2/5/21

From “In Place of God” to “God’s Place” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2355

From “In Place of God” to “God’s Place”

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Nearly one year ago we reported that many militant non-believers gathered in La Jolla, California for the first “Beyond Belief” symposium (see Lyons and Butt, 2007), which the scientific journal New Scientist called “an ‘atheist love fest’” (Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7). The conference was held to discuss science, religion, and God, and specifically whether science should “do away with religion” (Brooks, 2006, 192[2578]:9). New Scientist writer Michael Brooks summarized the overall attitude of the attendees in the following words: “science can take on religion and win” (p. 11, emp. added). The participants were ready to roll up their sleeves and “get on with it” (p. 11). They were ready to put science “In Place of God,” as Brooks titled his article.

Fast forward one year to “Beyond Belief II,” and it appears some of the participants approached the idea of a Supernatural Being more cautiously. Even the title of a recent New Scientist article, which reported on the symposium, changed from last year’s arrogant heading, “In Place of God,” to this year’s more sober title, “God’s Place in a Rational World” (see Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7, emp. added). Michael Reilly gave some insight into the meeting by recording what one attendee, Edward Slingerland of the University of British Columbia, openly acknowledged:

“Religion is not going away,” he announced. Even those of us who fancy ourselves rationalists and scientists, he said, rely on moral values—a set of distinctly unscientific beliefs.

Where, for instance, does our conviction that human rights are universal come from? “Humans’ rights to me are as mysterious as the holy trinity.... You can’t do a CT scan to show where humans’ rights are, you can’t cut someone open and show us their human rights.... It’s not an empirical thing, it’s just something we strongly believe. It’s a purely metaphysical entity” (p. 7).

Although some at the conference naïvely believe that “[g]iven time and persistence, science will conquer all of nature’s mysteries” (Reilly, 2007, p. 7, emp. added), it is encouraging to know that at least one person alluded to one of the greatest proofs for God’s existence—the moral argument.

The fact is, morality exists and makes sense only if there is a God, because only God could have created it. All naturalistic explanations for the existence of morality have been shown to be inadequate. What’s more, scientists admit that they still cannot logically explain the existence of morals. In truth, the only logical explanation must be supernatural (i.e., the God of the Bible). [NOTE: To read more on the moral argument for God’s existence, see Jackson, 1995.]

REFERENCES

Brooks, Michael (2006), “In Place of God,” New Scientist, 192[2578]:8-11, November 18.

Jackson, Wayne (1995), “The Case for the Existence of God [Part III],” Reason & Revelation, 15[7]:49-55, July, [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=362.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2007), “Militant Atheism,” Reason & Revelation, 27[1]:1-5, January, [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3195.

Reilly, Michael (2007), “God’s Place in a Rational World,” New Scientist, 196[2629]:7, November 10.

Freethought: Not So Free After All by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=926

Freethought: Not So Free After All

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

One of the most popular terms used by atheists and agnostics to describe themselves is the term “freethinker.” Accordingly, their self-styled brand of reasoning, known as “freethought,” is hitting the upper echelons of academia as the in vogue way to think. From the ideas contained in this compound word, its advocates are attempting to lead people to believe that freethinkers are free to think as they like. Supposedly, freethinkers can go where the evidence leads them, since they are not bound by traditional ideas on morality, deity, the inspiration of the Bible, and other “wayward” notions that have “hindered” freedom in the past.

One of the most outspoken defenders of freethought is a man named Dan Barker. Prior to his “deconversion” into freethought, he was a zealous denominational preacher and missionary. In his most famous written work describing his new-found atheism, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, he includes an entire chapter titled, What is a Freethinker? At the end of this chapter, Barker says, “Freethought allows you to do your own thinking…. Freethought is truly free” (1992, p. 136). Obviously, Mr. Barker wants everyone who comes in contact with freethought to believe that it is an avenue of thinking that allows each individual to go where his or her thoughts lead.

Upon further investigation, however, freethought is not so free after all. On the very first page of his chapter on freethought, he contends, “No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah.” So, according to Mr. Barker, since he and his group of freethinkers do not think they see enough evidence for the Bible’s inspiration, then all “freethinkers” must reject conformity to the Bible. What happened to the idea that freethought allows “you to do your own thinking.” Again, on the same page he wrote, “Freethinkers are naturalistic” (p. 133), meaning that freethinkers cannot believe in anything outside the realm of what can be measured scientifically using the senses. What if certain evidences compel a person to believe in a supernatural deity? According to freethought, a person is not free to follow that type of evidence. Once again, freethought proves to be much less “free” than we have been told.

