8/24/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" They Beheld His Majesty (17:1-9) by Mark Copeland

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

They Beheld His Majesty (17:1-9)

INTRODUCTION

1. What a blessing it must have been, spending time with Christ during
   His earthly ministry...
   a. To hear His teaching, spoken with the voice of authority - Mt 7:28-29
   b. To witness His miracles, which manifested His glory - Jn 2:11

2. Among those blessed to be with Jesus, three men especially so:
   Peter, James and John...
   a. They accompanied Jesus on the mount of transfiguration - Mt 17: 1-2
   b. Peter would later write of that experience on the mount - 2Pe 1:16-18
      1) He says they were "eyewitnesses of His majesty"
      2) That Jesus received "honor and glory" from God the Father
   -- What an experience this must have been for these three fishermen
      from Galilee!

3. The setting that led up to this event was as follows...
   a. Jesus had just made two amazing statements:
      1) He would come in glory and reward each one according to his
         works - Mt 16:27
      2) As supporting evidence, some would not taste death before they saw...
         a) "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" - Mt 16:28
         b) "the kingdom of God come with power" - Mk 9:1
         c) "the kingdom of God" - Lk 9:27
   b. The gospel writers then connect these sayings with the event
      about to occur:
      1) Matthew and Mark record "and after six days..." - Mk 17:1;Mk 9:2
      2) Luke writes "about eight days" ("the Jewish equivalent of
         `about a week later'." - Wiersbe) - Lk 9:28
      3) Luke adds "after these sayings", clearly tying the event to
         what had just been said

[What happened on the mount?  Simply put, "They Beheld His Majesty".
What was the significance of this event?  To answer this question, 
let's take a closer look and note first of all..]

I. THEY BEHELD THE MAJESTY OF HIS PERSON

   A. EVIDENCED BY HIS TRANSFIGURATION...
      1. He was "transfigured" - Mt 17:2; Mk 9:2
         a. Gr.., metamorphoo, met-am-or-fo'-o
         b. Meaning to change, transfigure, transform
      2. This change affected His face and clothing
         a. His face shone like the sun - Mt 17:2 (Luke says the 
            appearance of His face was altered - Lk 9:29)
         b. His clothes became as white as the light - Mt 17:2
            1) Shining, exceedingly white, like snow, more than any
               launderer can whiten them - Mk 9:3
            2) White and glistening - Lk 9:29
      -- Peter later wrote that what he saw was His "majesty" (2Pe 1:
         16); the effulgence of His glory likely represented His 
         deity as the Son of God - cf. He 1:1-3

   B. EVIDENCED BY THE PRESENCE OF MOSES AND ELIJAH...
      1. They were talking with Jesus - Mt 17:3; Mk 9:4
         a. They also appeared in glory - Lk 9:31a
         b. Discussing with Jesus about His coming death in Jerusalem - Lk 9:31b
         c. Peter, James, and John had been sleeping, but awoke to see
            Jesus in His glory, and talking with Moses and Elijah - Lk 9:32
         d. Moses and Elijah then began to depart - Lk 9:33
      2. That Moses and Elijah would appear with Jesus was not lost on
         Peter - Mt 17:4
         a. Moses and Elijah were the epitome of the Law and the Prophets
         b. Peter wanted to build three tabernacles, one each for 
            Jesus, Moses and Elijah
      -- Jesus had evidently been elevated to the same level as Moses
         and Elijah in Peter's mind!

[But Peter was soon to learn that Jesus was above Moses and Elijah,
especially in regards to His authority!  As we continue, therefore, we
note that...]

II. THEY BEHELD THE MAJESTY OF HIS COMING KINGDOM

   A. EVIDENCED BY THE VOICE FROM HEAVEN...
      1. While Peter was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed
         them - Mt 17:5
      2. Peter, James, and John, fearfully entered the cloud - Lk 9:34
      3. A voice came out of the cloud:  "This is My beloved Son, in
         whom I am well pleased, Hear Him!" - Mt 17:5; cf. 3:16-17
         a. This terrified the disciples - Mt 17:6
         b. Jesus then sought to comfort them - Mt 17:7
      4. The command, "Hear Him!"...
         a. Implies that God would begin to speak through His Son, not
            the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah) - cf. He 1:1-2
         b. That the rule and reign of God would be exercised through
            His Son, as He would be given all authority in heaven and
            earth - cf. Mt 28:18
      5. Of course, this rule and reign (i.e., Christ's kingdom) would
         begin after Christ suffered (i.e., His death) and entered into
         glory (i.e., His ascension) - cf. Lk 24:26
         a. Which explains why He told them to tell no one the vision
            until after His resurrection - Mt 17:9
         b. What they had witnessed was a foretaste, a foreshadowing of
            His coming glory and rule in His kingdom!

