thessalonians provide a mindset we must avoid...
   a. Blind adherence to previously held beliefs
   b. Leading to zealous persecution of the innocent

Which mindset do we possess?  Do we seek first to understand, then to
be understood?  Do we study the Scriptures daily, examining not only
the beliefs of others, but constantly testing our own beliefs?  

If so, then we are truly "fair-minded", and more likely to come to a
knowledge of the truth...
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2013

U.S. Presidents on Islam by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=5341

U.S. Presidents on Islam

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

George Washington

“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.”1
“While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian.”2

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams

“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”3

John Quincy Adams

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle…. [H]e declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…. The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”4

Barack Obama

“Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism—it is an important part of promoting peace.”5

EndNotES

1 George Washington (1779), “Speech to the Delaware Chiefs,” in The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, 15:55, emp. added, http://preview.tinyurl.com/Washington-G-1779. The author assumes that Washington’s belief in the priority of the Christian religion would apply to the Muslim as well as the Native American.
2 George Washington (1778), “General Orders, May 2, 1778,” George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, emp. added, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw3&fileName=mgw3g/gwpage003.db&recNum=181. Again, it is assumed that, if Washington considered being a Christian a person’s highest glory, being a Muslim would not be so considered.
3 “American Peace Commissioners to John Jay” (1786), The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of Congress, March 28, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib001849. The letter refers to Jefferson and Adam's meeting with the Ambassador from the Muslim country of Tripoli.
4 Joseph Blunt (1830), The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9 (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt), 29:269, emp. added, http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft.
5 Barack Obama (2009), “Remarks by the President on a New Beginning,” The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, June 4, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09.

"Contradictions" Regarding the Ark of the Covenant by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=767

"Contradictions" Regarding the Ark of the Covenant

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

How does the “20 years” reference in 1 Samuel 7:2 harmonize with the fact that the ark was not brought from Kirjath-jearim until 2 Samuel 6:4—more than 40 years later?
Even though God’s Word can be substantially communicated from one language to another, the translation process is sufficiently complex to the extent that many of the subtleties of the parent language are lost in translation. These subtleties rarely, if ever, involve matters that are critical to the central purpose of revelation. However, apparent discrepancies on minor details can surface that require a careful re-examination of the actual linguistic data of the parent language (in this case Hebrew) in order to dissolve the apparent discrepancy.
The individual clauses of 1 Samuel 7:2-3 are linked in Hebrew by “waw consecutives” that bring the statements into close logical and temporal connection. The three verbs of verse two are a continuation of the infinitive, which points to the main sentence being resumed in verse three (“and Samuel spoke”). The gist of these grammatical data is that the writer is informing us that after the ark’s capture, the people endured Philistine oppression for the next twenty years. Though all Israel “lamented after the Lord,” He allowed the Israelites to continue their suffering at the hands of the Philistines for 20 years—at which time Samuel called upon the nation to put away its idols.
First Samuel describes the final years of the period of the judges. The reliance upon the ark as a sort of mystical talisman brought swift military tragedy, precipitating yet another period of foreign oppression by Israel’s enemies due to their own apostasy. This period of Philistine preeminence went on for twenty years before the lamentations of God’s people were finally heard. At the end of the twenty years, Samuel called on them to couple their lamentations with genuine penitence (1 Samuel 7:3). When they put away their idolatry (vs. 4), they once again enjoyed the services of the judge (vs. 6), who assisted them in throwing off Philistine oppression by military defeat (vss. 10ff.).
Thus the twenty years refers—not to the total number of years that the ark remained in Kirjath-jearim—but merely to the number of years the ark was in Kirjath-jearim before the Lord chose to hear the people’s lamentations and provide them with intervention through Samuel.

