Atheism and Liberal, Missouri by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1447

Atheism and Liberal, Missouri

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the summer of 1880, George H. Walser founded the town of Liberal in southwest Missouri. Named after the Liberal League in Lamar, Missouri (to which the town’s organizer belonged), Walser’s objective was “to found a town without a church, [w]here unbelievers could bring up their children without religious training,” and where Christians were not allowed (Thompson, 1895; Becker, 1895). “His idea was to build up a town that should exclusively be the home of Infidels...a town that should have neither God, Hell, Church, nor Saloon” (Brand, 1895). Some of the early inhabitants of Liberal even encouraged other infidels to move to their town by publishing an advertisement which boasted that Liberal “is the only town of its size in the United States without a priest, preacher, church, saloon, God, Jesus, hell or devil” (Keller, 1885, p. 5). Walser and his “freethinking” associates were openly optimistic about their new town. Excitement was in the air, and atheism was at its core. They believed that their godless town of “sober, trustworthy and industrious” individuals would thrive for years on end. But, as one young resident of that town, Bessie Thompson, wrote about Liberal in 1895, “...like all other unworthy causes, it had its day and passed away.” Bessie did not mean that the actual town of Liberal ceased to exist, but that the idea of having a “good, godless” city is a contradiction in terms. A town built upon “trustworthy” atheistic ideals eventually will reek of the rotten, immoral fruits of infidelity. Such fruits were witnessed and reported firsthand by Clark Braden in 1885.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Saturday, May 2, 1885

Braden was an experienced preacher, debater, and author. In his lifetime, he presented more than 3,000 lectures, and held more than 130 regular debates—eighteen of which were with the Mormons (Carpenter, 1909, pp. 324-325). In 1872, Braden even challenged the renowned agnostic Robert Ingersoll to debate, to which Ingersoll reportedly responded, “I am not such a fool as to debate. He would wear me out” (Haynes, 1915, pp. 481-482). Although Braden was despised by some, his skills in writing and public speaking were widely known and acknowledged. In February 1885, Clark Braden introduced himself to the townspeople of Liberal (Keller, 1885, p. 5; Moore, 1963, p. 38), and soon thereafter he wrote about what he had seen.

In an article that appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, titled “An Infidel Experiment,” Braden reported the following.

The boast about the sobriety of the town is false. But few of the infidels are total abstainers. Liquor can be obtained at three different places in this town of 300 inhabitants. More drunken infidels can be seen in a year in Liberal than drunken Christians among one hundred times as many church members during the same time. Swearing is the common form of speech in Liberal, and nearly every inhabitant, old and young, swears habitually. Girls and boys swear on the streets, playground, and at home. Fully half of the females will swear, and a large number swear habitually.... Lack of reverence for parents and of obedience to them is the rule. There are more grass widows, grass widowers and people living together, who have former companions living, than in any other town of ten times the population.... A good portion of the few books that are read are of the class that decency keeps under lock and key....

These infidels...can spend for dances and shows ten times as much as they spend on their liberalism. These dances are corrupting the youth of the surrounding country with infidelity and immorality. There is no lack of loose women at these dances.

Since Liberal was started there has not been an average of one birth per year of infidel parents. Feticide is universal. The physicians of the place say that a large portion of their practice has been trying to save females from consequences of feticide. In no town is slander more prevalent, or the charges more vile. If one were to accept what the inhabitants say of each other, he would conclude that there is a hell, including all Liberal, and that its inhabitants are the devils (as quoted in Keller, 1885, p. 5).

According to Braden, “[s]uch are the facts concerning this infidel paradise.... Every one who has visited Liberal, and knows the facts, knows that such is the case” (p. 5).

As one can imagine, Braden’s comments did not sit well with some of the townspeople of Liberal. In fact, a few days after Braden’s observations appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he was arrested for criminal libel and tried on May 18, 1885. According to Braden, “After the prosecution had presented their evidence, the case was submitted to the jury without any rebutting evidence by the defence (sic), and the jury speedily brought in a verdict of ‘No cause for action’ ” (as quoted in Mouton, n.d., pp. 36-37). Unfortunately for Braden, however, the controversy was not over. On the following day (May 19, 1885), a civil suit was filed by one of the townsmen—S.C. Thayer, a hotel operator in Liberal. The petition for damages of $25,000 alleged that Clark Braden and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an article in which they had made false, malicious, and libelous statements against the National Hotel in Liberal, managed by Mr. Thayer. He claimed that Braden’s remarks, published in the St. Louise Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, “greatly and irreparably injured and ruined” his business (Thayer v. Braden). However, when the prosecution learned that the defense was thoroughly prepared to prove that Liberal was a den of infamy, and that its hotels were little more than houses of prostitution, the suit was dismissed on September 17, 1886 by the plaintiff at his own cost (Thayer v. Braden). Braden was exonerated in everything he had written. Indeed, the details Braden originally reported about Liberal, Missouri, on May 2, 1885 were found to be completely factual.

It took only a few short years for Liberal’s unattractiveness and inconsistency to be exposed. People cannot exclude God from the equation, and expect to remain a “sober, trustworthy” town. Godlessness equals unruliness, which in turn makes a repugnant, immoral people. The town of Liberal was a failure. Only five years after its establishment, Braden indicated that “[n]ine-tenths of those now in town would leave if they could sell their property. More property has been lost by locating in the town than has been made in it.... Hundreds have been deceived and injured and ruined financially” (Keller, p. 5). Apparently, “doing business with the devil” did not pay the kind of dividends George Walser (the town’s founder) and the early inhabitants of Liberal desired. It appears that even committed atheists found living in Liberal in the early days intolerable. Truly, as has been observed in the past, “An infidel surrounded by Christians may spout his infidelity and be able to endure it, but a whole town of atheists is too horrible to contemplate.” It is one thing to espouse a desire to live in a place where there is no God, but it is an entirely different thing for such a place actually to exist. For it to become a reality is more than the atheist can handle. Adolf Hitler took atheism to its logical conclusion in Nazi Germany, and created a world that even most atheists detested. Although atheists want no part of living according to the standards set out by Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament, the real fruits of evolutionary atheism also are too horrible for them to contemplate.

Although the town of Liberal still exists today (with a population of about 800 people), and although vestiges of its atheistic heritage are readily apparent, it is not the same town it was in 1895. At present, at least seven religious groups associated with Christianity exist within this city that once banned Christianity and all that it represents. Numerous other churches meet in the surrounding areas. According to one of the religious leaders in the town, “a survey of Liberal recently indicated that 50% of the people are actively involved with some church” (Abbott, 2003)—a far cry from where Liberal began.

