6/4/21

Richard Dawkins: Enemy of Truth by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=378

Richard Dawkins: Enemy of Truth

by  Wayne Jackson, M.A.

Richard Dawkins is a professor of zoology at Oxford University who has described himself as “a fairly militant atheist, with a fair degree of active hostility toward religion” (Bass, 1990, p. 86). According to Dawkins, “religion is very largely an enemy of truth” (Bass, p. 87). He characterizes the idea that man was created by God as a “blasphemy” that “we [atheists—WJ] have to fight against” (Watson, 1987, p. 11). In fact, it is he who is the enemy of truth.

Dawkins has achieved a degree of fame from several books he has written. In 1976 he authored The Selfish Gene, in which he set forth his theory of genetic determinism (although he would deny that appellation). Akin to E.O. Wilson’s concept of “sociobiology,” it attempts to explain animal and/or human behavior on a genetic basis. Genes, Dawkins contends, are the key to understanding animal behavior. But aren’t men animals according to evolutionary theory? Yes, but in order to escape the logical consequence of the argument (that man is not responsible for his behavior), it is claimed that humans, in their evolutionary progress, can break free from the genes that program them.

Dawkins has boasted that his book brings home the reality of the ruthless, mechanistic explanation of human existence. “You are for nothing. You are here to propagate your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to life” (Bass, p. 60). He is gratified also that in reading his book, people are “losing religious faith” (Bass, p. 60).

In 1986, Dawkins authored The Blind Watchmaker. In this treatise he attempted to negate the influence of William Paley’s classic work, Natural Theology (1802), in which the English theologian eloquently argued that the design suggested in the Universe is evidence of a grand Designer (God). To Dawkins, the blind force of natural selection is the basis for the “apparent design” around us that appears to cry out “for an explanation” (1988, p. ix; see also Jackson, 1992).

Christians must not let these challenges go unanswered. Enemies of the truth must be opposed in a kind, but firm and rational way.

REFERENCES

Bass, Thomas (1990), “Interview with Richard Dawkins,” Omni, 12[4]:58-60,84,86-89, January.

Dawkins, Richard (1988), The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton).

Jackson, Wayne (1992), “The Blind Bookwriter,” Reasoning from Revelation, 4:11, June.

Watson, David C.C. (1987), “A Reply to Richard Dawkins,” Origins, pp. 10-11, May.

Reflections on My Debate with Bart Ehrman by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4844

Reflections on My Debate with Bart Ehrman

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

On April 4, 2014 I debated Dr. Bart Ehrman on the campus of the University of North Alabama in Florence, Alabama. Approximately 1,500 people attended the event live, and an estimated 70-80 thousand people viewed the debate on-line or via television on the Gospel Broadcasting Network. Since the recording of the debate was uploaded onto Youtube, it has been viewed almost 7,000 times. All told, the best estimates we have indicate that between 90-100 thousand people have viewed the debate.

Dr. Ehrman, a self-proclaimed agnostic, was there to affirm the proposition: “The pain and suffering in the world indicate that the Christian God does not exist.” I was there to deny that proposition and show that the pain and suffering in this world do not show that God does not exist. In this article, I would like to highlight some things that I learned from this debate.

unbelief likes to hide its real agenda

Almost a year prior to the event, Dr. Ehrman agreed to the proposition of the debate. He contracted to shoulder the affirmative position and show how the pain and suffering in the world indicate that the God of the Bible does not exist. When he issued his opening statements, however, he stated that he was not there to win a debate. In fact, throughout the evening, he said that he was not even trying to convince the audience of the accuracy of his position. He said that he did not mind if the listeners agreed with him or not. If the listeners wanted to believe something different from what he was saying, it was fine with him, as long as they had seriously thought it through. He made it a conspicuous point to insist that he was not trying to convert anyone, or even convince anybody of anything. It is interesting to note that Blair Scott, the atheist I debated in 2011, said almost the exact same thing.

There are two reasons why I find Dr. Ehrman’s approach perplexing. First, it shows a complete failure to do what he agreed to do with the proposition. If a debater agrees to affirm a certain proposition, then the debate can only proceed if he attempts to do that. Dr. Ehrman, in essence, said early on in his opening comments that he could not uphold his end of the debate and show that the pain and suffering in the world indicate that the Christian God does not exist.

Second, Dr. Ehrman’s statement that he was not trying to convince the audience of his point of view is simply not true. In the very act of saying he is not trying to convince you of anything, he is trying to convince you that he is not trying to convince you. You see, if he can convince you that he is not trying to convince you of anything, then when he tries to convince you that the Christian God does not exist, you may not even recognize what is happening. It is the classic “wolf in sheep’s clothing” technique. The phrase comes from a dangerous predator (a wolf) attempting to look innocent by donning the garb of a helpless sheep. If Ehrman can sheepishly suggest that he is not a big, bad unbeliever here to steal your faith, then you may not be on the defensive when he tries to do that very thing.