The Universe Just Got Much Bigger—On Paper by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1016

The Universe Just Got Much Bigger—On Paper

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Every now and then I come across an article on modern “scientific” findings that absolutely stuns me, not necessarily because of the newest “findings,” but because of how casually information that was declared to be so scientifically accurate can be disregarded with a few computer keystrokes. Last week research was discussed that will forever change the way we look at the Universe (if you read the right article), and the irony is that you probably are not even aware of it.
For many years, cosmologists (scientists who study the Universe and its supposed origins) have explained to us that our Universe appears to be approximately 28 billion light years across. A light year is the distance light travels in one year. Since light travels at about 186,000 miles per second, the distance it covers in one year is about 5.9 trillion miles. That means if light were to start at one end of our Universe, travelling 186,000 miles per second, it would take 28 billion years to get to the other side. At least that is what we have been told for about a decade.
New studies, however, indicate that cosmologists have been wrong, on a grand scale, about the size of our Universe. Last week, Ed Oswald wrote an article for Yahoo! Tech titled, “How Big is the Universe? Attempting to Answer One of Astronomy’s Most Complex Questions.” In the article, he explained the complicated processes of how cosmologists attempt to measure the size of the Universe. Using the latest information, he wrote, “Physicists…now believe the radius of the observable universe is now roughly 46.5 billion light years away.”1 That is much bigger than we were told it appeared in years past. But Oswald does not stop there. He goes on to make clear that the galaxies that we see at the edge of our Universe are too “well-formed” to have appeared immediately following the Big Bang. (He incorrectly assumes the reality of the Big Bang.)2 That being the case, he mentions researchers at Oxford who believe that our Universe could be “as big as 250 times the size of our observable universe. Try to wrap your mind around that.”3
So what does all this mean? First, it shows us the serious limitations of science. We are often told to bow to the modern dating methods of the Universe, conform to the “real science” that proves the Bible false, and admit the validity of “current scientific findings.” Yet, we learn every day how limited and incorrect these often are. We are told that such is the nature of science; that it is a “self-correcting” endeavor, so that the most current material must be accurate. That simply is not the case. Many times, what passes for science in cosmology is not self-correcting, it is self-refuting. What we learn from situations in which the size of the Universe can greatly expand on paper is that those researchers who purported to present scientific facts about the Universe’s age, size, or composition were giving us nothing of the sort. They were wrong, the whole time. What happens, then, to the person who demanded that we shove the “modern scientific findings” into the biblical account and make it fit? He is left holding a battered Bible in one hand, and useless, “outdated” (read that as false) cosmology in the other.
Furthermore, the better we understand the Universe, the more we realize that atheistic, Big Bang explanations are not scientifically adequate to explain its origin. Before this latest “discovery,” the atheistic understanding of the origin of the Universe already had a real problem explaining how a tiny “singularity” could explode and bring into existence a 28-billion-light-year Universe. Now the problem has been further compounded, since the Universe appears to be much larger, maybe even 250 times bigger for all we know. Atheism’s conundrum is that to get a 93-billion-light-year Universe from a tiny singularity violates the Law of Cause and Effect that says for every material effect there must be a cause that was greater than it. What in the world is big enough to give us a 93-billion-light-year Universe? A tiny singularity smaller than the period at the end of this sentence is not a legitimate, scientific answer.
The apostle Paul wrote, “For since the creation of the world His [God’s] invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.” The only plausible explanation for a Universe that is 93 billion light years across is an eternal, all-powerful Creator.

Endnotes

1 Ed Oswald (2016), “How Big is the Universe? Attempting to Answer One of Astronomy’s Most Complex Questions,” Yahoo! Tech, https://www.yahoo.com/tech/big-universe-attempting-answer-one-230016820.html.
2 Branyon May, et al. (2003), “The Big Bang—A Scientific Critique,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1453&topic=57.
3 Ibid.

Mistaking Cowardliness for Humility by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=747