There is no doubt that the moral, legal, and educational systems of Liberal, Missouri, in the twenty-first century are the fruits of biblical teaching, not atheism. When Christianity and all of the ideals that the New Testament teaches are effectively put into action, people will value human life, honor their parents, respect their neighbors, and live within the moral guidelines given by God in the Bible. A city comprised of faithful Christians would be mostly void of such horrors as sexually transmitted diseases, murder, drunken fathers who beat their wives and children, drunk drivers who turn automobiles into lethal weapons, and heartache caused by such things as divorce, adultery, and covetousness. (Only those who broke God’s commandments intended for man’s benefit would cause undesirable fruit to be reaped.)

On the other hand, when atheism and all of its tenets are taken to their logical conclusion, people will reap some of the same miserable fruit once harvested by the early citizens of Liberal, Missouri (and sadly, some of the same fruit being reaped by many cities in the world today). Men and women will attempt to cover up sexual sins by aborting babies, children will disrespect their parents, students will “run wild” at home and in school because of the lack of discipline, and “sexual freedom” (which leads to sexually transmitted diseases) will be valued, whereas human life will be devalued. Such are the fruits of atheism: a society in which everyone does that which is right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6)—a society in which no sensible person wants to live.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Phil (2003), Christian Church, Liberal, Missouri, telephone conversation, April 7.

Barnes, Pamela (2003), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, telephone conversation, March 12.

Becker, Hathe (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Brand, Ida (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Carpenter, L.L. (1909), “The President’s Address,” in Centennial Convention Report, ed. W.R. Warren, (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), pp. 317-332. [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/wwarren/ccr/CCR15B.HTM.

Haynes, Nathaniel S. (1915), History of the Disciples of Christ in Illinois 1819-1914 (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/nhaynes/hdcib/braden01.htm, 1996.

Keller, Samuel (1885), “An Infidel Experiment,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Special Correspondence with Clark Braden, May 2, p. 5.

Moore, J.P. (1963), This Strange Town—Liberal, Missouri (Liberal, MO: The Liberal News).

Mouton, Boyce (no date), George H. Walser and Liberal, Missouri: An Historical Overview.

Thayer, S.C. v. Clark Braden, et. al. Filed on May 19, 1885 in Barton County Missouri. Dismissed September 10, 1886.

Thompson, Bessie (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Atheism & Free Will by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5339

Atheism & Free Will

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Renowned atheist Carl Sagan began his immensely popular book Cosmos with these words: “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”¹ What do today’s atheists mean when they use the term Cosmos? The modern “scientific” idea is that the Cosmos is completely, entirely, and altogether materialistic, composed of matter and energy, and contains nothing immaterial or “not-matter.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “materialism” as, “The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.”² As it now stands, the ideas of the Cosmos or of “nature” have been redefined to include only physical matter and energy. Evolutionists Hewlett and Peters demand that “to be scientific in our era is to search for solely natural explanations.”³ Physicist Paul Davies correctly stated, “The materialist believes that mental states and operation are nothing but physical states and operations.”⁴ Evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin admitted that evolutionists “have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism…. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”⁵

What are the logical implications of the idea that everything in the Universe consists solely of matter and energy? At first glance, the materialistic idea may not seem very profound or Earth shattering, but a deeper probe into the concept reveals that some of the most fundamental aspects of humanity are at stake. In this article, we focus on one feature of humanity that must be denied if materialism is accepted: human free will. You see, if matter and energy are all that “really” exists, then the notion must be rejected that there is a human will that directs the decision-making process. In short, if you, as a person, have ever made a single real decision; if you have ever freely chosen to do or not do anything, then atheism cannot be true. This is the case because your decision would be the result of something “more than” matter. It could not be explained by a naturalistic “cause and effect” chain of chemical events. If there is a “you” inside your body that freely chooses this or rejects that, then the materialist understanding of the Universe is false.

Modern leaders in the atheistic community admit as much. Sam Harris, recognized in skeptical circles as one of the four leading voices of modern atheism, penned a book titled Free Will. In that short volume, he wrote: “Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making…. We do not have the freedom we think we have.”⁶ He further stated, “I cannot determine my wants…. My mental life is given to me by the cosmos.”⁷ Again, “People feel (or presume) an authorship of their thoughts and actions that is illusory.”⁸ And, “What I will do next, and why, remains, at bottom, a mystery—one that is fully determined by the prior state of the universe and the laws of nature (including the contributions of chance).”⁹ As he begins to summarize his views toward the end of the book, he says, “You will do whatever it is you do, and it is meaningless to assert that you could have done otherwise.”¹⁰

Why does Harris demand that free will is non-existent? His commitment to materialism paints him into this corner, which is obvious from his statement: “In improving ourselves and society, we are working directly with the forces of nature, for there is nothing but nature itself to work with.”¹¹ On the second-to-last page he writes, “Am I free to change my mind? Of course not. It can only change me.”¹²

There are striking ironies in the position that Harris and others take as they deny their own free will and their readers’ as well. First, why in the world would these men write books and articles in an attempt to persuade anyone to believe their “no free will” position if the reader cannot decide for himself to change his mind? What is the point of trying to convince a person who believes in free will, if that “belief” is nothing more than the consequence of the cause-and-effect, natural processes that are banging around in his brain? If the reader does not have the ability to choose his or her belief, what is the point of trying to “show” the superiority of the “no-free-will” position? According to Harris and crew, you believe what you believe because of the physics of the Cosmos working in your brain, and how in the world words on a page could change those physics would indeed be a mystery worth uncovering. The fact that modern atheists are writing books to convince people that there is no free will belies the undeniable fact that humans have free will.