There are at least two ways to lay bare Dr. Ehrman’s deception. First, we could simply ask the common sense question: why is Dr. Ehrman writing books and doing debates if he does not care if he convinces anyone of his premises? If the situation is such that any point of view is equally valid, then, pray tell, why has Dr. Ehrman poured thousands of man hours into writing books that state that the biblical view of suffering is contradictory, or that pain and suffering indicate that the Christian God does not exist? What’s it all for? Is he simply spinning his wheels to collect royalties and honorariums from the sale of his books and from his speaking engagements, with no desire to see others adopt his point of view? Such would seem absurd. The mere fact that he has engaged in five debates on the topic of suffering (and numerous debates on various other topics) brings to light his disingenuous claim that he is not trying to convince people that the Christian God does not exist.

The second way to show the falsity of Dr. Ehrman’s claim that he is not trying to convince people of the correctness of his position is to show specific instances in our debate in which he tried to convince the audience of his position. That can easily be done. For example, throughout the debate, Dr. Ehrman insisted that the Bible writers made statements about suffering that are contradictory to one another. He stated that the books of Job and Ecclesiastes explicitly deny that there is an afterlife. And he quoted several verses from Ecclesiastes that supposedly “prove” that the book denies an afterlife. Was he trying to convince the audience that Ecclesiastes was not inspired and contradicted other books of the Bible? Absolutely. [NOTE: During the debate it was brought out that he was using the verses out of context and “conveniently” left out the other verses in the text that affirm an afterlife.] At another point in the debate, Dr. Ehrman said there is no afterlife and that this life is all there is. With such statements, he most certainly was trying to convince the audience that there is no afterlife.

From what I can tell, Dr. Ehrman has done as much or more than any single individual in modern times to destroy the Christian faith of literally thousands of people, young and old alike, across the globe. He has written four New York Times bestsellers, in each of which he boldly proclaims that the Bible is not God’s Word, Jesus was not, and never claimed to be, God, the Christian God does not exist, and the resurrection of Jesus never occurred. And then he stood before a live audience of 1,500 people and tried to convince them that he was not there to convince them of anything. Such a ploy is nothing short of dishonest. It would be my plea and prayer that every person who views the debate could see past such subtle and devious devices.

The Logical and Emotional Aspects of Suffering

The “problem of suffering,” as it is often called, is used by unbelievers to cast doubt on the existence of the God of the Bible. The tactic normally employed, and the one utilized by Dr. Ehrman, is to rattle off a series of statistics about death, disease, murder, war, genocide, natural disasters, and a host of other calamities and then finish the list with a question such as, “Are you telling me that a loving God allows that?” This is a well-known rhetorical device designed to appeal to your emotions. There is no logical argument made. There is nothing in the statement that would lead a person to correctly conclude, “Thus the Christian God does not exist.” It is simply an emotional appeal designed to leave the listener with the sense that something is wrong, when in reality, there has been no real evidence presented that verifies the conclusion.

The emotional appeal presented by unbelievers such as Dr. Ehrman has long been known to be a logical fallacy—an incorrect way to arrive at any conclusion. You can find this logical fallacy in virtually every list of logical fallacies. One sample that represents the standard discussion of the appeal to emotion states that an appeal to emotion is when a person attempts

to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It’s important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one’s position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they’re ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one’s opponents justifiably emotional (“Appeal to Emotion,” 2014).

Throughout the debate, it was clear that Dr. Ehrman was not providing logical arguments for his belief that pain and suffering supposedly show that the God of the Bible does not exist. Instead, he was simply offering an emotional appeal. He never once offered rational or logical evidence to affirm his position. Instead, he kept insisting that humans are emotional beings, and suffering is emotional. In fact, he attempted to belittle the idea that we should even approach suffering from a logical standpoint. He stated that the concepts of suffering “couldn’t be solved like a mathematical formula.” And he said that it is not “whether 2+2=4 or not, it’s a matter of how to make sense of it all.” The irony of such a statement is that “to make sense of it all” demands that there be something more than emotion to our answer. “Making sense” means thinking correctly, logically, or rationally about something. It is impossible “to make sense” of anything without providing logical answers to the questions presented.

Dr. Ehrman’s raw appeal to emotion is misguided and inadequate. Any legitimate answer to suffering should have both a proper emotional and a logical aspect. Dr. Ehrman as much as admitted that he cannot provide a rational reason to accept his conclusion that the Christian God does not exist. In the course of the debate he conceded over and over that there is no logical reason to be an unbeliever. He rested his case on his emotional appeal. In contrast, however, Christianity and the Bible can offer both logical and emotional ways to validate the claims that an all-loving, all-powerful God exists. The Bible certainly offers logical reasons that explain suffering, such as—God giving people free will and them misusing it; some suffering resulting as a punishment for wicked deeds; some suffering being redemptive and bringing about a greater good; and the opportunity of an afterlife where all can be made right. The Bible also offers the only satisfactory emotional answer to suffering: that God, in the human form of Jesus Christ, came to Earth to share in our suffering. The battered body of the Lord Jesus Christ hanging on the cross for the sins of man provides the final emotional exclamation point to the logical answers to suffering provided in the Bible.