Mistaking Cowardliness for Humility

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In 2006, Baylor University published the results of a survey indicating more Americans claim affiliation with Christianity than with any other religion. In fact, the report claimed that “82 percent of Americans are Christians” (see Tooley, 2006). Sadly, the vast majority claiming Christianity as their religion, have no respect for what their law (the New Testament) or their lawgiver (the Christ) teach.
One year after Baylor University published their findings, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life surveyed 35,000 Americans. Seventy percent of those surveyed answered in the affirmative that “many religions can lead to eternal life” (Van Biema, 2008). “Nearly across the board, the majority of religious Americans” believe that Christianity is not the only way to everlasting life, including 83 percent of mainline Protestants, 79 percent of Roman Catholics, and 57 percent of Evangelicals (“Americans...”). C. Welton Gaddy, the president of Interfaith Alliance, was encouraged by the outcome of the survey, saying, “It indicates a level of humility about religion that would be of great benefit to everyone” (“Americans...”).
Sadly, millions of Americans have bought into Gaddy’s “humble religion.” The truth is, however, “Christians” claiming that Christ is not the only way to eternal life are actually conceited, cowardly conmen (or disturbingly uninformed of the teaching of Christ and the New Testament apostles and prophets). The night before Jesus’ crucifixion, He told His disciples, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6, emp. added). Later, Peter appeared before the Jewish Council and proclaimed that salvation is only through Jesus: “[T]here is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12, NASB, emp. added). Jesus and Peter made it very clear. If someone wants to know the truth about the way to eternal life, he will only learn that truth through Christ, “Who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom” (2 Timothy 4:1). Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life.” As if that were not clear enough, Jesus declared: “No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6, emp. added). “No one else” is able to give a person salvation; “there is no other name under heaven...by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12, emp. added).
How can a rational person profess to be a Christian, while at the same time maintaining that “many religions can lead to eternal life”? The New Testament unmistakably teaches that the way to salvation is not through Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, Gandhi, or Krishna; it is only through Christ, Whose words will judge the world in the last day (John 12:48). Thus, Jesus instructed man to “[e]nter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). Jesus has drawn a line in the sand. He stands on one side ready to lead followers to eternal life. On the other is any and all others who “shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thessalonians 1:9).
To call oneself a Christian, and then proclaim that there are many ways to eternal life, does not indicate “a level of humility about religion that would be of great benefit to everyone.” On the contrary, it exposes the “Christian” as a coward, who arrogantly dismisses the words of the Son of God. This so-called “Christian” has no respect for the rigidness of the Truth that Jesus embodied and taught. Sadly, this most recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life simply shows that America is a country full of professed “Christians” who have lost their spiritual bearings.
“Unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).
“God...commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man [Jesus] whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31).
“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

REFERENCES

“Americans: My Faith Isn’t the Only Way to Heaven” (2008), Associated Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370588,00.html.
Tooley, Mark D. (2006), “God is Back,” CBS News, [On-line], URL:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/29/ opinion/main2053026.shtml.
Van Biema, David (2008), “Christians: No One Path to Salvation,” TIME, [On-line], URL: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1817217,00.html?imw=Y.

The Benevolent, "Leavening" Influence of Christianity by Wayne Jackson, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=248

The Benevolent, "Leavening" Influence of Christianity

by  Wayne Jackson, M.A.

In one of his delightfully instructive parables, Jesus set forth the following concept regarding his approaching reign:
The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened (Matthew 13:33).
It is agreed among Bible expositors that the “leaven” of this parable signifies the pervasive and benevolent influence of the kingdom of Christ, as this leaven would make its presence felt from the first century onward. In his classic work on the parables, Trench noted that Christianity, “[w]orking from the centre to the circumference, by degrees...made itself felt, till at length the whole Roman world was, more or less, leavened by it” (1877, p. 121). In his important treatise on the parables, Taylor affirmed that the leaven represents “the good, wholesome, aggressive influence which Christ introduced into the world when he came to earth, and lived and died, and rose again, as the Savior of sinners” (1928, p. 60).
There is, perhaps, no more graphic portrait of the vileness of the Mediterranean world than that which is painted by Paul in the opening chapter of his epistle to the Romans. It is dismal indeed. William Barclay observed:
When we read Romans 1:26-32 it might seem that this passage is the work of some almost hysterical moralist who was exaggerating the contemporary situation and painting it in colours of rhetorical hyperbole. It describes a situation of degeneracy of morals almost without parallel in human history. But there is nothing that Paul said that the Greek and Roman writers of the age did not themselves say (1957, p. 23).
The Scottish scholar then proceeded to document his depiction with ample citations from ancient historians who commented upon this period of depraved history. It was into this hostile environment that the religion of Jesus was inaugurated, gradually but surely changing—much for the better—the moral climate of that world. If one is inclined to think that this appraisal is biased, perhaps we may appeal to the testimony of a writer who never could be accused of entertaining sympathy for Christianity.
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), an agnostic, has been characterized as the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature. He was a militant opponent of the religion of Jesus Christ, even producing a popular essay titled, “Why I am not a Christian.” I mention this to argue that whatever testimony we elicit from him certainly will not arise from a heart that is disposed toward the Teacher from Nazareth. Be that as it may, Russell, oddly enough, became an unwitting witness to the truth of the “leavening” activity of the Christian system in the Roman world.
First, the philosopher commented concerning the barbarous practice of infanticide (i.e., the destruction of newborn infants)—a practice so common in the Roman world.
Infanticide, which might seem contrary to human nature, was almost universal before the rise of Christianity, and is recommended by Plato to prevent over-population (1950, p. 92; emp. added).
Second, Russell gave a nodding tribute to the influence of Christianity relative to the status of women in the Roman world.
In antiquity, when male supremacy was unquestioned and Christian ethics were still unknown, women were harmless but rather silly, and a man who took them seriously was somewhat despised (p. 101; emp. added).
Third, there is this comment regarding Christian benevolence in general.
Christianity, as soon as it conquered the state, put an end to gladiatorial shows, not because they were cruel, but because they were idolatrous. The result, however, was to diminish the widespread education in cruelty by which the populace of Roman towns were degraded. Christianity also did much to soften the lot of slaves. It established charity on a large scale, and inaugurated hospitals (p. 137; emp. added).
Our world may be thankful indeed for the lingering influence of Jesus’ life and teaching upon this Earth.