Second, Harris’ concluding statement brings to light another glaring difficulty in the no-free-will position. He says, “Am I free to change my mind? Of course not. It can only change me.”¹³ Wait just a minute. Who is the “I” or the “me” in the sentence? If there is no free will, and humans are simply the combined total of the physical processes at work in their brains, then there should be nothing more than the “mind” in Harris’ sentence. The fact that he can differentiate between “himself” and his “mind” shows that there is something more at work than determinism. A purely physical entity such as a rock or atom does not have the ability to think in terms of “I” or “me.” In truth, that Harris is conscious of an “I” or of a “self” contradicts his claim that free will does not exist.¹⁴

In addition, it seems humorous and superfluous for people such as Harris to write an “Acknowledgements” section in their books. Why thank people and acknowledge their contributions to your work if they could not have done otherwise? He writes, “I would like to thank my wife and editor, Annaka Harris, for her contributions to Free Will. As is always the case, her insights and recommendations greatly improved the book. I don’t know how she manages to raise our daughter, work on her own projects, and still have time to edit my books—but she does. I am extremely lucky and grateful to have her in my corner.”¹⁵ That’s all well and good, but since she has no free will, she didn’t choose to help Sam. It was thrust upon her by the nature of the Cosmos. Why thank a person who stays with you and helps you due to no choice or decision of her own, but due to an unalterable course of cause-and-effect actions in her brain? Why not thank the computer that “typed the words so faithfully as I hit the key strokes,” or the oxygen that “so generously entered my lungs and allowed my cells to function,” or the light that “so gracefully bounced from the screen (or page) to my eye, allowing me to see”? That Harris thanks his wife and not his computer gets to the point that there is something very different about the two entities. You thank a person because that person helped you (but could have chosen to do otherwise).

On February 12, 1998, William Provine, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the distinguished Cornell University, took to the podium on the campus of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. He was invited to deliver the keynote address at the second annual Darwin Day, a day dedicated to commemorating the life and teachings of Charles Darwin. In an abstract of that speech on the Darwin Day Web site, Dr. Provine’s introductory comments are recorded in the following words: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”¹⁶ Provine’s ensuing message centered on his fifth statement regarding the lack of human free will.

Several years later, Provine continued to hold to this position. He appeared in the Ben Stein documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in 2008. In his discussion about Darwinian evolution, he said, “It starts by giving up an active deity, then it gives up the hope that there is any life after death. When you give those two up, the rest of it follows fairly easily. You give up the hope that there is an imminent morality. And finally, there’s no human free will. If you believe in evolution, you can’t hope for there being any free will. There’s no hope whatsoever in there being any deep meaning in life. We live, we die, and we’re gone.”¹⁷ The late Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick concurred with Provine. He wrote in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis: “‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”¹⁸

In his million-copy international best-selling book The Selfish Gene, renowned atheistic writer and speaker Richard Dawkins explained the evolutionary ideas that force atheism to deny human free will. He asserted that humans are “survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve selfish molecules known as genes.”¹⁹ Since Dawkins views humans as a compilation of physical genes fighting for survival, he must insist that these genes instinctively strive to live and pass on their information. That being the case, every human action must then be a product of the physical “gene” forces at work in the human body and brain. Human actions cannot be the result of some type of personality or free will according to this notion. In his attempt to flesh out his view more thoroughly and give answers to behaviors that have traditionally been attributed to human free will, he expounds on the selfish gene idea: “This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour.”²⁰ When explaining the relationships that survival machines (humans) have with each other, he stoically quips:

To a survival machine, another survival machine (which is not its own child or another close relative) is part of its environment, like a rock or a river or a lump of food. It is something that gets in the way, or something that can be exploited. It differs from a rock or a river in one important respect; it is inclined to hit back. This is because it too is a machine that holds its immortal genes in trust for the future, and it too will stop at nothing to preserve them.²¹

Dawkins’ ultimate explanation for human behavior is that we do not choose the way we relate to each other, but are driven by our genes to use or exploit other humans to produce the greatest chance to pass on genetic information.

It is often the case that many atheists attempt to distance themselves from the views of Dawkins, Harris, and other free-will-deniers. They contend that, even though they are atheists, they still believe that humans have free will and choose their own behavior. They do this because they know, deep down in their heart of hearts, that they have chosen their behaviors in the past. The problem with their mode of operation, however, is that atheism necessarily implies that free will cannot exist. If humans actually make their own, personal decisions, then something must be at work that is more than nature—which is over and above the natural, physical movement of atoms. There must be a human mind, or soul, or spirit that is supernatural—that controls the movement of the physical body. A person can choose atheism, or he can accept human free will, but not both and still be logically consistent.

Atheist Dan Barker, prolific debater and author, feels the tension between atheism’s denial of free-will and the fact that humans know that they make personal choices. His solution is simply to redefine the term free will. In his debate with Peter Payne, Barker stated: “I happen to think that we have the illusion of freewill…. I’m a strict determinist. We are natural creatures. The material world is all there is. We actually don’t have what we would call libertarian freewill.”²² In his book, godless, Barker stated: “I am a determinist, which means that I don’t think complete libertarian free will exists. Since we don’t know the future…we have the illusion of free will, which to me is what ‘free will’ actually means.” Barker recognizes that humans certainly feel like they make decisions, but his atheism demands that they cannot do so. In order to hang on to his atheism, and allow for “free will,” he changes the definition of free will to “thinking that you are actually making a free will choice when you are not.”²³

Barker is not the only atheist that is forced to turn to this “illusion of free will” idea. Anthony Cashmore, biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, penned an article alleging that human free will does not exist. He wrote: “It is my belief that, as more attention is given to the mechanisms that govern human behavior, it will increasingly be seen that the concept of free will is an illusion.”²⁴ According to Cashmore, you are reading this article because your genes and your environment have forced you to. You are not responsible for your decision to read this article, and based on your alleged evolutionary history and your environment, you could not choose to be doing anything different than what you are doing now. You are literally a slave to your genes and your environment. As Cashmore wrote: “[A]n individual cannot be held responsible for either his genes or his environment. From this simple analysis, surely it follows that individuals cannot logically be held responsible for their behavior.”²⁵

One of the most damaging lines of reasoning against the illusion idea put forth by Barker and Cashmore is the way in which these men attempt to convince their readers of its truth. Cashmore used five-and-a-half pages to argue that our society should disregard the outdated concept that humans are responsible for their behavior. Barker has been in more than 80 moderated debates attempting to bring people over to his view. But if Cashmore and Barker are right, then there is no way we can disregard the concept of free will, due to the simple fact that we did not choose it in the first place. If humans are not responsible for their beliefs or behaviors, then the generally held concept of free will is nothing more than an evolutionary, environmental by-product. According to their line of thinking, if we believe in free will at the present, and act on that belief, we are not responsible for it. If they are right, why in the world would they attempt to urge the scientific community to change its mind about free will, if the community does not have the power to change its mind? Why spend time and effort arguing against free will, if your audience does not have the freedom to choose to accept or reject your reasoning anyway? The fatal flaw of the “no free will” argument is that it demands that the person making the argument has the free will to do so, and it tacitly assumes the parties evaluating the argument have the power to accept or reject it.