Another telling statement from Barker’s pen comes on page 134, where he says, “Individuals are free to choose, within the limits of humanistic morality.” Freethought, then, allows a person to choose freely any set of ethical and moral standards, as long as those standards conform to the “humanistic morality” adopted by Barker and his fellow “freethinkers.” But what if those moral standards fall outside the realm of “humanistic morality?” Then a freethinker must choose some other standard—or cease to be a freethinker.

In one of his concluding paragraphs, Barker states: “A multiplicity of individuals thinking, free from the restraints of orthodoxy, allows ideas to be tested, discarded or adopted” (p. 135). Barker subtly omits the other restraints such as naturalism and humanism, from which freethinkers are not free. In essence, freethinkers, according to Dan Barker, are those people who think like him and his fellow freethinkers. If a person does not think like the humanistic, naturalistic Dan Barker, then that person must be an enslaved thinker, not a freethinker. In reality, “freethought” is a misnomer and is not free after all. In fact, it is one of the “least free” ways to think that is available in the marketplace of ideas. In actuality, the only thing that can ever make a person free is the truth (John 8:32). From the statements quoted above, it is evident that Dan Barker and his fellow freethinkers are not really interested in freedom but, rather, are interested in forming a group of “freethinkers” that toes the party line on such false concepts as naturalism and humanism.

REFERENCE

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

Following the Toucan’s Nose to a Designer by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2053

Following the Toucan’s Nose to a Designer

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The writers and editors of National Geographic are notoriously guilty of saturating their articles with evolution. That is why it is almost humorous to read articles in the periodical that seem to slip by the editors—articles that, if read in a straightforward manner, defy evolution. For instance, in the December, 2006 issue, the editors included a tiny, one-page article titled “Power Beak.” This article discusses the beak of the toucan. John Eliot, the author of the article, interviewed Marc André Meyers, “a materials scientist at the University of California, San Diego.” Meyers believes the unique design of the toucan beak could be used to produce strong, lightweight materials used in vehicles.

Meyers describes the toucan beak as a beautiful structure. He then goes into some engineering detail:

The surface is made of keratin, the same material in fingernails and hair. But the outer layer isn’t a solid structure. It’s actually many layers of tiny hexagonal plates, overlapping like shingles on a roof. The interior is different from the shell, made of bone. It consists of a light yet rigid foam made of little beams and membranes. And some areas of the beak are hollow (Eliot, 2006, p. 30).

On the same page, to the right of Meyers’ comments, the reader can see two pictures from a microscope—one of the hard foam inside the beak and the other of the “shingle” layers of keratin. To the left of the comments there is a toucan head and beak, in which the layers are shown in a cross-section-like diagram. The combined pictures look like they are straight out of an engineer’s portfolio.

What is Eliot’s assessment of the toucan’s beak? In a simple, yet oh-so-telling, sentence, Eliot said: “[T]he toucan’s beak is ingeniously designed to be both strong and light weight.” Look closely at the wording. He says the beak is “ingeniously designed.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word “ingenious” as: “Marked by inventive skill and imagination. 2. Having or arising from an inventive or cunning mind; clever” (2000, p. 900, emp. added). Notice that the word “ingenious” implies an inventive or cunning mind. What inventive or cunning mind engineered the beautiful design of the toucan beak? It could not have been the evolutionary process, since evolutionists themselves admit that the process has no ultimate goals and no creative mind powering the system. The only logical answer is the supernatural mind of God. If the editors of National Geographic would only follow the nose of the toucan, they would find the ingenious Designer—and they would stop writing false, evolutionary propaganda.

REFERENCES

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

Eliot, John L. (2006), “Power Beak,” National Geographic, 210[6], December 12.

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Beware Of Leaven (8:14-21) by Mark Copeland

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" 
Beware Of Leaven (8:14-21)

INTRODUCTION

1. Following the disputation with the Pharisees, Jesus warned His disciples...
   a. As they sailed the Sea of Galilee from Dalmanutha to Bethsaida - Mk 8:10,13,22
   b. Charging them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod - Mk 8:15
   c. Matthew's gospel mentions the Sadducees (often aligned with Herod) - Mt 16:6,11-12

2. The disciples at first misunderstood...
   a. They thought it was because they had forgotten to take bread - Mk 8:14-16
   b. Jesus corrected their misunderstanding, reminding them of His miracles - Mk 8:17-21
   c. Then they understood that "leaven" referred to "doctrine" - cf. Mt 16:11-12

3. Leaven is a good metaphor for doctrine...
   a. Both operate with subtlety
   b. Both are very potent
   c. Both gradually spread their influence

[What doctrines or characteristics of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and
Herodians might Jesus have been warning about?  Are there parallels
today that we would should beware today? Let's start with...]

I. THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES

   A. THE PHARISEES THEN WERE...
      1. A religious and political group noted for its conservatism
         a. They were strict observers of the Law of Moses
         b. They also adopted "the traditions of the elders",
            interpretations of the Law that had been handed down  - cf. Mk 7:1-5
      2. Jesus described them as "blind leaders of the blind" - Mt 15:12-14
         a. They made the commandments of God of no effect by their traditions - Mt 15:3-6
         b. They were often hypocrites, teaching one thing and
            practicing another - Mt 15:7-8; 16:3; 23:1-4,27-28; cf. Lk 12:1
         c. They did their works to be seen of men - Mt 23:5
         d. They loved the attention and special treatment by others - Mt 23:6-7
         d. They wore religious titles - Mt 23:8-10
         e. They prevented others from finding the way to the kingdom of heaven - Mt 23:13
         f. They used their religion to make money and impress others - Mt 23:14
         g. They didn't make people better, they made them worse! - Mt 23:15
         h. They made distinctions where God did not - Mt 23:16-22
         i. Though sticklers for some commandments, they ignored others - Mt 23:23-24
         j. They honored men of God who went before them, but were more
            like those who persecuted the people of God - Mt 23:29-31
      -- They were the more conservative religious group in Jesus' day

   B. THE PHARISEES TODAY ARE THOSE WHO...
      1. Teach and practice traditions of men, instead of the commands of God
      2. Teach one thing, while practicing another
      3. Do things to be seen of men, wearing special garments, and using religious titles
      4. Do not truly show people the way to the kingdom of heaven
      5. Use religion to make money and impress others
      6. Make distinctions where God has made none
      7. Stress some commands, but neglect others as unnecessary
      -- Religious conservatives are susceptible to being like the Pharisees today

[Now let's consider...]

II. THE LEAVEN OF THE SADDUCEES

   A. THE SADDUCEES THEN WERE...
      1. A religious and political group noted for its liberalism
         a. Included many powerful members of the priesthood - Ac 5:17
         b. They insisted only the laws found in the Pentateuch were binding
         c. They rejected "the traditions of the elders"
         d. They did not believe in the resurrection, spirits, angels - Ac 23:8; Mt 22:23
         e. They did not believe in rewards or punishment after death, nor in heaven or hell
      2. Jesus charged them with two faults - Mt 22:23-29
         a. They did not know the Scriptures
            1) Even those scriptures they held to be true!
            2) For Jesus used the Pentateuch to show their error - Mt 22:31-32; Exo 3:6
         b. They did not know the power of God
            1) Like many liberals, they were influenced by rationalism
            2) They assumed that if they could not comprehend something, it could not be true
            3) They failed to believe what Gabriel and Jesus both knew:
               that with God, nothing is impossible! - Lk 1:37; Mt 19:26
      -- They were the more liberal religious group in Jesus' day

   B. THE SADDUCEES TODAY ARE THOSE WHO...
      1. Take portions of God's word, but reject the rest; such as those who:
         a. Accept the words of Jesus, but not His apostles - contra Jn 13:10; Ac 2:42; 1Co 14:37
         b. Accept the words of His apostles, but hold that ALL of
            Jesus' teachings in the gospels are Old Covenant teaching
            - contra Mt 28:20; Ac 20:35; 1Ti 5:18b; Lk 10:7
      2. Accept human reason over divine revelation
         a. Who will not accept a Biblical doctrine unless it makes sense to them
         b. A dangerous position to hold, since God has chosen to
            confound the wise and arrogant with the foolishness of the gospel message - cf. 1Co 1:18-31
         c. Some doctrines revealed may contain elements beyond man's
            ability to fully comprehend (such as the mystery of
            godliness:  God manifested in the flesh - 1Ti 3:16; or the nature of the Godhead itself)
         d. A child-like trust is more becoming of a Christian - cf. Mt 18:3; Ps 131:1-3
      3. Rule out the power of God
         a. Rejecting any doctrine, any promise, of the Scriptures if conceived as not being possible
         b. Such as the creation, the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection of the dead
         c. But once we accept the premise that with God all things are
            possible, we cannot reject Biblical testimony just because
            it does not fit our preconceived ideas of what is possible
      -- Religious liberals are susceptible to being like the Sadducees today

[Finally, let's consider...]