REFERENCES

Barclay, William (1957), The Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Russell, Bertrand (1950), Unpopular Essays (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Taylor, William (1928), The Parables of Our Savior (New York: Doubleday).
Trench, R.C. (1877), Notes on the Parables (London: Macmillan).

Inevitable--Given Enough Time? by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3729

Inevitable--Given Enough Time?

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Macroevolutionists often point the proverbial finger at the laws of probability in a pointless attempt to traverse the gaping chasms which exist in the theory of evolution and Big Bang Theory and thereby substantiate them. However, the gaps that exist, such as the origin of matter (cf. Miller, 2013), the origin of life (cf. Miller, 2012), and macroevolution (cf. Brooks and Deweese, 2009), are many and cannot be traversed without violation of recognized scientific laws. In spite of this dilemma, many evolutionists have long cited the principles of probability in an effort to support their dogma, noting that as long as the required events do not have a probability of zero, they are inevitable, given enough time (cf. Erwin, 2000). As far back as 1954, George Wald, writing in Scientific American concerning the origin of life on Earth, penned the words:
However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps it involves, given enough time, it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, once may be enough. Time is the hero of the plot.... Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the probable becomes virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs miracles (Wald, p. 48, emp. added).
There are at least two problems with this assertion. First, several of the events that are necessary in order for the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory to be true, indeed, have a probability of zero. So, the question is not really one of improbability, but impossibility. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the contention that, for instance, matter could spontaneously generate or life could come about from non-life (i.e., abiogenesis). In fact, quite the opposite is true. The experimental results of renowned scientist Louis Pasteur forever killed the possibility of the spontaneous generation of life back in the 19th century, and the Law of Biogenesis drove the nails into its coffin (cf. Miller, 2012). This truth creates an impenetrable barrier for evolutionists—a gaping chasm that must be crossed in order for the theory of evolution to be plausible. So, according to the scientific evidence, there is a probability of zero that abiogenesis can occur. According to the laws of probability, specifically Kolmogorov’s first axiom, when the probability of an event is zero, the event is called an “impossible event (Gubner, 2006, p. 22, emp. added). Since several events that are necessary in order for the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory to be true have a probability of zero, according to the laws of probability, these atheistic theories are impossible.

The second problem with this contention is that we are not “given enough time” for macroevolution to have occurred. We at Apologetics Press have documented this fact time and time again (cf. Jackson, 1983; Thompson, 2001). Years ago, in his article “The Young Earth,” Henry Morris listed 76 dating techniques, based on standard evolutionary assumptions, which all indicate that the Earth is relatively young (Morris, 1974). Donald DeYoung documented extensive, compelling evidence for a young Earth as well, in the book Thousands...Not Billions (2005). Of course, such information is not broadcasted widely due to its implications. If atheistic evolutionists were sincerely interested in the truth—if they were interested in giving all options a fair shake—they would hear the silent but forceful cry of the evidence: “Macroevolution is impossible! There is a God!”