If humans are survival machines that cannot make any real choices, then all “persuasive” arguments would be worthless. Those who believe in God are programmed and forced by their genes to do so. Those who believe there is no God are equally products of their bodily physics. If humans don’t change their minds, but, as Harris claims, their minds change them, then why attempt to change believers’ minds, since they don’t really have “minds” and their brains are going to “believe” whatever their genes tell them anyway? Atheists actually have to assume free will in order even to discuss the topic. It’s as if they are saying, “I want you to turn your eyes to look at me so that I can show you that you really can’t see anything.”

Television personality Bill Nye the “Science Guy” found himself in a terrible quandary when asked about human free will. In a video on the subject titled, “Hey Bill Nye, Do Humans Have Free Will?” he stated: “But clearly, I know I have made decisions based on things that happened around me that I wouldn’t have made without being informed by history or what I noticed. I know I have. Now if that turns out not to be true, I’d be very surprised.”²⁶ Near the end of the video, however, he then backtracks and claims that our decisions really are the result of the quantum physics at work in our brains. Then he claims: “At some level there is randomness in what we think, because we are made of chemicals that have randomness.” Then he said, “I mean, I don’t mean to skirt your question.”²⁷ Actually, skirting the question was exactly what he was doing. He has to admit that he makes choices, but his atheistic naturalism forces him to back peddle and attribute those “choices” to chemistry and physics. His video is the epitome of atheism’s failure to deal with the fact of human free will.

In June of 2015, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne delivered a lecture at the Imagine No Religion convention in Vancouver, Canada. His speech was titled, “You Don’t Have Free Will.” It is one of the clearest examples of the new age atheistic position. Based on his atheistic beliefs, he argues for a purely deterministic world in which human free will is nothing more than physical processing at work, molecules moving to the beat of the laws of physics. Addressing his primarily atheistic audience, he says, “Now many of you don’t accept that. You don’t believe that you are robots made out of meat, which is what I’m going to try to convince you of today.” He takes this position, because if atheism is true, and there is nothing supernatural, then (as he says), “Our behavior is absolutely determined by the laws of physics.”²⁸

Coyne takes serious issue with his fellow atheists who claim to be naturalists and determinists, but who attempt to say that humans do have some kind of free will. He correctly shows that atheistic naturalism cannot permit any type of free will. Those atheists who are trying to accommodate both ideas, according to Coyne, are simply playing “semantic tricks” trying to convince people “that we are still okay even though we are meat robots.”²⁹ Coyne went on to say, “As Anthony Cashmore said, ‘We have no more free will than a bowl of sugar.’” Coyne then added his own words, “We are bowls of sugar, just very complicated ones.” Coyne does an excellent job of proving that atheism demands that human free will cannot exist. What he fails to do, however, is prove that free will does not exist. He claims it. He asserts it. But he cannot prove his false assertion. The reason for that is simply because humans really do have free will.

At one point in his speech, he attempted to deal with the biggest problem that the “no-free-will” idea encounters. He tried to tackle the question of why he would try to persuade anyone to believe his view, since, according to his view, no one can choose any beliefs. His argument was that, just like kicking a dog teaches the dog to avoid harm, presenting the material he was presenting may “teach” a human to adopt his viewpoint, even though humans would just be reacting to his material, not choosing to believe it. So, Coyne says, “Why did I get out of bed this morning? I thought, I hope to persuade people, and that was determined by the laws of physics.” He goes on to say, “Even our very desire to try to change people’s minds. The fact that I’m up here trying to do this is determined by my own, you know, physical constitution and environment. That is the infinite regress and the sort of annoying thing about determinism. It’s turtles all the way down.”

Let’s analyze Coyne’s statement. Who is “annoyed” by this “infinite regress” of physics? Is it Coyne? Why, if he is just doing what his chemistry is forcing him to do, does he get “annoyed” at this? And who, exactly, is it that is getting annoyed at the situation? Is it Coyne’s physical, meat robot self? Obviously, the fact that he is “annoyed” speaks to there being something more to Coyne than molecules in motion.

No Moral Responsibility

Consider the chain of implications. First, if there is no God, then this material world must be all there is. There can be nothing supernatural. Second, if the physical world is all that exists, then all entities that are made of matter must be driven solely by physical laws. Third, since there is nothing supernatural (according to this view), then there can be nothing more-than-matter inside of humans that can choose anything. Free will cannot exist in an atheistic world. But do not stop there. If humans cannot make decisions, then what is the necessary implication of that belief? What would that mean in regard to morality, crime, punishment, etc.? The necessary implication is that humans are not morally responsible for any of their behavior, any more than a rock, squirrel, or turtle is.

In Coyne’s speech, after making one of his points about most of his audience being determinists, he said, “Almost all of you here don’t believe in moral responsibility. Think about that.” He went on to say that because of his belief in determinism, “I don’t consider myself morally responsible, because I don’t have a choice.” Cashmore said the same when he stated, “From this simple analysis, surely it follows that individuals cannot logically be held responsible for their behavior.”³⁰ While the atheists who deny free will attempt to conjure up a world where no moral responsibility brings about a modern utopia, nothing could be further from the truth. The rapist blames his genes. The murderer blames his chemistry. The adulterer points the finger at his environment. The thief “cannot help himself.” The perjurer acted only in response to molecular motion in his brain. The school shooter followed his urge to kill as many students as possible. The suicide bomber could not have chosen otherwise. An environment saturated with such thinking would hardly be described as a utopia.

Along these lines, Coyne said, “Whether or not you are the kind of person who accepts other people’s notions of morality is something that you have no control over. And if you don’t, that’s something you don’t have any control over either.” Let that sink in. If you think it is “morally” acceptable to fly a plane into a building in an attempt to kill as many people as possible, you could not think otherwise and you are not “morally” responsible for doing anything wrong. Truly, the denial of moral responsibility is one of the most fallacious and harmful implications of the false idea of atheism.

If we are to be “scientific” about these matters, we must take what we know to be the case and find the explanation that best fits the facts. If we are honest, each of us knows that we have freely chosen attitudes and behaviors. We know that we could have chosen differently. And we often feel the guilt of having chosen wrong, or the triumphant feeling of having chosen right. In all honesty, you know that you could choose to quit reading this article right now, or you could continue. Your freedom is not an illusion, but is an actuality: a statement of the way things really are, not the way they only seem to be. Since that is the case, we must take the fact—our free will—and find an explanation that best fits the fact. Atheism cannot account for human free will. Atheists who are consistent with their belief are forced to admit this is a logical implication of it. Therefore, if humans have free will, and atheism implies that they do not, then atheism is false. On the other hand, the idea of a supernatural God endowing humans with a mind, consciousness, and soul fits perfectly with the fact of human free will. Thus, the person who is trying to “follow the evidence where it leads” must conclude that human free will proves a supernatural Creator exists.