III. THE LEAVEN OF THE HERODIANS

   A. THE HERODIANS THEN WERE...
      1. Jews who supported the dynasty of Herod, though it was mostly a puppet of Rome
      2. Not a religious sect, but a political party; secular minded rather than spiritually minded
      3. They would align themselves with the Pharisees when convenient - Mk 3:6; 12:13
      4. They were often interchangeable with the Sadducees - cf. Mk 8:15 with Mt 16:6
      -- They were politicos first, who used religion to promote their cause

   B. THE HERODIANS TODAY ARE THOSE WHO...
      1. Believe the solution lies in politics, not the gospel
      2. Are more interested in worldly matters than the kingdom of God
         a. When the kingdom of God should come first - Mt 6:33; Php 3:20
         b. When we are to be pilgrims and sojourners - 1Pe 2:11-12
         c. Where we are to avoid worldly attachments - 2Co 6:14-7:1
      3. Use religion when convenient to get the support of the masses
      -- Political activists are susceptible to being like the Herodians today

CONCLUSION

1. The parallels between then and now are striking...
   a. Pharisees - religious fundamentalists
   b. Sadducees - religious liberals
   c. Herodians - political activists

2. Jesus' warning is sorely needed today...
   a. "Take heed, beware of the leaven..."
   b. For it is so easy to become like those who opposed our Lord

How can we ensure that we do not become like the Pharisees, Sadducees,
or the Herodians?  Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness,
with Jesus and His apostles as our spiritual guides and mentors...   
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

Why is Evil Rampant in our Country? by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2019/08/09/why-is-evil-rampant-in-our-country/

Why is Evil Rampant in our Country?

Following the horrific mass murders in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, politicians and pundits are asking the same questions, promoting familiar explanations, and making urgent demands that we’ve all heard before.

“One question no one is asking,” raised columnist Cal Thomas is “Why is evil rampant in our country?”

Thomas further explained, “I don’t mean obvious evil like the all too frequent mass murders. There are other evils, which seem to have come from the ‘pit’ and are roaming among us uncontrolled.”

“We seem to tolerate everything these days and oppose controlling what once was called evil behavior,” he observed. “Bad behavior is now considered good and good behavior is thought to be bad. Those who practice good behavior are often labeled with words that end in “-phobe.” Societal norms have been undermined. Normal is what individuals think is true for them.”

Thomas’ conclusion, in the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, is that “Men have forgotten God.”

I’m reminded of Moses’ warning to the children of Israel as they stood on the brink of the promised land. “Beware, lest you forget the Lord who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage” (Deut 6:11). He knew the danger of them inheriting a land that they didn’t work for, enjoying prosperity, but forgetting it was God who blessed them and provided their material abundance.

In the United States, our money is inscribed, “In God We Trust.” Do we really? Our pledge of allegiance contains the words “One Nation Under God?” Are we? Our actions and attitudes as a nation suggest a painfully negative answer.

During the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln, when our nation was torn apart by a Civil War, on March 30, 1863, he issued a Proclamation for a Day of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer. His words ought to serve as a wake-up call for us today.

“And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People?”

“We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!”

“It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.”

I don’t labor under any illusion that this little blog will be read by politicians who take it to heart. Nor, do I naively think that these warnings will have some dramatic impact on our culture.

However, maybe they will remind all of us who claim allegiance to Christ of who we are. Of what we are to be. Or why we’re here on earth. And of how our lives ought to be transformed by the Word, not conformed to the world around us.

In fact, before we become self-righteous in our finger-pointing of a world that has forgotten God, maybe it’s good to ask, “Have I forgotten God?”

In my quest for success, have I forgotten God?

In my pursuit of pleasure, have I forgotten God?

In my fervor for financial freedom, have I forgotten God?

In my accumulation of material possessions, have I forgotten God?

Does my treatment of other people signal that I have forgotten God?

Does the atmosphere and environment in my home indicate that I have forgotten God?

Even though I’m faithful in church attendance, is it possible that I’ve allowed traditions to replace Truth and have forgotten God?

And in my zeal to promote my political agenda and espouse my patriotic loyalty, could I have misplaced my spiritual priorities and forgotten God?

I can’t control what happens in the White House. The courthouse. Or the houses of Congress. But I can begin in my house. My life. My heart.