REFERENCES

Brooks, Will and Joe Deweese (2009), “A Response to the 21st Century Science Coalition Standards of Science Education,” Reason & Revelation, 29[6]:41-43, June, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240161.
DeYoung, Donald (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Erwin, Douglas (2000), “Macroevolution is More Than Repeated Rounds of Microevolution,” Evolution and Development, 2[2]:78-84.

Gubner, J. A. (2006), Probability and Random Processes for Electrical and Computer Engineers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Jackson, Wayne (1983), “Our Earth—Young or Old?” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/yng-old.pdf.
Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.
Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2786.

Morris, H. (1974), “The Young Earth,” Acts & Facts, 3[8], http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth.

Thompson, Bert (2001), “The Young Earth,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991.

Wald, George (1954), “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191:45-53, August.

The Moral Majority is Shrinking by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1540

The Moral Majority is Shrinking

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The University of New Hampshire recently released a poll which indicates that 50% of Americans disapprove of gay and lesbian marriages. While 11% refuse to commit on the subject, 37% approve of same-sex marriage (“Poll...,” 2005). Assuming this survey is accurate, its results are mind-boggling—when one considers the historic stance of Americans from 1776 to the 1960s. For most of American history, same-sex relations have been viewed by 99.9% of Americans as immoral and illegal. Yet, the liberal forces of “political correctness” have been chipping away at America’s moral sensibilities. The gradual but persistent erosion of Christian morals has reduced national opposition to homosexuality from near 100% to 50% in less than fifty years. Who would have ever imagined such was even possible—let alone that it could actually happen?
This decline in commitment to foundational moral principles is simply a reflection of the concomitant loss of loyalty to the Bible as God’s inspired Word. That Word speaks very directly to our failing national conscience:
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust (1 Timothy 1:8-11, emp. added).
Similarly, Paul declared very firmly to the Christians who lived in the very sexually promiscuous city of Corinth: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites... will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, emp. added).
Interestingly, the poll demonstrated the massive disparity that has come to exist in America with regard to age, political affiliation, and commitment to attending Christian worship services. Americans older than age 65, Republicans, Protestants, regular churchgoers, and Southerners were more likely to oppose gay marriage. On the other hand, Americans under age 35, Democrats, and people who do not attend worship services (or attend sporadically) were more likely to support gay marriages (“Poll...,” 2005).
How tragic that so many are willing to throw away their very souls for all of eternity in exchange for temporary, momentary, inordinate desires that mar the body and soul. How unfortunate that so many are willing to approve of those who do so (cf. Romans 1:32). In the process, these defenders of sexual perversion will share considerable responsibility for contributing to the downfall of an entire nation—when the righteous God eventually reacts (cf. Genesis 19).

REFERENCES

“Poll: U.S. Divided on Same-sex Marriage” (2005), Associated Press, MSNBC News, May 15, [On-line], URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7860056/.

Inconsistent Allegations by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1606&b=Numbers