Ehrman Denies objective moral values

I continue to be astonished at the admissions that unbelievers such as Dr. Ehrman and others I have debated make during our debates. For instance, when I debated Dan Barker in 2009, he admitted that, according to his view of atheism, it would be permissible to rape two million girls to save humanity. After such admissions, I am awestruck that other unbelievers continue to align themselves with such debased and immoral thinking. In my debate with Dr. Ehrman, he made some of the most serious and baffling admissions of any unbeliever that I have heard in any debate.

In my opening statements, I presented two problems for unbelief as it relates to suffering and God’s existence. First, I presented the moral argument for God’s existence, which states that if objective moral values exist, then God exists. Objective moral values do exist, therefore God exists. From what I had read from the pen of Dr. Ehrman and from what I had heard in his other debates, I assumed he would argue that there can be objective moral values without a Creator. After all, he is very fond of saying that this world is unfair, unjust, and that there is something wrong with it. If there really are objective concepts of fairness and justice, then those objective values must be explained. It was rather surprising when he abandoned the idea of objective moral values and stated that there are none. He argued that cultural anthropologists have “shown” that some cultures have differing sets of values, and therefore there cannot be any objective values. He insisted that there are “no moral absolutes,” and we do not need to provide any logical or philosophical reasons why we think something is wrong; we should simply be able to say that we think something is right or wrong, and that should suffice.

It was clear in the debate that Dr. Ehrman’s position (that there are no absolutes) is indefensible. During the discussion, it was brought up that the Nazis were doing what they thought was right by killing millions of Jews. Can we, as a different society and culture, tell the Nazis that they were violating some law that is higher than a cultural law? According to Dr. Ehrman’s position, we cannot. In fact, he insisted that there are no “moral imperatives.” A moral imperative is something that a person is bound by objective moral law to follow. When we begin a statement with, “you should…,” the “should” implies that there is something that you are obliged to do. Dr. Ehrman’s position is that there is nothing that one person can legitimately say another person “should” do. And yet, Dr. Ehrman often says (even though it contradicts his position) we “should” do this or that.

I have rarely heard an unbeliever in public in modern times so openly embrace moral relativism and deny moral absolutes. This denial of moral absolutes is not even embraced by some of the most hardnosed atheists, such as Sam Harris or Michael Ruse. In fact, Michael Ruse stated: “The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children, is just as mistaken as the man who says that 2 + 2 = 5” (1982, p. 275). What Dr. Ehrman tried to do is say that there are no moral absolutes—no moral imperatives—but at the same time say we should still be able to say that some things are absolutely right and absolutely wrong. When he abandoned absolute moral values, he destroyed the foundation that would permit any person to say something is wrong, unfair, or unjust. In essence, he was saying that he might not like certain things, like someone beating a child for fun, but since there are no moral absolutes or imperatives, one culture cannot tell another culture that it is wrong for them to do it. [For a discussion of the moral argument, see Lyons, 2011).]

Easy Answers

Throughout the debate, and often in his writings, Dr. Ehrman claims that Christian apologists are providing easy answers and are not really wrestling with the reality of suffering. Ehrman is fond of saying, and said at least twice in the debate, that if there is an answer that can be given in 20 seconds that supposedly solves “the problem of suffering,” then it is almost certainly wrong. The implication of his statement is that his brand of unbelief does not provide these types of “easy” answers. In fact, during the debate, he claimed that he did not even have any answers, just questions. And he disparaged me for claiming to have answers, as though somehow, if a person claims to have any definite answers, he is doing something wrong.

This “easy answers” idea turns out to be inconsistent. Dr. Ehrman claims not to be giving answers to the problem of suffering, but that is not true. He is offering answers. On his blog he stated: “There is suffering because people are able to do nasty things when they want, and they often do them, usually because it advances their own purposes; and there is suffering because the universe we live in is a hard and cruel place that doesn’t give a rip about us or our needs and sometimes we get in the way of its workings” (Ehrman, 2013). His answer is that there is suffering because there is no loving God. As I stated in the debate, that answer takes far less than 20 seconds to state. And it is an answer, ironically, that is very “easy.” That is, without a God, we do not have to wrestle with things that seem unjust or unfair. Without a God, we do not have to demand that other people adhere to absolute moral values. Without a God, there is no “problem of suffering” because humans are just another living organism that happen to get in the way of the naturalistic workings of the Universe. Dr. Ehrman’s idea of an “easy answer” cannot be defined in any real sense. He means that any answer that includes God or an afterlife is “easy,” and his answers (that he does not call answers, because remember he is not trying to convince anyone of anything) that do not include God or an afterlife are not easy. I find it fitting that when C.S. Lewis was struggling through his unbelief, and he ran into the problem of trying to arrive at absolute moral values without God, he rejected unbelief and stated, “Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple” (1952, pp. 45-46). “There is no God.” “This Universe is chaotic and cares nothing for us.” Those are some of the “easiest” and most unsatisfactory answers ever given to suffering. 