   B. EVIDENCED BY THE ABSENCE OF MOSES AND ELIJAH...
      1. After hearing the voice, and lifting up their eyes, only Jesus
         was present - Mt 17:8; Mk 9:8
      2. Perhaps symbolizing what the voice clearly declared:  that
         Jesus was the one they were to hear, not Moses and Elijah who
         likely represented the Law and the Prophets

CONCLUSION

1. Truly "They Beheld His Majesty"...
   a. They beheld the majesty of His person
      1) Transfigured before them
      2) Exalted even above Moses and Elijah
   b. They beheld the majesty of His coming kingdom
      1) Acknowledged from heaven as God's beloved Son
      2) The One whom all should heed, for all authority would be given to Him

2. What is the significance of this event?
   a. It may be the fulfillment Jesus' statement recorded in Mt 16:28;
      Mk 9:1; Lk 9:27
      1) That some would see the Son of Man "coming" in His kingdom
      2) That some would see the kingdom of God "present" with power
      3) That some would see the kingdom of God (i.e., His rule or reign)
   b. If such is the case, what they saw was a foretaste of His kingdom or rule...
      1) Which would not be fully exercised until after His death and
         resurrection - cf. Ep 1:20-23; 1Pe 3:22
      2) Which would include that day in which He will judge the world!
         - cf. Ac 17:30-31; Mt 16:27

3. In any case, all of the events at the mount contributed to giving
   Jesus what Peter later described as "honor" and "glory" from the
   Father - 2Pe 1:17
   a. The glorious transfiguration of Christ
   b. The presence (and their subsequent absence) of Moses and Elijah
   c. The voice from heaven, acknowledging Christ as God's Son

4. What does God desire of us today?  
   a. Not tabernacles or temples erected in the memory of His Son
   b. But for us to simply obey what God said at the mount: "Hear Him!"

If we desire to add to the honor and glory that Jesus so richly 
deserves, and to one day behold His majesty in heaven, then let be
careful to heed what He himself said regarding His authority:

   "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go
   therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them
   in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
   teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;
   and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." 
                                                     - Mt 28:18-20 
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Adulterous Woman by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1277

 The Adulterous Woman

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One of the most misused, mishandled, and misapplied passages in the Bible is the narrative of the woman caught in adultery, recorded in John 8:1-11. [For a discussion of the technical aspects of this passage as a textual variant, see Woods, 1989, p. 162; McGarvey, 1974, p. 16; Metzger, 1971, pp. 219-222; Metzger, 1968, pp. 223-224]. This passage has been used by situation ethicists (e.g., Fletcher, 1967, pp. 83,133), libertines, and liberals to insist that God is not “technical” when it comes to requiring close adherence to His laws. The bulk of Christendom has abetted this notion by decontextualizing and applying indiscriminately the remark of Jesus: “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” (vs. 7). The average individual, therefore, has come to think that Jesus was tolerant and forgiving to the extent that He released the woman from the strict restrictions of Bible law that called for her execution. They believe that Jesus simply waved aside her sin, and granted her unconditional freedom and forgiveness—though the Law called for her death (Leviticus 20:10). After all, isn’t it true that Jesus places people “in the grip of grace” (Lucado, 1996)?

Those who challenge these conclusions are derided as “traditionalists” who lack “compassion,” and who are just like the “legalistic” scribes and Pharisees who cruelly accused the woman and wanted her handled in strict accordance with Mosaic Law. Did Jesus set aside the clear requirements of Mosaic legislation in order to demonstrate mercy, grace, and forgiveness? A careful study of John 8:1-11 yields at least three insights that clarify the confusion and misconception inherent in the popular imagination.

