Abhor What is Evil? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=949

Abhor What is Evil?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Is there any question that America has lost her moral compass as a country? We as a culture and a nation, including many of those who profess to be church-going Christians, have become so diluted in moral, religious, and spiritual knowledge and convictions that “compassion” and “love” have been redefined. “Compassion” now means “tolerance” and acceptance of “diversity.” In other words, we will not take issue with anyone on anything, we will not punish anyone for anything, and we will not condemn or pronounce as unacceptable any behavior—no matter how bizarre, distasteful, or wicked. The sad corollary is that neither do we have a wholesome regard for what is good.

As the Christian moral framework on which the nation was founded has experienced significant erosion, many citizens have embraced the self-contradictory viewpoint that they can appreciate, and even “celebrate,” a host of mutually exclusive religions, ideologies, and behaviors. Homosexuality and killing unborn babies are supported and affirmed, while those who profess a non-Christian religion like Islam are also being welcomed—though Muslims believe abortion is a crime and homosexuals ought to be executed. Polygamy has always been immoral and illegal in American civilization (Miller, 2006;Miller, 2009), yet the Quran teaches that a man may have up to four wives (Miller, 2004, 3[4]:9-R), and the thousands of Muslims that are coming to America obviously are not foregoing their polygamous relationships. The result? Complete social and moral confusion.

The God of the Bible declares: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20). Regarding those who engage in immoral behavior, Christians are admonished to attempt to “save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh” (Jude 23). All people are called upon to “[a]bhor what is evil. Cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9). Sadly, few these days seem even to know what is good or evil.

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2004), “Polygamy and the Quran,” Reason & Revelation, 3[4]:9-R, March, [On-line],URL: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=4029.

Miller, Dave (2006), “The Next Domino: Polygamy,” [On-line], URL:http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4809.

Miller, Dave (2009), “Sexual Depravity Continues to Expand,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240099.

Did Jesus Deny Deity and Moral Perfection in Mark 10:18? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=4832

Did Jesus Deny Deity and Moral Perfection in Mark 10:18?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The New Testament writers repeatedly testified to the fact that, though Jesus “was in all points tempted as we are,” He was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Paul claimed that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Peter said that Christ “committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth”—that He was the perfect sacrificial Lamb, “without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 2:22; 1:19). Likewise, John wrote that in Christ “there is no sin” (1 John 3:5). Jesus was supremely “pure,” “righteous,” and “good” (1 John 3:3; 2:1; John 10:11,14).

Additionally, the New Testament has much to say about the divine nature of Christ. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62; John 4:25-26), Whom Isaiah prophesied would be “Mighty God” and “Jehovah” (Isaiah 9:6; 40:3). Jesus accepted worship while in the form of a man (John 9:38)—implying that He, too, was Deity (Matthew 4:10; cf. Acts 12:21-23; 14:14-15). Jesus forgave sins, which only God can do (Mark 2:5-10). The apostle John said that Jesus “was God” (John 1:1). Jesus claimed to be “one” with God (John 10:30), leading His hearers to believe that He made Himself “God” (10:33). And, after the apostle Thomas called Jesus “Lord” and “God” (John 20:28), Jesus immediately acknowledged Thomas’ faith, rather than deny the deity that Thomas had just professed. In his letter to the Philippians Paul wrote that Christ Jesus “being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (Philippians 2:6). In fact, “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

In light of the fact that the Bible claims repeatedly that Jesus was both “good” and “God,” some contend that in Mark 10:18 (and Matthew 19:17) Jesus said just the opposite. In an article titled “New Testament Contradictions,” Paul Carlson stated that Mark 10:18 (among other passages) is “an embarrassment to the church,” as it indicates “Jesus did not consider himself sinless” (1995). By saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God” (Mark 10:18), allegedly “Jesus made a clear distinction between himself and God,” and, according to Muslims, Matthew and Mark “believed that Jesus was not God” (“The Bible Denies…,” 2014, emp. added). According to skeptic Dennis McKinsey, in Mark 10:18, “Jesus is not only admitting that he is not perfectly moral but that he is not God” (McKinsey, 2000, p. 247).

Does Jesus actually admit not being “good” and “God” in Mark 10:18? How did Jesus respond to the wealthy young ruler who asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Did He deny being perfectly moral and Divine? The simple fact is, Jesus never denied being good or God.