The Bible Taken Out of Context

One issue on which Dr. Ehrman spent a considerable amount of time in his opening statements was his assertion that the Bible writers have different, and often contradictory, views of how to deal with suffering. Dr. Ehrman delights in saying that the book of Job claims that Job is such a “peon” (Ehrman’s word) that he shouldn’t even ask why he is suffering. Dr. Ehrman insists that the prophets viewed suffering as punishment: God bringing suffering into the lives of those who disobey. He contends that the apocalyptic writers had an altogether different view of suffering that contradicted that of the prophets. He claims that the apocalyptic view is that evil forces in this world are causing suffering, and those who are righteous are suffering because of these evil forces.

The contention that the Bible writers’ views on suffering are contradictory can only be made if you leave out large portions of what the books actually say. This point became clear in the debate when Dr. Ehrman claimed to hold to the view of Ecclesiastes—“that we should eat and drink for tomorrow we die.” When the entirety of the book is read, however, it is clear that the writer summed up the whole of man by saying that humans should fear God and keep His commandments (12:13-14). Dr. Ehrman claimed that the conclusion had been added on by a later writer. But there is no textual evidence that would lead to this conclusion. In fact, other verses in the book, such as 11:9, which says that God will bring each person into judgment for his deeds, or 7:29 that says that God made man upright but he has chosen to do evil, do not correspond with Dr. Ehrman’s unbelief. It is only when those verses are intentionally ignored that the teaching of the book could be construed to be contradictory to other teachings about suffering found in the Bible. Futhermore, Dr. Ehrman misses the point that Ecclesiastes was written to show that only when life is viewed from an earthly, materialistic perspective, is all life meaningless. When viewed in light of eternity, there is a purpose to this life (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

We can further see the flaws of Dr. Ehrman’s assessment in his dealing with apocalyptic literature. He insists that according to such literature, it is only the wicked who prosper, and it is the righteous who suffer at the hands of the evil spiritual forces. Yet a quick look at the book of Daniel shows this to be an oversimplified statement of what the writers actually said. Why are the Israelites in captivity? Because of their own sins. God is punishing them. Why are Daniel and his friends suffering? Because the righteous sometimes suffer. Does Daniel ever prosper? Yes, and he is elevated to one of the most honorable positions in the kingdom. Is there an afterlife in this book? Certainly since “those who sleep in the dust will arise, and some will go to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (12:2). Are some aspects of suffering redemptive? Yes, that is why Nebuchadnezzar in chapter four is humbled by God and then given his kingdom back after he repented. There is nothing in apocalyptic literature that cannot be reconciled with every other answer given in the Bible. In reality, the books of the Bible supplement one another in their dealing with suffering in order to give a broad answer to the many different aspects of the topic. Dr. Ehrman’s accusation that the Bible is contradictory on the theme of suffering is inaccurate and cannot be sustained.

The Tragedy of unbelief

Dr. Ehrman is one of the most well-known and highly credentialed unbelievers in the world. The flaws and inconsistencies in his positions are not due to a lack of intelligence. The flaws are inherent to unbelief. Since disbelief in God and the Bible as His Word is irrational, there will always be aspects of every unbeliever’s case that cannot be defended. Ultimately, the most heartbreaking failure of unbelief is the void it causes in the spiritual lives of its adherents. Even though unbelievers attempt to deny the spiritual dimension of their lives, this denial comes with tragic consequences. For instance, in his book on suffering, Dr. Ehrman wrote:

The Problem is this: I have such a fantastic life that I feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude for it; I am fortunate beyond words. But I don’t have anyone to express my gratitude to. This is a void deep inside me, a void of wanting someone to thank, and I don’t see any plausible way of filling it (2008, p. 128).

Dr. Ehrman has a deep void inside that he cannot fill because he attempts to deny that he is a spiritual being created in the image of God. One of the most basic human emotions in the face of blessings is the desire to thank the Giver of those blessings. By denying God’s existence, Ehrman has denied himself the opportunity to be a completely fulfilled human. It is for this reason that I come away from debates such as this one with a heavy heart of pity and sorrow for those who have chosen unbelief.

Another telling statement comes from Dr. Ehrman in his discussion of hell. He states:

As a result, when I fell away from my faith—not just in the Bible as God’s inspired word, but in Christ as the only way of salvation, and eventually from the view that Christ was himself divine, and beyond that from the view that there is an all-powerful God in charge of this world—I still wondered, deep down inside: could I have been right after all? What if I was right then but wrong now? Will I burn in hell forever? The fear of death gripped me for years, and there are still moments when I wake up at night in a cold sweat (2008, p. 127.)