First, Mosaic regulations stated that a person could be executed only if there were two or more witnesses to the crime (Deuteronomy 19:15). One witness was insufficient to invoke the death penalty (Deuteronomy 17:6). The woman in question was reportedly caught in the “very act” (vs. 4), but nothing is mentioned about the identity of the witness or witnesses. There may have been only one, thereby making execution illegal.

Second, even if there were two or more witnesses present to verify the woman’s sin, the Old Testament was equally explicit concerning the fact that both the woman and the man were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:22). Where was the man? The accusing mob completely side-stepped this critical feature of God’s Law, demonstrating that this trumped-up situation obviously did not fit the Mosaic preconditions for invoking capital punishment. Obedience to the Law of Moses in this instance actually meant letting the woman go!

A third consideration that libertines overlook concerning this passage is the precise meaning of the phrase “He who is without sin among you….” If this statement is taken as a blanket prohibition against accusing, disciplining, or punishing the erring, impenitent Christian, then this passage flatly contradicts a host of other passages (e.g., Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 5; Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:6,14; Titus 3:10; 2 John 9-11). Jesus not only frequently passed judgment on a variety of individuals during His life on Earth (e.g., Matthew 15:14; 23; John 8:44,55; 9:41; et al.), but also enjoined upon His followers the necessity of doing the same thing (e.g., John 7:24). Peter could be very direct in assessing people’s spiritual status (e.g., Acts 8:23). Paul rebuked the Corinthians’ inaction concerning their fornicating brother: “Do you not judge those who are inside?… Therefore put away from yourselves that wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13, emp. added). Obviously, Paul demanded that Christians must judge (i.e., make an accurate assessment regarding) a fellow Christian’s moral condition. Even the familiar proof text so often marshaled to promote laxity (i.e., “Judge not, that you be not judged”—Matthew 7:1) records Jesus admonishing disciples: “…then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye” (vs. 5). The current culture-wide celebration of being nonjudgmental (“I’m OK, you’re OK”) is clearly out of harmony with Bible teaching.

So Jesus could not have been offering a blanket prohibition against taking appropriate action with regard to the sins of our fellows. Then what did His words mean? What else could possibly be going on in this setting so as to completely deflate, undermine, and terminate the boisterous determination of the woman’s accusers to attack Him, by using the woman as a pretext? What was it in Jesus’ words that had such power to stop them in their tracks—so much so that their clamor faded to silence and they departed “one by one, beginning with the oldest” (vs. 9)?

Most commentators suggest that He shamed them by getting them to realize that “nobody is perfect and we all sin.” But this motley crew—with their notorious and repeatedly documented hard-heartedness—would not have been deterred if Jesus simply had conveyed the idea that, “Hey, give the poor woman a break, none of us is perfect, and we’ve all done things we're not proud of.” These heartless scribes and Pharisees had the audacity to divert her case from the proper judicial proceedings and to humiliate her by forcibly hauling her into the presence of Jesus, thereby making her a public spectacle. Apparently accompanied by a group of complicit supporters, they cruelly subjected her to the wider audience of “all the people” (vs. 2) who had come to hear Jesus’ teaching. They hardly would have been discouraged from their objective by such a simple utterance from Jesus that “nobody’s perfect.”

So what is the answer to this puzzling circumstance? Jesus was striking at precisely the same point that Paul drove home to hard-hearted, hypocritical Jews in Rome: “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things” (Romans 2:1). Paul was especially specific on the very point with which Jesus dealt: “You who say, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery?” (vs. 22). In other words, no person is qualified to call attention to another’s sin when that individual is in the ongoing practice of the same sin. Again, as Jesus previously declared, “Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). After all, it is the “spiritual” brother or sister who is in the proper position to restore the wayward (Galatians 6:1).

Consequently, in the context under consideration, Jesus knew that the woman’s accusers were guilty of the very thing for which they were willing to condemn her. (It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the man with whom the woman had committed adultery was in league with the accusing crowd.) Jesus was able to prick them with their guilt by causing them to realize that He knew that they, too, were guilty. The old law made clear that the witnesses to the crime were to cast the first stones (Deuteronomy 17:7). The death penalty could not be invoked legally if the eyewitnesses were unavailable or unqualified. Jesus was striking directly at the fact that these witnesses were ineligible to fulfill this role since they were guilty of the same sin, and thus deserved to be brought up on similar charges. They were intimidated into silence by their realization that Jesus was privy to their own sexual indiscretions.