Why Choose to Believe that We Have No Choice?

As I have studied atheistic books and writings and watched several videos, I’ve tried to put my finger on why atheists do not want to believe they choose. They all admit that humans think we are free to choose, but they insist that we are not really choosing anything. They maintain that there is really no “Sam Harris” upstairs, or Jerry Coyne “in there somewhere.” They insist that “Richard Dawkins” is just another name for the physical molecules that make up a certain body, and that there is no real soul or personality of a non-material nature “in there.” If there really is such a thing as free will (and there is), why would a group of people choose to deny it in spite of the evidence that proves it exists? Why don’t they want to be viewed as free moral agents who deserve praise for their morally correct actions and who deserve blame for their moral failures? An exhaustive list of possible reasons why this is the cause is impossible, but Coyne did give us one very telling idea.

Near the end of Coyne’s speech, he attempted to explain the benefits he sees in adopting the idea that free will does not exist (not to be tedious, but keep in mind that he does not really think you can adopt it; instead, you are forced to accept whatever your chemistry determines). He said that a benefit of denying free will is that you would have a “lack of regret for bad things that happen. It takes away a certain amount of guilt feelings from you. You don’t have to beat yourself up over, ‘I should have done this instead of that.’” There you have it. Humans, from the beginning of Creation, have looked for ways to plead “not guilty” in the face of their own sins. We have attempted to blame everyone else except ourselves for our moral failures. Humans have tried to blame God, their parents, their genes, their society, their spouses, their circumstances, and everything under the Sun for the selfish, sinful choices they have made. The next step with this approach is to say that, since we cannot choose our behavior, then “punishment is not justified for retribution (people get—or should get—what they deserve).”³¹

Notice the reasoning. If I can say that I cannot help myself (I cannot choose differently), then I do not have to feel guilty for the things I do wrong. Furthermore, if I did not choose the immoral actions that I committed, then neither society (nor God) can punish me for doing immoral things. Truly, the Proverbs writer accurately stated many years ago, “Evil men do not understand justice” (Proverbs 28:5). The atheistic position not only rejects the concept of free will, but then jettisons the concept of justice as well. Yet how acutely aware we humans are when injustice has been done to us.

In regard to the current situation, Romans 1 reads almost like a prophecy,

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is evident in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools (1:18-22, emp. added).

“I was just a meat robot.” “My selfish genes drove me to….” “The physical properties in my brain forced me to act that way.” “I could not have chosen differently so I’m not morally responsible.” These and other empty excuses will not be accepted by the Maker on the Day of Judgment. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Endnotes

¹ Carl Sagan (1980), Cosmos (New York: Random House), p. 4.

² American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

³ Martinez Hewlett and Ted Peters (2006), “Theology, Religion, and Intelligent Design,” in Not in Our Classrooms, ed. Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch (Boston, MA: Beacon Press), p. 75, emp. added.

⁴ Paul Davies (1983), God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster), p. 82.

⁵ Richard Lewontin (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” in The New York Review of Books, 44[1]:31, January 9.

⁶ Sam Harris (2012), Free Will (New York: Free Press), p. 5, italics in orig.

⁷ Ibid., p. 19.

⁸ Ibid., p. 24.

⁹ Ibid., p. 40.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 44.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 63.

¹² Ibid., p. 65, italics in orig.

¹³ Ibid., italics in orig.

¹⁴ For an extended discussion of consciousness and Creation, see Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub  (2004), “The Origin of Consciousness: Part 2,” Reason & Revelation, 24[2]:9-15, https://goo.gl/M9Drix.

¹⁵ Harris, p. 67.

¹⁶ William Provine (1998), “Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life,” http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/DarwinDayProvineAddress.htm, emp. added.

¹⁷ Ben Stein and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media), emp. added.

¹⁸ Francis Crick (1994), The Astonishing Hypothesis (London: Simon and Schuster), p. 3.

¹⁹ Richard Dawkins (2006), The Selfish Gene (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press), 30^th Anniversary edition, p. xxi.

²⁰ Ibid., p. 2.

²¹ Ibid., p. 66.

²² Dan Barker and Peter Payne (2005), “Does Ethics Require God?” http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/ethics_debate.php.

²³ Dan Barker (2008),godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press), p. 128.

²⁴ Anthony Cashmore (2010), “The Lucretian Swerve: The Biological Basis of Human Behavior and the Criminal Justice System,” PNAS, 107:10, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/04/0915161107.full.pdf+html.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Bill Nye (2016), Big Think, “Hey Bill Nye, Do Humans Have Free Will?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITdMa2bCaVc.

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ Jerry Coyne (2015), “You Don’t Have Free Will,” Imagine No Religion Convention, Vancouver, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca7i-D4ddaw.

²⁹ Ibid. All other quotes from Coyne’s speech have the same bibliographic information unless otherwise noted.

³⁰ Cashmore.

³¹ Coyne.

Suggested Resources

Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” and Those Who Are “Without Excuse” by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

 https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3795

Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” and Those Who Are “Without Excuse”

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

In Paul’s discussion of the sins of the Gentiles, the apostle explained that those Gentiles who refused to acknowledge the existence of a higher power (one that is responsible for the origin of the natural order) had no excuse for their failure in this regard:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:18-21).

If it is the case that those who refuse to believe in God (despite evidence He has presented in the material world) are without excuse, then we would expect to learn of people who, while perhaps lacking special revelation from God, nonetheless applied their God-given rationality to develop belief in a being that is responsible for the physical world. We find just such an example in one of the most famous and important philosophers, Aristotle.

In Aristotle’s Physics, the philosopher addresses the question of motion. After a lengthy discussion on the nature of motion and the immediate causes for motion, Aristotle addresses the remote cause for motion:

If everything that is in motion is moved by something that is in motion, either this is an accidental attribute of the things (so that each of them moves something while being itself in motion, but not because it is itself in motion) or it belongs to them in their own right. If, then, it is an accidental attribute, it is not necessary that that which causes motion should be in motion; and if this is so it is clear that there may be a time when nothing that exists is in motion, since the accidental is not necessary but contingent.... But the non-existence of motion is an impossibility (1984, 1:428, parenthetical item in orig.).