Inconsistent Allegations

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Several years ago, the Kerrville, Texas Daily Times on-line newspaper published two stories on their front page about the same basic event—the Texas Associated Press Managing Editors’ meeting in Galveston, Texas. The headline for the first story was “Times Wins 17 Awards in Statewide Contest” (emp. added). The second story was titled, “Times Gets 16 Awards in First Day” (emp. added). One story clearly indicated that the newspaper had won 16 awards, while the other used the number 17. Apparently, however, none of the Kerrville Daily Times staff believed that their stories were contradictory. (The stories remained on the Daily Times homepage for a few days.) What’s more, there was no indication that others were accusing the newspaper of being inconsistent or dishonest in their reporting. Why? Because most anyone who read the two titles quickly understood that the newspaper won 17 awards in all—16 of which they collected on the meeting’s “first day.”
If most anyone can easily understand and accept such differences as were found on the Kerrville Daily Times Web site, one wonders why similar logical differences cannot easily be acknowledged in Scripture. For example, when Moses wrote about the sexual immorality and idolatry that the Israelites committed in Moab, he noted that “those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand” (Numbers 25:9, emp., added). When the apostle Paul alluded to the number of Israelites who committed sexual immorality (apparently referring to the events in Numbers 25:1-9), he wrote: “in one day twenty-three thousand fell” (1 Corinthians 10:8, emp. added). Skeptics and certain others (e.g., Davids, et al, 1996, pp. 598-599) would have us believe that Paul erred in writing 23,000, rather than 24,000. But notice that Paul included the phrase “in one day twenty-three thousand fell” (emp. added). Though Moses would later write about what happened “in the day of the plague” (Numbers 25:18; cf. Genesis 2:17; 1 Kings 2:37,42; Lyons, 2002), he did not use a numerical adjective to delineate clearly a set period of one day as Paul did. Thus, the difference in the two numbers can easily (and logically) be resolved by taking into account that Paul’s number included what happened within a literal 24-hour period, while Moses’ number included everyone who died “when the plague came” (Numbers 25:18, NIV), however long it lasted.
Of course, as with many alleged Bible discrepancies, oftentimes more than one possible explanation exists for differences between two or more Bible passages. Regarding 1 Corinthians 10:8, some believe that Paul was referring to a different time in Israelite history (cf. Archer, 1982, p. 401; Geisler and Howe, 1992, pp. 458-459). Others believe that Numbers 25:9 is, indeed, the actual “sister” passage to 1 Corinthians 10:8, but that the additional 1,000 in the book of Numbers also included those whom the judges executed (Numbers 25:4-5; see Jamieson, et al., 1997). Still, it may be that Paul’s number only included the portion of those who were actually guilty of “sexual immorality,” while Moses included both harlots and idolaters (Numbers 25:1-3).
The fact is, several plausible explanations exist for the differences between Numbers 25:9 and 1 Corinthians 10:8. Exactly what the explanation for the difference is, we may never know. But, we can know that the skeptic has not proven these passages to be discrepant. Furthermore, it is the skeptic who should be questioned as to why he readily accepts the understandable, non-discrepant differences in many modern-day writings (e.g., the Kerrville Daily Times), yet loudly protests against similar logical, explainable differences in Scripture. Undoubtedly, this kind of “inconsistent” allegation should be under scrutiny.

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Davids, Peter H., Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., F.F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch (1996), Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Lyons, Eric (2002), “Why Didn’t Adam Die Immediately?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=797.

Rejoice in God and cast your care on Him. by Roy Davison


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


Rejoice in God and cast your care on Him.
Around 1990 Rita and I were walking through the narrow streets of a village in Germany after dark when two teenage boys sauntered past singing, “Don’t worry. Be happy.”

This refrain from Bobby McFerrin’s song expresses two teachings of Christ. “Do not worry about your life” (Matthew 6:25) and “Rejoice and be exceedingly glad” (Matthew 5:12).

This does not mean that we have no troubles. As Bobby McFerrin sings: “In every life we have some trouble. When you worry you make it double.”

Christians rejoice in God and cast their cares on Him.

Don’t worry!

Worry is excessive concern.

“Do not worry about your life” (Matthew 6:25). “Anxiety in the heart of man causes depression, but a good word makes it glad” (Proverbs 12:25).

Christians need not worry because God has promised: “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5). “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you” (1 Peter 5:6, 7).

A distinction must be made between healthy concern and worry. Emotional involvement in problems is not wrong. It can lead to constructive action. Paul spoke of his “deep concern for all the churches” (2 Corinthians 11:28).

There is a big difference, however, between thinking about a problem and worrying about a problem. Worry involves a feeling of dread and anxiety that is negative, depressing, exhausting and paralyzing.

Materialism causes much worry. We worry when we are overly concerned about material and temporal things. Jesus explained: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. [Mammon is the god of money.] Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” (Matthew 6:24-26).

When we see how richly God provides for life on earth, we know that He will care for us as well. “For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble” (Matthew 6:32-34).1 Worry pulls tomorrow’s clouds over today’s sunshine.