Observe carefully that with the withdrawal of the accusers, Jesus put forth a technical legal question: “Woman, where are they? Did no man condemn thee?” (ASV), or “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” (vs. 10, KJV). The reason for Jesus to verify the absence of the accusers who had brought the charges against the woman was that the Law of Moses mandated the presence of eyewitnesses to the crime before guilt could be established and sentence passed. The woman confirmed, “No man, Lord” (vs. 11). Jesus then affirmed: “Neither do I condemn you….” The meaning of this pronouncement was that if two or more witnesses to her sin were not able or willing to document the crime, then she could not be held legally liable, since neither was Jesus, Himself, qualified to serve as an eyewitness to her action. The usual interpretation of “neither do I condemn you” is that Jesus was flexible, tolerant, and unwilling to be judgmental toward others or to condemn their sinful actions. Ridiculous! The Bible repudiates such thinking on nearly every page. Jesus was declaring the fact that the woman managed to slip out from under judicial condemnation on the basis of one or more legal technicalities. But, He said (to use modern-day vernacular), “You had better stop it! You were fortunate this time, but you must cease your sinful behavior!” Jesus did not condemn the woman legally--He had no grounds to do so. But He most certainly condemned her morally and spiritually!

Incredible! The scribes and Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus in a trap. Yet Jesus, as was so often the case (e.g., Matthew 21:23-27), “turned the tables” on His accusers and caught them in a trap instead! At the same time, He demonstrated a deep and abiding respect for the governing beauty and power of law—the law that He and His Father had authored. Jesus was the only person Who ever complied with Mosaic legislation perfectly. He never sought to excuse human violation of law, nor to minimize the binding and authoritative application of law to people. Any interpretation of any passage that depicts Jesus as violating God’s law in order to forgive or accommodate man is a false interpretation, as is any interpretation that relegates law to a status of secondary importance (cf. Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; Psalms 19:7-11; Romans 7:12). Any interpretation of any passage that contradicts the teaching of other clear passages also is false. Jesus was not in sympathy with the permissive mindset of today’s doctrinally lax thinkers who soften doctrine and the binding nature of law in the name of “grace,” “freedom,” or “compassion.”

REFERENCES

Fletcher, Joseph (1967), Moral Responsibility (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Lucado, Max (1996), In the Grip of Grace (Dallas: Word).

McGarvey, J.W. (1974 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Metzger, Bruce (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Society).

Metzger, Bruce M. (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press), second edition.

Woods, Guy N. (1989), A Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The “Problem” with Miracles by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

  

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=897

The “Problem” with Miracles

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Using empirical data, some have decided what is and is not possible in this world, and miracles like the ones recorded in the New Testament do not fall into their “possible” category. Since they never have seen anyone rise from the dead or be healed instantaneously of a terminal disease, and since no scientific experiments can be carried out today that would verify the truthfulness of these miracles, then they assume that the miracles reportedly performed by Jesus must have some natural explanations. In an essay titled “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection,” Richard Carrier embodied the gist of this argument in the following statement:

No amount of argument can convince me to trust a 2000-year-old second-hand report, over what I see, myself, directly, here and now, with my own eyes. If I observe facts which entail that I will cease to exist when I die, then the Jesus story can never override that observation, being infinitely weaker as a proof. And yet all the evidence before my senses confirms my mortality…. A 2000 year-old second-hand tale from the backwaters of an illiterate and ignorant land can never overpower these facts. I see no one returning to life after their brain has completely died from lack of oxygen. I have had no conversations with spirits of the dead. What I see is quite the opposite of everything this tall tale claims. How can it command more respect than my own two eyes? It cannot (2000).