Ehrman’s haunting admission brings to mind the only solution to this crippling fear. As the Hebrews writer stated, Jesus shared in humanity’s flesh and blood that “through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Hebrews 2:14-15). As much as Dr. Ehrman tries to deny that Jesus is the answer, many of his statements belie his inability to do so. In one of his blog posts, he stated:

When I was a Christian, acknowledging that the myth of the incarnation was a myth, I accepted the myth as saying something very profound. In that myth, the ultimate reality (call it God) did not come into the world in a blaze of power worthy of, well, a Roman emperor. He came as an impoverished child to an unwed mother in the midst of a world of pain and suffering; and this child grew in poverty and urged his followers to give of themselves for the sake of others, insisting that it was the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the hungry, the sick, the demon-possessed, the sinners, the outcasts who were the concern of that ultimate reality. That made a lot of sense to me. It still does (2012, emp. added).

After pouring over Dr.  Ehrman’s materials, meeting him in a head-to-head debate, and praying for him frequently, I pity him most because he now lives a life with no hope and without God in this world. The answer to his struggle with suffering, to his attempts to “make sense of it all” is staring him in the face, in the person of Jesus Christ. But Bart refuses to accept the answer, and instead, attempts to satisfy himself with questions that leave him with a deep void in his life and frightened about eternity. 

After the lights are out, and the final scene on life’s curtain is almost drawn, let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: “Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Would to God that Bart Ehrman and other unbelievers truly accepted the book of Ecclesiastes.

References

“Appeal to Emotion” (2014), Your Logical Fallacy Is, https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion.

Ehrman, Bart (2008), God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer (New York: Harper One).

Ehrman, Bart (2012), “Christmas Longings,” http://ehrmanblog.org/christmas-longings/.

Ehrman, Bart (2013), “Suffering and My Blog,” http://ehrmanblog.org/suffering-and-my-blog/.

Lewis, C.S. (1952), Mere Christianity (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Lyons, Eric (2011), “The Moral Argument for God’s Existence,” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101&topic=95.

Ruse, Michael (1982), Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).

Recent Turing Award Implies Creation by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3739

Recent Turing Award Implies Creation

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The A.M. Turing Award is one of, if not the, highest awards that can be given to those in the computing field. It was named after British mathematician Alan M. Turing, and awarded to those who are believed to have made breakthrough advancements in computing technology (Robertson, 2011). The most recent recipient of the Turing award was Harvard University professor Leslie Valiant. He received the award based on his contributions to the field of “computer learning.” Jordan Robertson, AP Technology Writer, noted that Valiant’s efforts “paved the way for computers that more closely mimic how humans think” (2011). Robertson quoted ACM President Alain Chesnais as saying that Valiant’s work, “has produced modeling that offers computationally inspired answers on fundamental questions like how the brain ‘computes’” (2011).

Valiant’s work is truly amazing. He has spent 30 years of his life trying to help synthetic machinery “compute” more like the human brain. In many ways, however, the computers are still vastly inferior to the human brain. Reasoning through this situation leads to a very important conclusion. If Valiant is a brilliant computational scientist, and he has spent three decades trying to mimic the computational abilities of the brain, what does that imply about the brain? It means it was designed by an Intelligent Designer even more brilliant than Valiant. That is the only conclusion that adequately evaluates the evidence. Yet sadly, many in the scientific community will pat Valiant on the back for the efforts he has made to understand the brain’s computational abilities, while they will completely ignore the implication of design that is inherent in his work. In reality, God’s design of the human brain has paved the way for scientists like Valiant to mimic His work and build better computers.

REFERENCE

Robertson, Jordan (2011), "Turing Award Goes to ‘Machine Learning’ Expert", http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110309/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_technology_prize/print.

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" The Signs That Followed (16:17-20) by Mark Copeland

 






 

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK"


The Signs That Followed (16:17-20)

INTRODUCTION

1. As the gospel of Mark closes, it does so with an amazing promise by Jesus...
   a. "And these signs will follow those who believe.." - Mk 16:17
   b. That are then summarized as to their nature and fulfillment - Mk 16:18-20

2. This passage has often been used to justify various religious practices...
   a. By many who believe such signs exist today
   b. By some who practice snake-handling in their services

[In determining whether "The Signs That Followed" still exist today, a
good place to begin is to carefully notice what the Bible reveals about
such things.  So let’s first consider...]

I. THE PROMISE OF SIGNS

   A. GIVEN TO THE APOSTLES...
      1. Power to cast out demons - Mk 16:17
      2. Speak with new tongues - ibid.
      3. Take up serpents - Mk 16:18
      4. Drink anything deadly without harm - ibid.
      5. Lay hands and heal the sick - ibid.