Trusting in the providence of God, we can take life as it comes. Jesus does not deny that we have troubles. He just tells us to deal with them one day at a time. Each day, God will give us what we need for that day. Jesus tells us to pray, “Give us day by day our daily bread” (Luke 11:3).

Paul also tells us to pray rather than worry: “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God” (Philippians 4:6). Praying and thankfully counting our blessings puts our troubles into perspective.

I once saw an amusing wall plaque: “Why pray when you can worry?”

Worry is futile. If you can do something about a problem, ask God for help and get to work. If you can do nothing about a problem, turn it over to God in prayer.

Be happy!

God wants us to be happy. “Rejoice and be exceedingly glad” (Matthew 5:12). “Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you” (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18).

In Christ we have the joy of salvation. After the Philippian jailer was baptized “he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household” (Acts 16:34). The Ethiopian eunuch went on his way rejoicing after he was baptized by Philip (Acts 8:39).

“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Romans 5:1, 2). We rejoice “in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation” (Romans 5:11).

The joy that dwells in the heart of a Christian does not preclude grief. “Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15). “Jesus wept” even when He knew He would raise Lazarus from the dead. But we are never defeated by grief.

Even in the darkest hour we can have inner happiness because we have hope. The resurrection of Christ is the foundation of our hope of eternal life.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith the salvation of your souls” (1 Peter 1:3-9).

We can rejoice even in the midst of persecution: “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5:11, 12).

“Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you, and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! for indeed your reward is great in heaven, for in like manner their fathers did to the prophets” (Luke 6:22, 23).

Peter explains: “Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy” (1 Peter 4:12, 13).

Jesus tells His followers: “Rejoice because your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20). We rejoice because Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us in heaven (John 14:1-3, 27, 28).

“Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord” (Philippians 3:1). “Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice!” (Philippians 4:4).
Don’t worry. Be happy. Rejoice in God and cast your care on Him.

Roy Davison
1 See also Luke 12:22-31.
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

Cleverness required! by Gary Rose


In the 55+ community where I live (Southfork) all the streets are lined with trees. While that makes for a shady walk, it also provides a home for thousands and thousands of squirrels. Most residents just tolerate them, but a few feed them and one of them (Bill R.) even traps and relocates them.  While they do remove the seemingly unlimited supply of nuts, they also raise havoc with bird feeders. This picture from Bruce Arnold has a pretty good solution. Sometimes you have to be clever when it comes to dealing with a difficult situation. Here is one example, taken from the pages of the Old Testament....


2 Samuel, Chapter 10 (WEB)
 6 When the children of Ammon saw that they had become odious to David, the children of Ammon sent and hired the Syrians of Beth Rehob, and the Syrians of Zobah, twenty thousand footmen, and the king of Maacah with one thousand men, and the men of Tob twelve thousand men.  7 When David heard of it, he sent Joab, and all the army of the mighty men.  8 The children of Ammon came out, and put the battle in array at the entrance of the gate. The Syrians of Zobah and of Rehob, and the men of Tob and Maacah, were by themselves in the field.  9 Now when Joab saw that the battle was set against him before and behind, he chose of all the choice men of Israel, and put them in array against the Syrians.  10 The rest of the people he committed into the hand of Abishai his brother; and he put them in array against the children of Ammon.  11 He said, “If the Syrians are too strong for me, then you shall help me; but if the children of Ammon are too strong for you, then I will come and help you.  12 Be courageous, and let’s be strong for our people, and for the cities of our God; and may Yahweh do what seems good to him.” (emp. added vss. 9-12)  13 So Joab and the people who were with him came near to the battle against the Syrians, and they fled before him.  14 When the children of Ammon saw that the Syrians had fled, they likewise fled before Abishai, and entered into the city. Then Joab returned from the children of Ammon, and came to Jerusalem.


Right about now, you are asking- "What have these things to do with me"? Well, Christians today are faced with obstacles that were not an issue 50 or more years ago: Islam, a government hostile to Christians, rampant atheism being taught in schools and a overall decline in the morality of our society.

Christians need to be smart in confronting these and a myriad of other obstacles that will face them in the coming years. Satan is clever and will use whatever and whoever he can to destroy us. 

Joab and  Abishai were creative in facing their enemies and so should we!!!

ps. by the way- I love squirrels!!!