Although this argument at first may seem plausible, it runs into two insurmountable difficulties. First, there are things that took place in the past that no one alive today has seen or ever will see, yet they must be accepted as fact. The origin of life on this planet provides a good example. Regardless of whether a person believes in evolution or creation, he must admit that some things happened in the past that are not still happening today, or at least that have not been witnessed. To the evolutionists, I pose the question, “Have you ever personally used your five senses to establish that a nonliving thing can give rise to a living thing?” Of course, the evolutionist must admit that he never has seen such happen, in spite of all the origin-of-life experiments in the last fifty years. Does that mean that he does not accept the idea that life came from nonliving matter, just because he never has witnessed it personally? Of course not. Instead, we are asked to look at all the “evidence,” such as the geologic column and the fossil record, that he believes leads to such a conclusion. Yet the hard fact remains, no one alive today has ever seen life come from something nonliving.

Following the same line of reasoning, those who believe in creation freely admit that the creation of life on this planet is something that has not been witnessed by anyone alive today. It was a unique act that happened once, cannot be duplicated by experiment, and cannot be detected currently by the human senses. As with the evolutionist, the creationist asks us to look at the evidence such as the fossil record, the laws of thermodynamics, and the Law of Biogenesis, which he believes leads to the conclusion that life was created some time in the distant past by an intelligent Creator. Yet, before we drift too far from our discussion of a miracle such as the resurrection, let me remind you that this brief paragraph concerning creation and evolution is inserted only to prove one point—everyone must admit that he or she accepts some ideas and notions without having inspected them personally using the five senses.

Second, it is intellectual bigotry to assume that the first century people did not understand the laws of nature enough to differentiate between an actual miracle and other occurrences with natural explanations. We must not fall into the trap of thinking that the first-century onlookers did not know that rising from the dead or being healed of leprosy was unnatural. As C.S. Lewis explained:

But there is one thing often said about our ancestors which we must not say. We must not say “They believed in miracles because they did not know the Laws of Nature.” This is nonsense. When St. Joseph discovered that his bride was pregnant, he “was minded to put her away.” He knew enough about biology for that….When the disciples saw Christ walking on the water they were frightened; they would not have been frightened unless they had known the Laws of Nature and known that this was an exception (1970, p. 26).

The apostle Paul underlined this point in Romans 1:4 when he stated that Jesus Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” The entire point of the resurrection was, and is, that it was not naturally or scientifically repeatable and that it proved his deity. As the blind man healed by Jesus so accurately stated, “Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing” (John 9:32-33).

REFERENCES

Lewis, C.S. (1970), God in the Dock, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Carrier, Richard (2000), [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/1b.html.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The "Paying-a-debt Theory" by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1172

 

The "Paying-a-debt Theory"

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

It never ceases to amaze me that, even though our society “talks religion” on a regular basis, the one place we, as a society, neglect to go for real answers is the only place that has the answers—the Bible. On the cover of the April 12, 2004 edition of Time magazine, an artist’s depiction of Jesus grabs the readers attention and directs the reader to the question written in a large font across the right side of the cover: “Why Did Jesus Have to Die?” The lengthy six-page spread discussing the question is filled with quotes from theologians, ministers, and preachers, with an occasional Bible verse gratuitously inserted to give the article a hint of “religious authenticity.”

The six different authors of the article focused on two primary “theories” as to why Jesus died on the cross. One theory they attributed to Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1098. This theory they called the “paying-a-debt theory,” in which Christ’s death on the cross paid a debt for sinners that those sinners had no way to pay. This idea they termed “substitutionary atonement.” The idea pitted against the “paying-a-debt theory” was the theory of exemplary atonement. According to the idea of exemplary atonement, Jesus came to show humans an example to follow, and His death was not necessarily accomplished to pay some kind of debt.

“Experts” for both theories were interviewed. John Dominic Crossan, in his discussion of the theory of substitutionary atonement, called this idea “the most unfortunately successful idea in the history of Christian thought.” His reasoning for that was: “If I can persuade you that there’s a punishing God and that you deserve to be punished but I have some sort of way out for you, then that’s a very attractive theology” (as quoted in Chu, et al., 2004, 163[15]:60). Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention Southern Seminary, spoke against the idea that Jesus’ sacrifice was purely for example, with no payment of debt attached.

