From Dave Miller, Ph.D. .... The Euthyphro Dilemma

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4102

The Euthyphro Dilemma

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Q:

 What do atheists mean when they speak of the “Euthyphro Dilemma” as a means to discredit theism?

A:

The so-called Euthyphro Dilemma has its genesis in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro in which Socrates and Euthyphro discuss the nature of piety: “Is the pious  loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” (2008). Over time, philosophers have sharpened the salient point of the dilemma by presenting it in a modified form. The world-renowned late atheist philosopher Antony G.N. Flew worded the argument this way: “Are the things which are good good because God approves of those things, or is it the case that God approves of those things which are good because they are good?” (Warren and Flew, 1977, p. 26). By this thorny contention, the atheist hopes to dismiss the notion of God by placing the theist in an untenable dilemma.
On the one hand, if an action is right simply because God approves it, then morality would be the product of the arbitrary will of God, which He could just as easily alter. Instead of saying that lying and murder are wrong, He could just as well have said they are right—and that divine intention would make them so. On the other hand, if God approves of an action because it is inherently good, then an objective standard exists outside of God that He merely acknowledges. Such a law would therefore be above and higher than God. By the Euthyphro Dilemma, atheists think they have demonstrated that good is either above or beneath God and thereby proof that God is not God (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: The Euthyphro Dilemma	Figure 2: Reality

But this dilemma is impotent in that it fails to take into account the nature, being, and character of the perfect God of the Bible who is eternal and infinite in all of His attributes. Goodness, like all God’s other attributes, flows from His very being as the Ultimate Good (see Figure 2). Good is neither above nor below God (cf. Mark 10:18; 1 John 4:8; Psalm 33:5). God’s attributes and God’s will are inseparable. The alternatives posed by the atheist do not pose a proper dilemma.

REFERENCES

Plato (2008), Euthyphro, trans. Benjamin Jowett, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1642/1642-h/1642-h.htm.
Warren, Thomas and Antony G.N. Flew (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press), info@nationalchristianpress.net.

From Gary... What is both near and far simultaneously?

How high do you have to be before you have reached HIGH?  And, how do we perceive what is HIGH in the first place???  As I viewed this picture today, I realized that HIGH is just a matter of perspective!!!  There is something about this picture that is very intriguing to me- its narrowness. That constriction in width accentuates this mountain's height and makes an already high object seem extraordinarily far away.  So much so that I began to wonder what could possibly be on such a distant peak?  Humm... Could God possibly dwell there? Consider this...

Psalm 139 (NASB)

Psa 139:1  For the choir director. A Psalm of David. O LORD, You have searched me and known me.
Psa 139:2  You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar.
Psa 139:3  You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
Psa 139:4  Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.
Psa 139:5  You have enclosed me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me.
Psa 139:6  Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it.
Psa 139:7  Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?
Psa 139:8  If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.
Psa 139:9  If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea,
Psa 139:10  Even there Your hand will lead me, And Your right hand will lay hold of me.
Psa 139:11  If I say, "Surely the darkness will overwhelm me, And the light around me will be night,"
Psa 139:12  Even the darkness is not dark to You, And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to You.
Psa 139:13  For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb.
Psa 139:14  I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.
Psa 139:15  My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
Psa 139:16  Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.
Psa 139:17  How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them!

Yes, even there!!! From the depths of my being, to the remotest parts of the Earth- God is nearby!!!  I do not understand the how or the why, but I believe it is true because the Bible tells me so. Nothing is hidden from the ALMIGHTY- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! 

Gary- remember this the next time you are tempted to commit sin and then-- look both without and within to find help from above!!!  Humm... the title Jehovah Jireh comes to mind... (Genesis 22:14)

From Jim McGuiggan... A fragment on sacrifice

A fragment on sacrifice

The cross is not a new way for God to relate to his creation. The cross is the historical revelation that God cannot relate to sinners in any other way. This is why Peter says Christ was ordained before the world began (1 Peter 1:19) and why John said he was the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8).

This is less a matter of the philosophy of sacrifice than it is the recognition of how the Bible develops the subject for us. If God is a holy lover of his creation (including the human family) then the cross was inevitable. It wasn’t some “deep structure” necessity that was imposed on God. It is an eternally free choice by God; but it is an eternally free choice that is inevitable because of his nature and character.