   B. EXPERIENCED BY HIS DISCIPLES...
      1. Power to expel demons - Ac 5:16; 8:7; 16:18; 19:12
         a. Peter, Philip, and Paul cast out demons or unclean spirits
         b. With complete success, with no record of failures by these  men of God
      2. Speak with new tongues - Ac 2:4-11; 10:46; 19:6; 1Co 12:10,28,
         30; 14:5-26
         a. The apostles and some disciples spoke in tongues
         b. These were clearly foreign languages, designed to convince unbelievers
 - 1Co 14:22
      3. Take up serpents - Ac 28:3-6
         a. The only example we have is that of Paul
         b. In which it was done inadvertently, not as a religious  exercise
      4. Drink anything deadly without harm - no record
         a. We have no record in the New Testament of this being done
         b. Neither inadvertently nor as a religious exercise
      5. Lay hands and heal the sick - Ac 3:6-8; 5:15-16; 9:17-18,34,
         40-42; 19:12; 28:8-9
         a. The apostles and some disciples healed the sick
         b. Again with complete success, with no record of failures

[Clearly the rest of the New Testament record confirms Mark’s account
(cf. Mk 16:20).  To help determine whether such signs continue today,
let’s take a close look at...]

II. THE PURPOSE OF SIGNS

   A. REVEALED IN MARK’S GOSPEL...
      1. The purpose was to confirm the word being preached - Mk 16:20
      2. Demonstrating that the Lord was working with them - ibid.

   B. STATED ELSEWHERE IN THE BIBLE...
      1. The Lord Himself was bearing witness through such signs - Ac 14:3
      2. God was bearing witness through such signs, wonders, miracles,
         gifts of the Spirit - He 2:4

   C. OBSERVATIONS...
      1. Regarding the purpose of the signs
         a. "These gifts were part of the credentials of the apostles as
            the authoritative agents of God in founding the Church..." - B. B. Warfield
         b. "These extra gifts were given in order to the founding and
            establishing of the church in the world." - Jonathan Edwards
         c. In other words, to confirm that the apostles were indeed
            from God and that their message was truly the Word of God
      2. Regarding the duration of the signs
         a. Paul wrote that a time would come when such signs would
            cease - cf. 1Co 13:8-10
         b. "...since the canon of Scripture has been completed, and the
            church fully founded and established, these extraordinary
            gifts have ceased." - Jonathan Edwards
         c. "That with the passing away of the apostolic age these gifts
            ceased is also the testimony of Chrysostom and Augustine...
            Matthew Henry, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Robert
            L. Dabney, Abraham Kuyper, Sr., and W. G. T. Shedd." - William Hendriksen
         d. If such signs or spiritual gifts exist today, then we should expect...
            1) New revelation from God for the benefit of all
            2) Which should be added to the Bible!
         e. Who would be so bold as to say that their doctrine is from God?
            1) Those who have, are eventually exposed as false prophets
            2) When their prophecies are proven false, or their doctrine
               contrary to what has been revealed - cf. Deut 18:21-22; 13:1-4

CONCLUSION

1. "The Signs That Followed" were important, the means by which the Lord...
   a. Bore witness to His Word and to His apostles - Mk 16:19-20; He 2:3-4
   b. Provided a full and final revelation of His Will - 2Pe 1:3; Jude 3; 2Ti 3:16-17

2. Yet such signs were simply a means to an end...
   a. To produce the Word of God, the sword of the Spirit - Ep 6:17
   b. Which in turn produces the "fruit" of the Spirit - Ga 5:22-23; Ro 8:5-6

3. More important than signs (including tongues, prophecy, knowledge, or
   any other spiritual gift)...
   a. Are the qualities of love, joy, peace, hope, etc., in the life of
      the Christian - Ga 5:22-23
   b. I.e., the "fruit" of the Spirit in our life is more important than
      the "gifts" of the Spirit!

With the aid of the Word of God, including the wonderful Gospel of Mark,
we can be sure that we will faithfully follow the Lord who died for us
and will one day return...             
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker


Reflections On Turning 70 by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2018/03/13/reflections-on-turning-70/#more-12056

Reflections On Turning 70

Today I’m reminded of a neat story told about the baseball great Ty Cobb, who played in a different era. He retired in 1928 at the age of 41 with a lifetime .367 batting average.

When he was 70 a reporter asked, “What do you think you’d hit if you were playing today?”

Cobb replied, “Oh, about .290. Maybe .300.”

The reporter responded, “I guess that’s because of increased travel? Night games? Artificial Turf? And new pitches like the slider? Right?

Cobb calmly glared at the reporter and said, “No. It’s because I’m 70!

I can relate to Cobb. With the NCAA tournament beginning, I get excited and feel like I could still play some ball. But the reality is my mind says one thing but my body quite another.

Today is a milestone that is difficult to imagine at age 20. Or even 30 or 40.
It’s one thing to preach on aging, but quite another to admit you are actually the one being identified in Ecclesiastes 12. If we’re honest, there is an aspect where aging frightens us a bit. Jonathan Swift expressed it this way, “Every man desires to live long, but no man wants to be old.”

I am part of that intrepid group of Baby Boomers that are known for their desire to stay young. Look young. And act young. In fact, some have advanced the idea that 70 is the new 50. We struggle with the phrase “senior citizen.” (Although, I’m not adverse to accept the discount at restaurants). However, all of this is denying the inevitable.

The sobering words of the Psalmist come to mind on this day.