The most disturbing aspect of the article was the fact that the Bible—the only resource that could actually answer the question at hand—was given scant attention. In the six pages of writing, one short verse from Isaiah was quoted, one verse from the Psalms, a brief six-line discussion about Paul’s letter to the Romans, a single paragraph quoting a verse from Hebrews, one from Mark, one verse from 1 Peter, and one verse from Colossians. The verses quoted from Hebrews (9:12) and Mark (10:45) explained that Christ was ransomed for many, and that with His own blood He attained their eternal redemption.

Not only were the Bible verses in the article few and far between, they were put on par with the quotes from the “experts” and given little, if any, authoritative value. They were presented, not as the Word of God, but simply as another voice to be heard in the discussion. Furthermore, Anselm was credited with “developing” the “theory” of atonement—an idea that the biblical writers had “developed” through inspiration almost a thousand years before Anselm.

The real question of the article should have been: “According to the Bible, why did Jesus die on the cross?” A complete catalog of every verse pertaining to this question is not feasible in this brief article. But a few of the more direct statements make it clear that the Bible clearly depicts Jesus’ death on the cross as an atoning sacrifice for sinners who could not pay their own debt. Hebrews 9:22 explains that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission” of sins. Later in the chapter, the Hebrews writer remarked that “Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many” (9:28). The prophet Isaiah wrote: “Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for out peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed…. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When you make His soul an offering for sin” (53:4-6,10).

John wrote that Jesus is “the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2). The word propitiation means a satisfactory sacrifice or a sacrifice of appeasement. In a discussion with the elders from the church at Ephesus, the apostle Paul exhorted the leaders “to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). The verse in Hebrews referred to in the article sums up the idea of atonement quite well: “Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place, once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (9:12).

It is true that several verses in the Bible explain that Jesus’ death was also accomplished to provide an example of how to behave when persecuted (1 Peter 2:21-25). It is not true, however, that this example detracts in anyway from the fact that Jesus was the satisfactory sacrifice Who paid the debt of sins and was offered as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. Anselm did not develop the “theory” of atonement in 1098. The fact of atonement was in God’s mind even before time began (1 Peter 1:18-20), and eventually was accomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ. The article in Time magazine shows a fundamental problem with religion in America. Our society has stopped going to the Bible for definitive answers, and looks to the “experts” to answer questions that can only be answered correctly via the Bible. Until we, as a people, decide to go back to the Word of God for our answers, we will continue to meander aimlessly in philosophical and religious mire. We must adopt the attitude recorded by the psalmist in regard to God’s Word: “Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day. You, through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies; for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers, for Your testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep Your precepts” (119:97-100).

REFERENCES

Chu, Jeff, et al. (2004), “Why Did Jesus Die?”, Time, 163[15]:54-61, April 12.

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOW WAS THE APOSTLE PAUL NOT SAVED? by steve finnell

 

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/how-was-apostle-paul-not-saved-by-steve.html

HOW WAS THE APOSTLE PAUL NOT SAVED? by steve finnell


1. The apostle Paul was not saved like the thief on the cross.
2. The apostle Paul was not saved by saying the sinner's prayer.
3. The apostle Paul was not saved by grace alone.
4. The apostle Paul was not saved by faith only.
5. The apostle Paul was not saved by baptism alone.
6. The apostle Paul was not saved by confession alone.
7. The apostle Paul was not saved by repentance alone.
8. The apostle Paul was not saved on the road to Damascus.

HOW WAS THE APOSTLE PAUL SAVED?

The apostle Paul was saved like the three thousand that were saved on the Day of Pentecost. He was saved just like every person saved under the new covenant.

 What did Peter preach on the Day of Pentecost? 

1. John 3:16  Saved by faith.The apostle Peter preached Jesus as Lord and Savior.(Acts 2:36)
2. Romans 10:9 Believe the resurrection of Jesus. Peter preached the resurrection.(Acts 2:25-35)
3. Acts 3:19 Saved by repentance. The apostle Peter preached repentance. (Acts 2:38)
4. Mark 16:16 Saved by water immersion. Peter preached forgiveness through water baptism. (Acts 2:38)(Acts 2:40-41)

1. Saul (Paul) Believed and repented on the road to Damascus. (Acts 9:3-6)

2. Saul (Paul) Prayed three days while on the road to Damascus, however, neither faith alone, nor saying a sinner's prayer was sufficient for him to have his sins forgiven. (Acts 9:9-11)

3. Saul (Paul) had his sins forgiven after three days on the road to Damascus. Acts 22:10-16......16 'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.(NKJV)

Faith only advocates say that Saul's sins were forgiven because he called on the name of the Lord, not because of water baptism. That contradicts their own "faith only" belief that you are saved the minute you believe. Saul believed and repented three days prior on the road to Damascus.