Aristotle, exemplary in his philosophical quest at this juncture, simply asks himself why there is motion. His conclusion, after a lengthy discussion, is essentially this: Because it is undeniable that motion exists, then there must be a first cause for the motion—an unmoved mover, whose movement (or causing of movement) is not an accidental property of His, but rather a necessary component of His being. Whereas each item in the created order is in motion because it has been moved by a distinct mover, the unmoved mover must possess the quality of motion (or the causing of motion). Aristotle lived prior to the Christian age, and was not a Hebrew; yet in his quest to understand the natural order, he was not prejudiced against belief in the supernatural.

Thomas Aquinas would adapt Aristotle’s argument to formulate what we know as part of the cosmological argument for the existence of the God of the Bible (see Maurer, 2010; cf. Jeffcoat, n.d.):

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.... For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.... It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover.... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God (1952, 19:12,13, emp. added).

Peter Kreeft summarizes Aquinas’ argument: “Since no thing (or series of things) can move (change) itself, there must be a first, Unmoved Mover, source of all motion” (1990, p. 63, parenthetical items in orig.).

The necessity of the unmoved Mover is obvious. Yet, Paul recognized that some had become so calloused by worldly concerns as to prejudice their hearts against the Creator. So, God “gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness” (Romans 1:28-30). Despite the forceful clarity with which God has revealed Himself to His creation, some will misuse their intellectual freedom and reject Him. May we, on the other hand, willingly receive a simple, yet critical, lesson from Aristotle and Aquinas concerning the necessary existence of our Creator.

REFERENCES

Aquinas, Thomas (1952), Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago).

Aristotle (1984), Physics, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Jeffcoat, W.D. (no date), “The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God,” http://apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Cosmological-Argument-for-Exist.pdf.

Kreeft, Peter (1990), Summa of the Summa (San Francisco: Ignatius Press).

Maurer, Armand (2010), “Medieval Philosophy,” Encyclopaedia Brittanica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1350843/Western-philosophy/8653/Thomas-Aquinas?anchor=ref365766.

 

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" The True Family Of Jesus (3:31-35) by Mark Copeland

                "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

          The True Family Of Jesus (3:31-35)

INTRODUCTION

1. A wonderful blessing in life is to have a loving, supportive family...
   a. Where husband and wife truly love one another
   b. Where parents and children truly support one another

2. Such families are becoming increasingly rare...
   a. Complicated by cohabitation before marriage, divorce after marriage, eventually death
   b. Children suffering from parents who don't love each other, who don't care for them

3. But there is a Family...
   a. Where love and support is available to everyone
   b. Where the relationships need never end

[We are reminded of this wonderful Family in our text (Mk 3:31-35), in
which Jesus uses the occasion of His earthly family seeking to talk with
Him to make the point about His "true family"...]

I. THE IDENTITY OF HIS FAMILY

   A. NOT HIS PHYSICAL FAMILY...
      1. Including His mother Mary, and step-father Joseph
      2. Including His brothers James, Joses, Judas, Simon, and His sisters - Mk 6:3
      3. Even at age 12 Jesus knew His true Father - cf. Lk 2:48-49
      -- Not that Jesus did not value His physical family (cf. Jn 19:26-27)

   B. THOSE WHO DO HIS FATHER'S WILL...
      1. His disciples, as identified on the occasion of our text - Mk 3:34-35
      2. Whoever does the will of His Father are those recognized by Him- cf. Mt 7:21-23
      3. They are the ones who are truly blessed - cf. Lk 11:27-28
      -- The true family of Jesus is His spiritual family!

[Having identified the "true family" of Jesus, let's review some of the
many blessings of this family...]

II. THE BLESSINGS OF HIS FAMILY

   A. DIVINE...
      1. God as our Father
         a. Who hears our prayers - Mt 6:6
         b. Who provides our basic needs - Mt 6:11,30-33; 7:11
         c. Who forgives our sins - Mt 6:12
         d. Who delivers us from the evil one - Mt 6:13
      2. Jesus as our Brother
         a. Who is proud to call us "brethren" - He 2:11-12
         b. Who made like His brethren, is our perfect High Priest - He 2:17-18; 4:14-16
         c. Who ever lives to make intercession for us - He 7:25; Ro 8:34
      3. The Holy Spirit as our Helper and Strength
         a. Who also makes intercession for us - Ro 8:26-27
         b. Who enables us to put to live the Christian life - Ro 8:12-13
         c. Who engenders a child-like love in our hearts for God - Ro 8:15; Ga 4:6
      -- Just a few blessings made possible by the Divine members of Jesus' family!

   B. IMMENSE...
      1. A hundredfold family members in this time - Mk 10:28-30
      2. The members of every congregation - 1Ti 5:1-2
      3. Indeed, the whole family in heaven and earth - Ep 3:14-15
      -- Every Christian, living and dead, is a member of Jesus' family!

   C. ETERNAL...
      1. Physical family ties are severed at death - cf. Ro 7:2; 1Co 7:39; Mk 12:24-25
      2. Jesus' spiritual family looks forward to an eternal inheritance - Ro 8:16-17; Re 21:1-7
      -- Jesus' family is the only one that will endure through eternity!

CONCLUSION

1. "The True Family Of Jesus" is great indeed...
   a. A spiritual Family involving Deity and countless souls!
   b. An everlasting Family untainted by divorce and death!

2. Becoming an accepted member of this Family...
   a. Is made possible by the wonderful love of God - 1Jn 3:1
   b. Is the result of God's wonderful plan of redemption in Jesus Christ - Ep 1:3-14

3. "The True Family Of Jesus" is available to all...
   a. Who are willing to receive Him through faith and baptism - Jn 1:12; Ga 3:26-27
   b. Who are thus born again of water and the Spirit - Jn 3:3-5
   c. Who become the family of Jesus through obedience to the will of God - Mk 3:35

Don't you want to be a member of "The True Family Of Jesus"...?

    Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' - Jn 3:7 

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

 

5 Lessons I Learned From Noah and The Ark by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2016/12/22/five-lessons-i-learned-from-noah-and-the-ark/

5 Lessons I Learned From Noah and The Ark

Fifteen years ago, Robert Fulghum wrote a little book entitled, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. This credo became a phenomenal #1 best seller.  There have been lots of imitations of that “All I really need to Know” idea.

One of my favorites is “Everything I need to know about life I learned from Noah’s ark.”  This “unknown author” says….

One – Don’t miss the boat.

Two – Remember that we are all in the same boat.

Three – Plan ahead. It wasn’t raining when Noah built the Ark.

Four – Stay fit. When you’re 600 years old, someone may ask you to do something really big.