(I say a free choice because God lives rather than merely exists. He doesn’t just “happen” to be a holy lover, his holiness and love is his will. A block of ice doesn’t “will” to be cold. God eternally wills to be holy and loving.)

In the Old Testament God provided the sacrifices (Leviticus 17:11). They were provided to maintain the relationship God had chosen to have with sinful Israel. God established the sacrificial system—not Israel. In doing this and in providing the means of at-one-ment God was saying, “I cannot live among you except I pay the price.” It isn’t that he pays the price “to” someone. The phrase is metaphorical and makes the point that it costs the Holy Father to live with his wayward children. It stresses not his irritation at, or his reluctance to be the Father of, children that sin. The sacrificial system stresses the reality of their sin and the fact that God takes it seriously. He takes it seriously not because he is sulking with wounded pride. Philippians 2:5-7 makes it clear that along with the truth that he has no identity crisis (he loves whom and what he is)—he has no identity crisis but he has no vanity. So little does he care about his reputation (in that non-vain sense) that he gladly and freely went to the cross and as the KJV would have it, he "made himself of no reputation."

The sacrificial system did not rise from humans who were trying to placate a God who threatened to destroy them every time they sinned. The sacrifices were not ways in which the sinners bought mercy and grace from the Holy Father. The whole enterprise was an exercise of God’s holy grace that enabled the people to live with him in peace and he with them. It “covered” their sins.

The Hebrew writer had a specific thrust in mind. He wanted to compare favourably Christ’s sacrifice with the Mosaic sacrifices. In the course of it he showed that due to the work of Christ animal sacrifices were no longer relevant to divine-human relations (so Gunton). But he did make it clear that Christ’s sacrifice is an eternal one, that is, its inevitability and effects are eternal even while, historically, it is a once-for-all offering. By one offering he has perfected forever those he makes holy (see Hebrews 9:12 and Hebrews 10:10,12,14). In addition, as Paul insists in Romans 6:3-4 that death can still be accessed by faith. We don’t normally think of accessing an historical act (how is such a thing possible?) but Christ’s sacrificial death can be savingly accessed to this day by accessing its meaning.

Justification or cleansing by faith in the blood of Christ is not justification as a result of the mere act of his physically dying. Christ’s mere biological dying has no saving effect but then he didn’t merely die. He died “for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3). The power of his death is in whom he is and what he meant to do in the dying. And while all that he was and meant to do comes to focus in his historical life-consummating death, we continue to relate to God on the basis of what that dying means. It’s a past event but we experience life with God even now and in an ongoing relationship based on that event (1 John 1:7).

But the cross of Christ was an eternal act, an act that revealed not only how we relate to God since the cross, but also how God has always related to us from the beginning (compare Hebrews 9:15). The cross tells us not only what God did in Christ but in Christ the cross tells us what God is like, and what he is eternally like. All that being true we are to understand that for sinners like us, unbroken life with God is possible only on the basis of sacrifice. However we work that out, that is, however we understand the Bible’s rationale for that teaching it is nevertheless the teaching of scripture. Why is it the case that we can only live with God on the basis of sacrifice? Because when the Holy Father wishes to dwell with unholy people it costs him. [Can we now see a pale illustration of that in the lives of saintly parents who live in love with a thoroughly wicked child?]

So the sacrificial system and especially the sacrifice of Christ is less about how our problem with God is "fixed", it’s less about how the gulf is spanned than it is about God’s will to fix the problem and span the gulf while he maintains his commitment to us to bring us to fullness of life with himself.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