The apostle Paul was saved just like every other person that was saved or will be saved under the new covenant. 1. Faith, John 3:16 2. Confession, Romans 10:9 3. Repentance, Acts 3:19 4. Immersion in water, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16

NOTE: The thief on the cross was saved before the New Testament was in force. He was not saved on or after the Day of Pentecost. The new covenant was only in force after the resurrection and Ascension of Jesus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Were former days better? by J.C. Bailey

 

 http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Bailey/John/Carlos/1903/Articles/formerda.html

Were former days better?

"Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this" (Ecclesiastes 7:10).

It rained last Sunday. I went to Radville to worship. A stretch of the road was under construction. I got stuck. I was late for the service. We lived in Radville many years. For many years there was not any gravel, let alone hardtop, on any road leading into Radville. To get stuck in the gumbo was not an uncommon experience. I know that what is called the “Good Old Days” is largely a myth.

I have just reread a book written by James Orval Filbeck entitled The Christian Evidence Movement. This book shows that at the time of the founding of the American nation Deism and Agnosticism were rampant. The opposition to truth was strong and more successful than it is today, as we are prepared to show. Men arose who challenged and defeated the foes of Christianity. Are we too complacent to do the same thing today?

Opposition to truth was rampant as the American nation was born. Let us look at the truth of this assertion. This is found on page 71 of Brother Filbeck's book. John Adams said on April 21, 1823: “It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all than to blaspheme Him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin. Indeed, I think every Christian sect gives a great handle to atheism by their general dogma, that without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a God.” In other words, the Bible was not needed.

We quote further from Adams: “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of the virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” Brother Filbeck shows by exact quotations that there were many others of the Founding Fathers who were not believers in the Bible as the Word of God, nor in Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of the Father.

I want to show next that this had a profound effect on the thinking of the students in the schools of that day. Yale is one of the oldest and best-known Colleges in the U.S.A. On page 86 of the Filbeck book we have the following to show that the good old days were not different from what we have now. If anything, it was worse. The establishment of American Independence had not been affected without the moral contamination always the result of protracted wars. Licentiousness, both in conduct and sentiment, had followed the footsteps of liberty, and of the exultation of political emancipation, infidel philosophers found ready listeners, when they represented the restraints of religion as fetters of the conscience and moral obligation as shackles imposed by bigotry and priest craft.”

To show how successful the forces of evil were we quote from page 86: “At this critical period in the history of Yale, most undergraduates avowed themselves skeptics....The terrible condition for Christendom is made more evident by the fact that in the fall of 1796 only one freshman was a 'professing Christian': the sophomore class contained none; the junior, one; and the senior only had eight or nine. By the year 1800, it was reported that there were only five students who were members of the college church.”

Nor was Yale the only college so affected. We read the following about Princeton: “in the year 1782 there were only two students in the entire body who professed to be Christians.”

We learn this about Williams College: (The following was written by a member of the first class to graduate from the college): “Respecting the religious state of things in the College during my residence in it, I have no favorable account to give. It was the time of the French Revolution, which was, at that time, very popular with almost all the people in that part of the country. French liberty and French philosophy poured in upon us like a flood; and seemed to sweep everything serious before it.” So great was the flood of infidelity that we read further of still another college: “So great had been the common danger at Dartmouth College that in the class of 1799 only one member would openly make acknowledgment of his belief in Christianity.”

Nor was Adams the only man of the Founding Fathers who embraced the infidelity of the French Revolution. Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence, yet Jefferson permitted Dr. Thomas Cooper, a rank infidel, to teach in the University of Virginia until opposition made it necessary that he resign.