The days of our lives are seventy years;
And if by reason of strength they are eighty years,
Yet their boast is only labor and sorrow;
For it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

While I’ve been blessed with good health, and still feel energetic and enthusiastic about life, one day, like all others, age with catch up with me. Life on earth will end. And I will fly away. But in the meantime, let me be used for God’s purpose.

I was thinking about a sermon I prepared several years entitled: “Honoring Senior Saints–They Still Bear Fruit in Old Age.” It was designed to encourage the older people in the congregation. I guess I’m now one of them!

In that sermon, I pointed out that God has used older people to accomplish his purpose. Moses was 80 and Aaron 83 when they led Israel out of Egypt. Caleb was 85 when he said, “Give me this mountain” as he staked his claim in the promised land of Canaan. Daniel was probably over 80 when he served as Governor of Babylon and thrown into the den of lions. Older people can still bear fruit for the Lord.

We’ve announced that we’re leaving local work here in North Texas the first of June, but we’re not retiring to a rocking chair in Florida. Not yet, anyway. We have a jam-packed schedule for the rest of the year of traveling, preaching and teaching.

While I don’t want to be that old preacher who thinks that he’s just as good as he ever was, and refuses to step aside, I still want to be used and bear fruit as long as possible. Whatever wisdom, knowledge or skills that I may possess, I trust that I may still use them to the glory of God and for the edification of His people. I do know I must release the past with whatever mistakes I have made or successes I have enjoyed. I must accept the present. And like Paul, “press on.”

But more importantly, I want to enjoy this rest of the journey with my wonderful wife, Norma Jean, who’s been my faithful partner for the past 50 years. To focus on the future. To keep our eyes on the eternal goal. And to go hand in hand to a land where we will never grow old.

“Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 1 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2Cor. 4:16-18).

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

WHAT IS FAITH? BY STEVE FINNELL

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2016/11/what-is-faith-by-steve-finnell-what-is.html

WHAT IS FAITH? BY STEVE FINNELL


What is faith? Faith is believing in something you cannot prove.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (New International Version-1984)
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of thing hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (New American Standard Bible)
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (King James Version)

I have faith that Jesus is the Son of God. I have faith that He performed miracles. I have faith that Jesus was resurrected from the grave by God the Father. I believe this because I have faith that the historical record of the Bible is accurate, yet I cannot prove it. There are no living eyewitness to confirm that Jesus was who He said He was or that He was resurrected from the dead, I accept it by faith, I believe it, however, I cannot prove it.

Atheists do not believe the fact that Jesus was the Son of God or that there even is a God, they cannot prove their unbelief, they accept it by faith.

Romans 8:24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope, for who hopes for what he already sees?(NASB)

We have hope we have been saved, but we hope because of faith. We cannot prove we have been saved. We believe that we have been save because we  believe, by faith, that the Bible is accurate and trustworthy.

John 20:27-31 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with you finger, see My hands and put them into my side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!'29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." ...... (NASB)

Thomas had proof that Jesus was resurrected from the grave. Men today cannot prove the resurrection of Jesus from the grave, they accept it by faith.

There were more than five hundred brethren, including the apostles, who saw Jesus alive after He faced death on the cross. They were eyewitnesses, they had proof of the resurrection of Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:3-7)

Those of us alive today have to have FAITH that the Biblical accounts of Jesus and His resurrection are true. We cannot prove they are true. NO ONE IS ALIVE TODAY WHO WAS AN EYEWITNESS TO THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.


FAITH IS BELIEVING SOMETHING YOU CANNOT PROVE!



NOTE: Atheists believe, by faith, that God does not exists, but they cannot prove it.     

The Dignity of Man by Sandra F. Cobble

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Cobble/Sandra/Fontaine/1933/dignity.html

The Dignity of Man

For twenty-three years I was the wife of a denominational evangelist. During part of those years we were members of a Free Will Baptist Church. My husband and I, by our own independent study, had discovered many things wrong with the doctrine and practice of that group, but had not seen the simplicity of New Testament Christianity until personally taught by one who cared.

Some errors are so close to the truth and may be so closely interwoven with truth that it is very difficult to see exactly what the error is without help. Let me urge you to care enough about some friend whom you may believe to be in error to lovingly share with hem the "faith that once for all was delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

Note some of the doctrine of the denomination to which I once belonged, and how mixed it is with truth.

"Our first parents, in their original state, were upright. They naturally preferred and desired to obey their Creator, and had no preference or desire to transgress His will until they were influenced and inclined by the tempter to disobey God's commands. Previous to this, the only tendency of their nature was to do righteousness. In consequence of the first transgression the state under which the posterity of Adam came into the world is so different from that of Adam that they have not that righteousness and purity which Adam had before the fall; they are not willing to obey God, but are inclined to evil. Hence none, by virtue of any natural goodness and mere work of their own, can become the children of God; but they are all dependent for salvation upon the redemption effected through the blood of Christ, and upon being created anew unto obedience through the operation of the Spirit; both of which are freely provided for every descendent of Adam." (A treatise of the Faith and Practices of the Original Free Will Baptists, 1953, Chapter IV, Section II, pp. 11-12).