May I “set my hope in God, and forget not the works of God. But keep His commandments” (Ps 78:7).

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

WILL MANKIND BE AFFECTED BY GLOBAL WARMING? by steve finnell

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2016/

WILL MANKIND BE AFFECTED BY GLOBAL WARMING? by steve finnell


Will mankind be affected by global warming in the future? Have men suffered from global warming in the past? The short answer is yes.

Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. (NASB) 2 Peter 2:6 and if He condemned the cites of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter.(NASB) Genesis 19:Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven,(NASB)

Yes, men can cause temperatures to rise due to their behavior.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.(NASB)

Global warming is inevitable. Controlling man-made CO2 emissions will not prevent global warming.

In the end most people in the world today will experience extreme heat.

Revelation 20:14-15 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.(NASB)

Yes, you can escape the extreme heat to come. How? Have your name written in the book of life.

People in the book of life need to be qualified. Qualifications: FAITH John 3:16---REPENTANCE Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19---CONFESSION Romans 10:9---WATER IMMERSION Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21

Revelation 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.(NASB)

Heat is on the way.

Matthew 41, 46 "Then He will say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.(NASB)

It will be hot for the unrighteous.

Men can only become righteous through Jesus Christ. His terms for pardon. His qualifications.



Without Jesus as Lord and Savior all men will feel God's heat. 


How Kids Get into Trouble by Richard Mansel

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/trouble.html

How Kids Get into Trouble

In our crime-ridden society, Christian parents are more concerned that their children grow into good adults. They want them to maintain pure lives uncluttered by the miseries around them. Drugs, smoking, alcohol and unmarried sex are endangering children at an ever increasing rate and at progressively younger ages.

Consider a new study released by the University of Minnesota and published in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health. It is the largest study of its kind concerning adolescence.

The principal investigator of this study, Dr. Robert Blum, wrote, "How young people do at school and what they do with their free time are the most important determinants for every risky behavior we studied." Later, the article says, "substantial time 'hanging out' and other factors were three to eight times more likely to predict a sex, drugs and booze-filled lifestyle."

The article continues, "Parents should be on guard if they see their kids struggling with school or spending large blocks of unsupervised time with sketchy friends, the study found." Blum said, "Parents should know that if a teen's friends smoke or drink, the chances go up substantially that the teen will also smoke or drink or engage in other problem behaviors. It's very clear that parents need to know who their children's friends are and what they spend their time doing."

In our society, with an increasing cost of living and the availability of adult toys, more and more children are left unsupervised. If both parents work as a result of legitimate financial need that is one thing. If they work to buy bigger houses, cars and boats then is the loss of their children worth their covetousness? Are we sacrificing a generation on the altar of greed? Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:33, "Do not be deceived, 'Evil company corrupts good habits.'" Or, as is fitting for our age. "Covetous parents corrupt the good habits of children."

Parents should consider child-rearing their primary function. Paul's point, as applied here, is that these friends have become substitute role models and, as immature adolescents, they are ill-fitted for the job. They will do what their lusts tell them to do.

Repeated studies have shown that children whose parents are active in their lives, are more likely to avoid immoral behavior. Parents are to instruct their charges in mature, moral decision-making based on God's principles. If parents leave the 'instruction' to their children's friends, then they need not be surprised when their children grow up with different principles and moral beliefs than their own. Will it be the children's fault entirely?

Richard Mansel

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

You are a winner by Gary Rose

 

The news about politics was so disturbing that I just could not sleep. So, here I am at about 2:30 in the morning writing this post. I looked and looked and continued to look at what seemed like hundreds of pictures… then I saw this one.

I realized that it doesn’t matter who hates me for following Jesus or what they do to me. All men die, but not all men really live. To choose Jesus is to submit to his authority, his will. Some will love you for your choice and other will hate you enough to kill you. And they may. So what? We all die sooner or later. In Christ we win the long game- eternity!


The apostle Peter said…


1 Peter 2 ( World English Bible )

1 Putting away therefore all wickedness, all deceit, hypocrisies, envies, and all evil speaking,

2 as newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the Word, that you may grow thereby,

3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious:

4 coming to him, a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God, precious.

5 You also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

6 Because it is contained in Scripture, “Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, chosen, and precious: He who believes in him will not be disappointed.”


The political environment may prove difficult for Christians over the next few years, but in the end God’s will for those who faithfully follow him will result in heavenly blessing. In other words – we win! How do I know this? Read the last verse a second time and pay special attention to the last part of it. 

 

Therefore, Christian- you win. Period!