From Apologetics press.org... The Fallacy of Preaching Pascal

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=922

The Fallacy of Preaching Pascal

by	A.P. Staff

Preachers and authors in the religious community sometimes commit inadvertent fallacies in what they teach and write. These can stem from a lack of understanding of vital fields, such as biblical languages, church and secular history, psychology, and philosophy. While some of these fallacies are harmless, others can do more damage to a person’s soul through their inaccuracies than if nothing had been said at all. One such fallacy is that of mistakenly “preaching Pascal.”
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a French scientist, mathematician, and philosopher. He was a brilliant young man whose father educated him, and who published his first work, an essay on geometry, at the tender age of sixteen. He continued to publish works in the fields of science and mathematics, but he died before publishing his most important philosophical works: Pensées and De l’Esprit Géométrique. Theologically, Pascal was a Jansenist—i.e., a member of a group within the Catholic Church that followed the views of Cornelius Jansen—and spent much of his time refuting the Jesuits. Pensées [Thoughts] is the title posthumously given to a series of notes that Pascal originally intended to publish under the title Apologie de la religion chrétienne [Apology for the Christian Religion] (Popkin, 1967, 6:51-52). It was in these notes that Pascal’s now-famous “wager” was constructed. The wager, simply put, goes something like this:

• If it is impossible for a person to believe with certainty that God exists, then that person should believe in God anyway—“just in case” He does exist.
• If it turns out that God does exist, the believer “wins” the wager by receiving an eternal reward.
• If it turns out that God does not exist, the person who believes has lost nothing (except perhaps some temporal pleasures, the loss of which is outweighed by freedom from the angst of unbelief).
• If God does not exist, and a person does not believe, then he may gain some temporal pleasures.
• If God exists, and a person does not believe, then that person is punished eternally for his unbelief.

Who never “loses” the wager? The believer. Why so? If God does exist, the believer “wins” by going to heaven. If God does not exist—the believer lives and dies, end of story—again, he has lost nothing (except a few finite pleasures). In both cases, the believer wins because he chose the “safe” thing to do.
But who loses 50% of the time? The unbeliever. If God exists, he “loses” by not believing, and therefore goes to hell. If God does not exist—the unbeliever lives and dies, end of story—he (like the believer) has lost nothing.
One of the two “gamblers” never loses; one loses half the time. Thus, Pascal concluded, it is safer to believe in God that not to believe. [Pascal continued in his reasoning by suggesting that if someone does not know how to believe, then he should follow the customs and rites of those who do believe—as if he himself were a believer. Eventually, then, according to Pascal, the person will become a believer (Pascal, 1995, pp. 121-125).]

PASCAL’S WAGER

	One believes	One does not believe
God exists	Eternal reward	Eternal punishment
God does not exist	Freedom from angst	Temporal pleasures

Some ministers of the Gospel preach Pascal’s Wager in an effort to convert people, suggesting that belief in God makes more sense than non-belief because of the 50% risk that is involved if God does exist.
What does this show, and why is it wrong to use Pascal’s line of reasoning in the conversion of non-believers? First, preaching this seems to show a lack of faith on the part of the minister himself. If a preacher’s argument for the existence of God is based on a gamble—even if it is not his only argument for God—then he should re-examine his own beliefs and see if he has truly built his faith on the solid rock of the moral, cosmological, and teleological proofs for God, or if he has built his faith upon the sands of guesswork (Matthew 7:24-27). This is damaging to the congregation for which such a man preaches, because a solid congregation needs a solid man to preach solid truths, and believing in God just because it is “prudent” to do so, shows a lack of solidarity.
Moreover, what of the man who believes in God because of preaching Pascal’s Wager? Since “faith is the substance of things hoped for” and “the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1), a pseudo-belief in God based on statistical risk and/or wager produce a pseudo-Christian. Faith is based on knowledge and certainty, not on probabilities, and someone who believes based on a wager is someone who cannot possess true faith in God and His existence. Paul said that we will be “above reproach in His sight—if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard” (Colossians 1:22b-23a). Pascal’s Wager does not produce a faith “grounded and steadfast,” because it does not build faith. However, faith in God is easy to build through other means, “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” (Romans 1:19-20).
As Christians who are called to handle the Bible correctly (2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17), let us not give in to philosophies that are not in keeping with God’s Word (Colossians 2:8). In our preaching, let us be honest with people and teach them to “hold fast” to faith and truth (1 Corinthians 15:1-2), and not let them be led into believing in God just because it makes the “best sense in a gamble.”

REFERENCES

Pascal, Blaise (1995), Pensées, trans. A.J. Krailsheimer (New York: Penguin).
Popkin, Richard H. (1967), “Pascal, Blaise,” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: MacMillan).