Five – Don’t listen to critics; just get on with the job that needs to be done.

Six – – For safety’s sake, travel in pairs.

Seven – Speed isn’t always an advantage. The snails were on board with the cheetahs.

Eight – When you’re stressed, float a while.

Nine – Remember, the Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by professionals.

Ten- No matter the storm, when you’re with God, there’s always a rainbow waiting.

This week at Hickman Mills we’re having Vacation Bible School.  Yesterday, we studied about Noah.  There’s something about Noah and the Ark that captures peoples imagination.  Maybe it’s the animals.  Or the adventure. Of the narrative.  For believers, it’s the faith of one man who was willing to go against the tide of his time.

The Bible calls him a “hero” and affirms, “By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.  ESV

From Noah I learn that…. 

     1. God hates sin.  Noah lived in a society that was sinful to the core. People’s thoughts were wicked.  Their hearts were corrupt.  Their imaginations were evil continually.  And it grieved God’s heart.  So He decided to destroy the world with a great flood.

I’m not sure we appreciate this aspect of God’s character.  Yes, God is love.  But He hates sin.  If I am to be more like God, I need to love righteousness and hate wickedness.

2. God’s Patience is Limited.  He is longsuffering.  Forbearing.  Patient. For 120 years Noah preached for people to repent.  But there came a time when God’s patience ended.  The door of the ark was shut.

Today, God patently waits for us to come to Him.  But time will end. The Lord will return.  And the “door will be shut.”

     3. God Demands Obedience.  God told Noah to build an ark out of gopher wood. He gave the exact specifications.   Faith motivated Noah to reverently obey God.  And build it exactly as God said.  Without addition.  Or substation.

The life lesson is simple.  Faith works.  Acts.  Obeys.  Faith does exactly what God says.  Period.

     4. God Punished the Disobedient.  Other people could have boarded the ark.  There was room.  Noah preached for people to repent.  But they chose to ignore it. So, what happened to those outside the ark?  They were lost!

Today, God calls us to get in “the ark of safety.”  To be a part of his called out people. To trust him.  Obey him. Serve Him.

5. God blesses the righteous person.  Noah found favor with God.  He was a righteous man. And he influenced his family to be godly.  And they were rewarded.  I wonder if Noah was ridiculed for his righteousness?  If he was, there is no doubt that the reward was worth the ridicule!

I told the children yesterday, that whenever you see the rainbow in the sky to remember Noah.  Remember God’s promise.  And remember it pays to obey God.

Pretty good lessons for adults, too.  Don’t you think?

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

Paul's Inspiration GEORGE L. FAULL

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/pauls-inspiration-george-l.html

Paul's Inspiration

GEORGE L. FAULL

DOES PAUL REPUDIATE HIS INSPIRATION IN:

I Corinthians 7:6 - Paul says he speaks by Permission, not commandment. "But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment." II Corinthians 8:8, "I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love."

I Corinthians 7:10 - Paul stressed, "I command, yet not I, but the Lord."

I Corinthians 7:12 - Paul declares, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."

I Corinthians 7:25 - He only gives his judgment: "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."

I Corinthians 7:26 - He only supposes: "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."

I Corinthians 7:40 - He only thinks he has the Spirit of God: "But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God."

These passages should not be used to teach that Paul is not giving a divine revelation. He is not contrasting the words of an apostle of Christ and he as an individual. How do I know?

First, one should remember that it was Paul who has taught us that: "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." II Timothy 3:16. It is not men who are said to be inspired! It is "all Scripture" that is said to be "God breathed!" Paul was the writer of Scripture, for Peter says in II Peter 3:15-16, "15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Peter also informs us that the men of God who wrote, did not do so of their own will, not did it originate from them, but God. He says they were borne along by the Holy Spirit as they spoke. II Peter 1:20-21, "20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost."

Therefore, we affirm that these passages of Scripture are inspired and originated from God. This is not the wisdom which man's wisdom teaches, but that which the Holy Spirit teaches. I Corinthians 2:13, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Second, Paul absolutely affirms that the things he writes are the commandments of the Lord. I Corinthians 14:37, "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." The Corinthians were claiming that they had the gifts of the Spirit and were spiritual. He tells them to prove it by affirming His Word. This is why I Corinthians 7:40 states: "But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God." Perhaps some of those at Corinth had claimed to have offered advice through the Spirit and he corrects their teaching by reminding them that "he too speaks by the Spirit."

Third, when he states that "it is not by commandment -but by permission," or that "the rest, speak I, not the Lord," he is not saying that his view may differ from the Lord's. He is reminding his reader that the Lord Jesus did not reveal, while he was on earth, what He was now going to reveal through Paul. While on earth, Jesus revealed His will about divorce, but He did not reveal that which a Christian with an unbelieving partner should do. Paul was left to reveal that information by God's Spirit. Rather than say, "Paul gives his uninspired opinion in these passages," we are to see that these inspired Scriptures reveal God's will on this subject.

Fourth, he affirms that God has shown him the mercy of being a trustworthy person. Paul often speaks about the fact that Christ had saved him and made him an apostle. He speaks as one who knows he was a sinner, but has obtained mercy and so faithfully reveals as an apostle what God gave to him about the subject.

Fifth, Paul has said that he "spoke by permission, not commandment." When he did so, he uses the word "sun-gnome," which means "joint opinion" or "fellow-feeling." He shares God's view though God had not yet revealed His commandment to men. He was in "joint opinion" with God who now revealed by him that it was good to remain single, but that it was better to marry than burn with passion.

Conclusion: In these verses Paul is merely stating that God is revealing further truths about marriage and divorce. it is ironic that a Church that gloated over a man living in incest would be concerned about who should marry, who could divorce, and what to do with an unbelieving spouse! Since some at Corinth were puffed-up with gifts, all kinds of advice may have been advocated. Paul affirms that there were somethings the Lord had not revealed while He was on earth. He would give the "joint opinion: of what was allowable. Christ, as Head of the Church, and Paul, His apostle, says it is allowable to marry rather than burn. He would also give his counsel as an apostle, namely that "in present distress, it is good not to marry, but if you do, you do not sin."

However, some things were absolutely commanded by the Lord and His apostle, namely, "that the wife was not to depart from her husband or the husband from the wife, and if they did so, they must not marry another. The Christian with an unbelieving spouse must not leave their partner, but should the partner leave, they were not under bondage to save the marriage by leaving Christ. So, we have what is allowed, advisable and authoritative, or to put it another way, what is conceded, counseled and commanded by the Spirit-filled apostle. Jesus led His apostles into all Truth. The apostle Paul was no exception.