If Adam had no preference or desire to transgress God's will, then the tempter must have been stronger than Adam. If the posterity of Adam are not willing to obey God, but are inclined to evil because of Adam's sin, how can they be guilty of the sins they commit when they inherited a nature which was not theirs by choice? Is it any wonder that men become atheists?

Exactly how a person who is by nature totally inclined to evil can be regenerated by the Spirit and made "disposed to serve Him" and do this by his own free will, when his own free will was inclined only to evil, we never did discover! In footnote 3 on page 25 our little "Treatise" quotes John 3:5 this way, "Except a man be born...of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." And in footnote 1 of the article just quoted attempting to prove that Adam had no desire to transgress God's will, Ecclesiastes 7:29 is quoted thus, "God hath made man upright." We were never told why the rest of the verse was not included -- "but he sought out many inventions."

Now let us read what the scriptures say: "Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:26-27).

"Ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy" (Leviticus 11:35 and several other places).

God is commanding the descendants of Adam to be holy. Note that the atonement has not yet been made! How could a just God command a man who is by nature a sinner to be holy? Again, is it any wonder that men become atheists?

Just faintly I am beginning to see a new dawn approaching in which the dignity of man is being restored. As yet it is obscured by violence, misfeasance, and even atheism, yet in a distance, beyond the fierce battle of this night, the sunrise of a new day is dawning.

As most people of my age, I have been shocked by some of the things I have seen happening during the last few years. Yet, these very things have brought about a new atmosphere. As a reaction among some, there has come into being a renewed respect for human life and human dignity.

It is only when we realize the dignity of man -- man created in the image and likeness of God -- man that has the ability within himself to make the choice to be holy before he sins, and the choice to be made holy by the blood of Christ after he sins -- that we begin to realize the enormity of sin. That such a man would deliberately separate himself from His God fully knowing the consequences of doing so is amazing. Only when we realize the enormity of sin can we realize the greatness of God's love and mercy.

Let us take advantage of the day as it dawns. Let us help restore the dignity of man. Let us help man realize who he is. People are searching for another day! When man realizes who he is, he will begin to realize the enormity of his sin, and he will be seeking salvation from his sin! And he can find it in Christ.

Sandra F. Cobble

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

"The Truth of The Good News" by Gary Rose

 


Another comment about “Duct Tape”; it can fix a lot of things for quite awhile, but those “3 nails”… they fixed everything...forever. The picture looks like one of those marquees you see in front of church buildings, but this one is embedded within a wall, strange. Makes me wonder where it is. More importantly, though, is that it speaks the truth. In thinking about this, I did a quick concordance search on “The truth of the Good News” and found these passages.


Galatians 2 ( World English Bible )

3 But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

4 This was because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who stole in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage;

5 to whom we gave no place in the way of subjection, not for an hour, that the truth of the Good News might continue with you.

6 But from those who were reputed to be important (whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God doesn’t show partiality to man)—they, I say, who were respected imparted nothing to me,

7 but to the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News for the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the Good News for the circumcision


11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned.

12 For before some people came from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy; so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

14 But when I saw that they didn’t walk uprightly according to the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live as the Gentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?

15 “We, being Jews by nature, and not Gentile sinners,

16 yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law, because no flesh will be justified by the works of the law.

17 But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a servant of sin? Certainly not!

18 For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a law-breaker.

19 For I, through the law, died to the law, that I might live to God.

20 I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.


Ephesians 1

1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ;

4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and without blemish before him in love;

5 having predestined us for adoption as children through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his desire,

6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, by which he freely bestowed favor on us in the Beloved,

7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

8 which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,

9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him

10 to an administration of the fullness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, in him;

11 in whom also we were assigned an inheritance, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who works all things after the counsel of his will;

12 to the end that we should be to the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ:

13 in whom you also, having heard the word of the truth, the Good News of your salvation—in whom, having also believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

14 who is a pledge of our inheritance, to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory.


Colossians 1

1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

2 to the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 We give thanks to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

4 having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which you have toward all the saints,

5 because of the hope which is laid up for you in the heavens, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the Good News,

6 which has come to you; even as it is in all the world and is bearing fruit and growing, as it does in you also, since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth;


The world I grew up in was simpler ( circa 1950’s ). Generally, people believed in the Bible and tried to follow it. People told the truth, oftentimes, a handshake was good enough to “seal the deal”. Newscasters told the truth and I believed it.


Today, people say that truth is relative; what is true for me is probably not true for you. This concept is ridiculous; truth is truth – anything but the truth is simply NOT THE TRUTH. Apart from the Bible, it has become very difficult to find the unvarnished truth.


Back to that sign. It is true, three nails really did fix everything. Because of what Jesus did on the cross, we have “The Truth of the Good News ( The Gospel ). We need nothing else. Believe this for it is true.