From Mark Copeland... Saul The Persecutor (Acts 8:1-3)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                     Saul The Persecutor (8:1-3)

INTRODUCTION

1. Following Stephen's death, a great persecution arose against the
   church...
   a. Disciples in Jerusalem were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria
      - Ac 8:1
   b. The apostles, however, remained in Jerusalem - ibid.

2. Leading the persecution against the church was a young man...
   a. Whose name was Saul - Ac 8:3
   b. Who later became known as Paul, the apostle - cf. Ac 13:9

(We will consider Saul's conversion later.  But to appreciate the
significance of his conversion, we should know his background and what
motivated him as a persecutor, beginning with Saul's...]

I. EARLY LIFE AND TRAINING

   A. HIS ANCESTRY AND YOUTH...
      1. Born in Tarsus of Cilicia - Ac 21:39; 22:3; 23:34
         a. Cilicia was a Roman province in SE Asia Minor (modern
            Turkey)
         b. Tarsus was the capital ("no mean city"), known for its
            culture and learning said to exceed even those of Athens and
            Alexandria - Strabo, Geography 14.5
      2. Born of Jewish ancestry
         a. A Hebrew, or Israelite, of the seed of Abraham - 2Co 11:22
         b. Of the tribe of Benjamin - Ro 11:1
         c. A Hebrew of the Hebrews (both parents Hebrews?) - Php 3:5
      3. Born a Roman citizen - Ac 22:25-29
         a. Some think because Tarsus was a free city, but such a
            designation did not automatically impart citizenship
         b. One of Paul's ancestors either purchased or was rewarded
            citizenship for services rendered to Rome - W. M. Ramsay
         c. We do not know the date of his birth, some place it around
            the time of Jesus' birth

   B. HIS EDUCATION...
      1. Taught in Jerusalem by Gamaliel, a Pharisee and respected
         teacher of the Law - Ac 22:3; cf. Ac 5:34-40
      2. A son of a Pharisee, he became a strict Pharisee - Ac 23:6;
         26:4-5; Php 3:5
      3. He excelled above his contemporaries in Judaism - Ga 1:13-14
      4. Was also trained as tent-maker - Ac 18:1-3

   C. HIS CHARACTER...
      1. He was zealous in persecuting the church, concerning the Law
         blameless - Php 3:6
      2. He served God with a pure conscience - 2Ti 1:3; Ac 23:1
      3. Thus he was ignorant of his blasphemy and persecution - 1Ti 1:12-13

[With his early life and training, Saul of Tarsus was on the "fast track"
when it came to his religious faith.  It was sincere zeal in defending
his faith that led to his brief but fervent career as...]

II. PERSECUTOR OF THE CHURCH

   A. AT THE DEATH OF STEPHEN...
      1. Saul was present at the death of the first Christian martyr 
         - Ac 7:57-58
      2. He consented to the death of Stephen - Ac 8:1; 22:20

   B. MAKING HAVOC OF THE CHURCH...
      1. Entering homes, dragging men and women to prison - Ac 8:3; 22:4
      2. Entering synagogues, imprisoning and beating those who believed
         in Jesus - Ac 22:19
      3. He believed it necessary to do things contrary to the name of
         Jesus - Ac 26:9-11
         a. Imprisoning believers by the authority of the chief priests
         b. Casting his vote against them as they were put to death
         c. Compelling them to blaspheme
         d. Pursuing them to foreign cities (such as Damascus) - cf. Ac 9:1-2

   C. HIS LATER CONFESSION...
      1. Admits he persecuted the church "beyond measure" in an attempt
         to destroy it - Ga 1:13
      2. It was due to his great zeal - Php 3:6
      3. Though ignorant, he was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent
         man - 1Ti 1:13
      4. For such reasons, he considered himself the least of the
         apostles, not worthy to be called an apostle - 1Co 15:9

CONCLUSION

1. From being the worst foe of the church, Paul would later become one
   of its best friends...
   a. Saul the persecutor would soon become Paul the preacher - Ga 1:22-24
   b. Paul attributed it to the grace and mercy of God - 1Co 15:9-10;
      1Ti 1:12-14