We could use many pages to show the terrible religious condition of the country at the time of the War of Independence. Thank God there arose men who met the infidelic challenge and defeated it. Are we brave enough to meet the present challenge? We have more evidence today to show that the claims of the infidel are false than they had then.

The following gives us some idea of what happened as the battle was joined in the “good old days”: “The turbulent wave of French infidelity and aggressive English deism almost simultaneously encroached upon the American continent. As these forces moved in upon the various phases of life, there began a counter move which grew stronger and stronger in zeal and intensity” (page 95).

One of the leaders in this fight was Timothy Dwight, many years President of Yale. I quote from him: “Dwight recognized the significance for mankind of words like Reason and Liberty; but to worship abstract terms seemed to him idolatry as meaningless as that of the heathen who bowed down before a sacred cow or stone. It was beyond his understanding how intelligent man could idolize a bare word, sacrificing at its shrine the very thing which it denoted” (page 97).

As we look at history, the French groaned under oppression, they talked of liberty, but what did they do? They turned their so-called liberty into an orgy of pillage and murder. The Communists talk of liberty for the masses but no force has ever so subjected the masses to abject suffering as the Communists have. Jesus said: “I came that they might have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). True liberty is only found in Christ. Sin always brings bondage and slavery.

I think we can do no better than to quote Mark Hopkins who was president of Williams College from 1836 to 1872. (President Garfield was one of his students and is reputed to have said: “A log with a student at one end and Mark Hopkins at the other is my ideal college.”) Hopkins believed that the evidence was conclusive in favor of Christianity. He contended that Christianity is supported by moral evidence.

If any one would care to look around they can see how true this is. In many things we all stumble but the deeper the faith in the Bible the higher the moral standard. He that would question this must close his eyes to all the evidence around him.

Hopkins further said: “Hume does not take into account the moral government of God at all. This is a great mistake.” Our quotation from Filbeck continues: “He (Hopkins) significantly stated that 'moral government of God is a movement in a line onwards toward some grand consummation, in which the principles, indeed, are ever the same, but the developments are ever new, in which, therefore, no experience of the past can indicate with certainty what new openings of truth, what new manifestations of goodness, what new phases of morals may appear'.”

We follow the reasoning of Hopkins further: “Hopkins took special notice of the question of divine revelation -- a revelation attested by miraculous demonstration; for whatever probability there was that there would be a revelation, the same was there that there would be miracles; because miracles so far as we can see, are the only means by which it would be possible for God to authenticate a communication to man” (page 106).

The assailants change but the battle does not change. We must put on the whole armor of God that we may be able to stand in that evil day. The forces of right are much stronger than the forces of evil but we shall not succeed if we think that we can reach heaven on flowery beds of ease. Others fought and were victorious. There is no question about the outcome if we are strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.

J. C. Bailey, 1979, Weyburn, Saskatchewan

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When faced with the trials of life by Gary Rose

 

(“It is well with my soul” accompanied with sheet music)

This picture reminds me of the work of that famous painter – Thomas Kinkade. Although it is not one of his works, yet it is in his “style” and I really like it! This sort of painting evokes a sense of well-being and calmness that I find most comforting in a world that is far from peaceful. Face it, we need all the calm we can get!


Yesterday, as I left the church building I reflected on how marvelous the morning had been; we had a simply wonderful worship service and brother Jackson’s sermon on treasuring up our treasures in heaven (my title, I don’t know what he named it) was inspiring. As I reflected on the picture and our service, I chose a song that somehow seemed to convey the message of the whole day – draw close to God. For the closer we pattern our life to that of Christ, the closer our heart will be to his and all will be “well with our soul”.


Yet, along with all this, there was difficulty, for in the afternoon I received a call from a dear sister in-Christ whose son was fighting for his life in the hospital. Our congregation has been fervently praying for him and will continue to do so. With this in mind, I thought of one of the most famous portions of Scripture and I hope our dear sister Jean finds in comforting…


Psalm 23 ( KJV )

1 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.


Everyone has trials in this life, but Christians have Jesus Christ interceding for them with God the Father in heaven. This relationship means that God will pay special attention to our prayers and therefore we will continue to pray for Jean and especially her son. May God grant our request and heal her son. Through all her troubles, may Jean draw closer to God and take comfort when faced with the trials of her life!