TITUS by Paul Southern

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Southern/Paul/1901/titus.html

TITUS

1. THE TITLE

This letter bears the name of the person to whom it is addressed.

2. THE WRITER

Verse 1 of the first chapter names Paul as the writer.

3. THE ADDRESSEE

The epistle is addressed to "Titus, my true child after a common faith" (1:4). Since Titus is not mentioned in Acts of Apostles, all that we know of him is found in the epistles of Paul. He was a Greek by birth (Galatians 2:3), but was converted to Christianity by Paul (Titus 1:4). He went up with Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem for the conference on the circumcision of the Gentiles (Galatians 2:1; Acts 15). Later he went with Paul on his preaching tours, and is often mentioned by the Apostle in terms of approbation and affection (II Cor 2:13; 7:5-7, 13-15; 8:6, 16-24; 12:17,18; II Tim 4:10). Being the son of Gentiles, Titus was not circumcised (Gal 2:3-5). From the important services he was called upon to perform we conclude that he was highly responsible and respected.

4. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING

This letter was probably written from Macedonia or Corinth about A.D. 67, some time between I and II Timothy (Titus 3:12; II Timothy 4:20). One thing seems evident, namely -- it belongs to a period when Paul was not a prisoner.

5. THE GOSPEL IN CRETE

Crete is a large, mountainous island south of Greece in the Mediterranean Sea. Nothing is known of the first introduction of the gospel there. Jews from Crete were present on Pentecost (Acts 2:11), and perhaps returned with the good tidings. On his voyage to Rome as a prisoner, Paul stopped at Fair Havens, a harbor in the island (Acts 27:7-15). Some writers think that he visited there again after his first imprisonment in Rome, and at this time he left Titus to look after the work. We do know that Titus had been left there (Titus 1:5). Creditable evidence indicates that Paul had done some preaching in Crete, but had left hurriedly before the churches were regularly organized (Titus 1:5). The island abounded with wealthy and influential Jews. A combination of moral weaknesses made Cretans proverbial for their vices. Classical writers tell of their greed, ferocity and fraud, falsehood, and gluttony. This state of general depravity was confirmed by the testimony of their own writers (Titus 1:12; Cf. Epimenides). Titus had the tremendous task of working among and helping to organize the churches of Crete.

6. PURPOSE AND CONTENTS OF THE LETTER
1. Purpose

The purpose of the book was to console Titus regarding the work Paul had left him to do. The Cretans have been described as unsteady, untruthful, quarrelsome, licentious and intemperate (Titus 1:10-16). The work of Titus among such people must have been difficult.

2. Contents
1. Qualifications of elders (1:5-9).
2. How to deal with false doctrines (1:10-16).
3. Instructions concerning aged men and women (2:1-8), and servants (2:9,10).
4. The grace of God (2:11-14; 3:4-8).
5. Exhortations to Titus (2:15; 3:1-3, 8-15).
7. EXERCISES FOR STUDENT ACTIVITY
1. List the number of times the word Savior is used in the book.
2. Give the qualifications of elders as set forth in Titus (1:5-9).
3. Compare these qualifications (1:5-9) with those given in I Timothy 3.
4. What instructions are given concerning aged men? aged women? younger men? younger women? servants? (2:1-10).
5. What is said in Titus about the grace of God (2:11-14; 3:4-8).
6. Note how many times the key-words "good works," "good tidings" occur.
7. How many times does the expression "sound doctrine" occur?
8. The thought of sober-mindedness occurs at least six times in Titus. What impressions does this fact give? List the references.
9. Why did Paul have Timothy circumcised, but not Titus? (Galatians 2:3-5; Acts 16:1-3).
10. Make a list of the different persons named in Titus.
11. How do you account for the fact that the name of such a valued and trusted man as Titus is not mentioned in Acts of Apostles?
12. What does the Epistle to Titus teach concerning congregational independence?
13. Was Titus left in Crete for a temporary purpose or a more permanent one?
14. What evidence is there that the Cretan churches were not in existence when Paul passed by Crete on his voyage to Rome? (Acts 27).

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

Amazing! by Gary Rose

 

Amazing; the look on that little girl’s face is simply AMAZING! She may be little, but from the look on her face, she knows what ice cream is and can’t wait to get some. I don’t know if she can talk yet, but if she can she probably would say something like – ME (meaning for ME?).

Yesterday, I watched a rather long BBC documentary on the first six emperors of Rome. I learned quite a bit about all of them, but what impressed me most was how a young man (of only 19) named Gaius Octavius eventually rose to become Emperor of the Roman empire and how the Senate bestowed the title Augustus on him. He was loved so much that they even named a month after him (August).

This is the time of year that many of us think about the birth of Jesus and the amazing circumstances associated with his coming into the world. In thinking of these things, I remembered Caesar August and this passage from the book of Luke…

Luke 2 ( World English Bible )

¹ Now it happened in those days, that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.

² This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

³ All went to enroll themselves, everyone to his own city.

⁴ Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David;

⁵ to enroll himself with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him as wife, being pregnant.

⁶ It happened, while they were there, that the day had come that she should give birth.

⁷ She brought forth her firstborn son, and she wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a feeding trough, because there was no room for them in the inn.

⁸ There were shepherds in the same country staying in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flock.

⁹ Behold, an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.

¹⁰ The angel said to them, “Don’t be afraid, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be to all the people.

¹¹ For there is born to you, this day, in the city of David, a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

¹² This is the sign to you: you will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth, lying in a feeding trough.”

¹³ Suddenly, there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army praising God, and saying,

¹⁴ “Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good will toward men.”

¹⁵ It happened, when the angels went away from them into the sky, that the shepherds said one to another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem, now, and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.”

¹⁶ They came with haste, and found both Mary and Joseph, and the baby was lying in the feeding trough.

¹⁷ When they saw it, they publicized widely the saying which was spoken to them about this child.

¹⁸ All who heard it wondered at the things which were spoken to them by the shepherds.

Shepherds are simple folk, leading a quiet life life caring for animals. Israel was a conquered country, taxed heavily by the Romans and for some time the nation was eagerly expecting a savior. Then, these wonderful revelations are given to them by angels; Imagine, the joy, the wonder, the expectation, the hope. In a word… JESUS!

Some times in life things happen that we will never forget and the angel’s message to the shepherds would never, ever, be forgotten! That little child in the picture may someday forget about that amazing treat before her, but those of us who are followers of Jesus can never forget him! Hallelujah! Praise God for sending Jesus!