2. Every aspect of Saul's life prior to his conversion prepared him for
   the task the Lord gave him...
   a. His Jewish heritage and Roman citizenship suited him for preaching
      to both Jews and Gentiles
   b. His training by Gamaliel would serve him well in his writings on
      the Law in Romans, Galatians
   c. His skill as a tent-maker would assist him in his travels
   d. Even his history as persecutor would strengthen his testimony as an
      eyewitness of Christ

But most of all, his conversion despite his persecution of the church
serves as a wonderful example of God's mercy:

   "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that 
   Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am
   chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me 
   first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern
   to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life."
                                                   - 1Ti 1:15-16

Have you obtained the mercy offered in Jesus Christ (Tit 3:4-7)?  No
matter how you have lived in the past, you can be justified by His
grace...! - Ac 22:16 

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

From Gary.... Someday

Nice idea, poor execution. Obvious to even the casual observer, but then again, its easy to find fault with what others do, isn't it?  I wonder, what about your plan- I mean your plan for LIFE? Sure, you may have an IRA or some such vehicle for your money, but is money all there is to life? Isn't there more to life than possessions???  Jesus says...

Luke, Chapter 12 (NASB)

Luk 12:15  Then He said to them, "Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions."
Luk 12:16  And He told them a parable, saying, "The land of a rich man was very productive.
Luk 12:17  "And he began reasoning to himself, saying, 'What shall I do, since I have no place to store my crops?'
Luk 12:18  "Then he said, 'This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods.
Luk 12:19  'And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink and be merry."'
Luk 12:20  "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?'
Luk 12:21  "So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."
Luk 12:22  And He said to His disciples, "For this reason I say to you, do not worry about your life, as to what you will eat; nor for your body, as to what you will put on.
Luk 12:23  "For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.
Luk 12:24  "Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; they have no storeroom nor barn, and yet God feeds them; how much more valuable you are than the birds!
Luk 12:25  "And which of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life's span?
Luk 12:26  "If then you cannot do even a very little thing, why do you worry about other matters?
Luk 12:27  "Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; but I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.
Luk 12:28  "But if God so clothes the grass in the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will He clothe you? You men of little faith!
Luk 12:29  "And do not seek what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not keep worrying.
Luk 12:30  "For all these things the nations of the world eagerly seek; but your Father knows that you need these things.
Luk 12:31  "But seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you.

We plan for our future, why not for our eternal future? I am here to tell you that no matter how much money you have, it will never be enough!!!  On this lazy Sunday afternoon, take a few moments to think about your heavenly retirement plan; if you haven't got one, get one. And don't forget to include Jesus- you will be glad you did-- someday!!!

From Jim McGuiggan... Reflections on Regeneration (2)

Reflections on Regeneration (2)

 If we were to believe that "regeneration" was nothing more than a new status before God which is the result of his grace, that would ease some difficulties, but that's not what the Reformed idea of regeneration (new birth) is. For them, and some are more rigid than others, don't you know, it's a moral transformation worked by the sovereign Lord, the Holy Spirit, irresistibly recreating a God-hating, seething rebel into a God-adoring, holiness-loving and righteousness-pursuing saint. It is no "touch-up"—it is a complete obliteration of the structures of evil that were part of the sinner. It is not merely the forgiveness of past sins and a place as one of God's children—it's a moral recreation in the image of Jesus.

 As surely, they tell us, as the unforgiven one was dead in sin, as a result of the new birth the forgiven one is dead to sin. Great stress is laid on the metaphors "dead" and "born again". The utter impossibility of a corpse choosing or desiring anything is stressed and the utter impossibility of a child birthing itself is stressed. The aim is to give God all the glory for holistic redemption and take away any possible grounds for a sinner taking a share in that glory. The aim is laudable but God isn't nearly as concerned about that matter as they are and the approach they take to gain their aim is over-anxious and too lawyer-like.

Certainly Paul said the Colossians were dead in their sins (Colossians 3:13, and see Ephesians 2:1) and that the Roman Christians were dead to sin (Romans 6:11). He said the Ephesians & Colossians were "resurrected" out of their death in sin and Peter told his (Jewish) readers that they were "born again" by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3). Paul says something very similar--linking it to baptism (see Colossians 2:10-12).

We might have thought that since the metaphor of "death" is used in reference to death in sin and death to sin that we should see them as equally forceful and in opposition. We're told that those who are "dead" in sin have absolutely no desire for righteousness or holiness, that we might as well be offering a corpse food as offer an unforgiven sinner God or righteousness. Why is it then that those who are said to be dead to sin so often run after it, are pleased by it and take pleasure in it?

We're told that those not yet born again are dominated by godless selfishness and a hatred for all that is holy, corrupted in every facet of their existence and spiralling down further into the practice of sin. We might have thought since being "born again" (regenerated) and being now a new moral creature (not just forgiven—but a new moral creation!) that they would have no desire to sin, that they would take no pleasure in it, that the very thought of it would repulse them. And yet Peter warns them with great seriousness to rid themselves of all malice and guile and envy and hypocrisy (1 Peter 2:1 and see 1:13-23). Paul urges those who were recreated in the image of Jesus to rid themselves of all kinds of evil behaviour (Ephesians 5:1-20 and Colossians 3:1—4:1).

Yes, I know, we're told about growth in holiness. That is a biblical truth and about that there should be no doubt; but it isn't the biblical witness that's in question here—what's in doubt is an interpretation of the biblical witness. We are being led to believe that the "new birth" is the utter destruction of our moral corruption and the creation of a new man entirely—so we want to know how someone born again can sin and take pleasure in it. If we're told they shouldn't our response is that they do! If we're told they shouldn't our response is that it should be impossible for them to do it and yet they do. If we're told that born again people don't sin and often find pleasure in it then we say these people are not living in the same world we're living in. [1 John insists that those who are truly God's people have a life policy—they pursue Christ's likeness and as a life policy they renounce wickedness and embrace righteousness.]

The always sinless Jesus grew in holiness (Luke 2:40, 52) but there was nothing in him that sin could cling on to (compare John 14.30). Growth in holiness isn't a difficult concept to take hold of but when we're told that all the inner structures of evil--structures without which we couldn't sin--have been destroyed, the attitudes and dispositions, the capacity to desire sin—we find it hard to understand how such a person can sin at all! If the new birth is the complete opposite of the old Adamic birth how is sin possible?

Let me ask it again, if "dead" in sin is to be understood as a spiritual and moral utter incapacity to seek to do righteousness what are we to think of "dead" to sin? With laser-like precision and mathematical exactitude and geometrical certainty we define words and "explain" metaphors to absurd lengths and then wonder why people nod their heads in disbelief. Our response at their inability to believe our "lawyering"? "That's proof of their need for the new birth," Oh well.

Maybe if "dead" to sin is true despite the presence in Christians of (at times) the capacity to drink at a poisonous fountain then "dead" in sin is true despite the capacity in the non-Christian to be hungry for and eat the moral crumbs from a gracious Holy Lord's table. Maybe if those who are "born again" still sin then those who are not yet born again still know and practice the things of the Lord (compare Romans 2:6-16).

[There's something astonishing about the way Christian people who believe this Reformed teaching castigate their foes. They absolutely rage against society, calling it to practice righteousness and upright behaviour as if they believed society could even want to do it much less be able to do it. In their books and sermons and cds they teach this utter incapacity doctrine and then whip society unmercifully for not doing what it's utterly incapable of doing! They say society is born sold under sin by Adam and morally corrupt to the point that they are dead to any possibility to act in righteousness and then rage at them as if they didn't believe a word of their own teaching. Is that not a miracle?

And what happens when non-Christians do something morally fine or have a character that expresses itself habitually, life-long, in kindness? These same people dismiss it as "nothing but filthy rags." They run to texts that say you can't save yourself. I had one man tell me (hand on my heart!) that it was a form of hypocrisy. At least he was consistent and prepared to speak so boldly! With that doctrine how could it be anything else? Many of the other kind that hold his views slink off muttering things about "common grace" and "God doesn't save us by our good works!" Good grief!]

Most of us don't need to be persuaded that the entire human family--ourselves included--has been over-run by Sin and that the only Saviour is the Lord God. We see that in scripture, in ourselves and all around us. We don't need these overly-refined explanations that give the wicked an alibi and makes puppets out of humans.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.