So what did Jesus mean? Before answering this question, one must keep in mind that Jesus often responded to questions in unexpected, masterful ways. He offered thought-provoking, soul-searching answers (often in the form of questions) that, unfortunately, many people have misinterpreted. [Consider, for example, when the Pharisees asked Jesus about why His disciples allegedly broke the law of Moses and plucked heads of grain as they walked through the fields on the Sabbath. Rather than explicitly deny that the apostles were disregarding the Law of Moses, Jesus asked His accusers two very appropriate (and very perceptive) questions:

Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? (Matthew 12:3-5).

Although many have misinterpreted Jesus’ response on this occasion to justify situation ethics, Jesus did nothing of the sort. The only “law” that Jesus’ disciples broke while going through the grain fields (Matthew 12:1-8) was the Pharisaical interpretation of the Law (see Lyons, 2003 for more information; see also Miller, 2004).]

The rich young ruler was confident in his keeping of various commandments (Mark 10:20), but he surely never thought that Jesus would instruct him to sell whatever he had and give it to the poor—to leave everything and follow Him (10:21). Similarly, when the young ruler initially came to Jesus, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” he never expected Jesus to say, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God” (10:17-18).

The young man seems to have regarded himself as “good” (since he professed to have kept all of the commandments that Jesus mentioned—Mark 10:20). Perhaps the gentleman simply wanted to know—from one good man to another good man (a “good teacher”)—what do I need to do to inherit eternal life. Rather than immediately answer the young man’s question, however, it seems Jesus first wanted (1) to humble him, by highlighting that he was not as “good” as he considered himself to be, and (2) for him to realize Who exactly he was questioning. He wasn’t merely petitioning a “good” (Greekagathos) man.

The Bible records various (mere) human beings who were called “good” (agathos). Luke recorded that “Barnabas was a good man” (Acts 11:24). Paul indicated that Christians are to “do good to all” (Galatians 6:10). (Are Christians who do good, “good” Christians?) Even Jesus stated previous to His encounter with the rich young ruler that “a good man out of the good treasure of his heart, brings forth good things” (Matthew 12:35). Thus, clearly when Jesus spoke to the wealthy ruler He was not using “good” in the sense of a man being “good.” Rather, He was using it in the sense of God beingabsolutely, supremely good. The kind of goodness to which He referred belonged only to God. The only way man can objectively call someone “good” is if there is an ultimate standard for goodness—the supreme, unblemished, good God.

Jesus never said what skeptics, Muslims, and others allege He said—that He was not good, or that He was not God. Instead, Jesus attempted to get the rich young ruler to see the implications of calling Him “good teacher.” Do good (merely) human teachers claim to be the Messiah? Do good menaccept worship and honor due only to God (John 5:23)? Do good men claim to have the power to forgive sins? Absolutely not! But Jesus had the power to forgive sins. He actually claimed to be the Messiah and accepted worship. So what was Jesus implying when He asked the young ruler, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God”? As Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe observed:

Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”… Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination (1992, p. 350).

To contend that Mark 10:18 proves that Jesus thought Himself to be neither morally perfect nor God is (1) to disregard the overall context of the Bible, (2) to twist the Scriptures like untaught and unstable people do—“to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16), and (3) to take a superficial reading of the text. Far from denying the deity of Christ, Mark 10:17-22 actually affirms it. The young ruler “called Christ a ‘good teacher,’ with no indication that he understood Jesus to be the Messiah. Jesus seized on the word ‘good,’ pointed out that if the man thought He was good, then He must be God” (Roper, 2:203), because only God is innately and supremely good.

REFERENCES

“The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus” (2014), A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam,http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-10-1.htm.

Carlson, Paul (1995), “New Testament Contradictions,” The Secular Web,http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html.

Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).

Lyons, Eric (2003), “Did Jesus Condone Law-Breaking?” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1276.

McKinsey, Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).

Miller, Dave (2004), “Situation Ethics,” Apologetics Press,https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1064.

Roper, David (2003), The Life of Christ (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).

"Why Do You Use Illustrations of People Taming Dinosaurs?" by Jeff Miller, Ph.D. Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1605

"Why Do You Use Illustrations of People Taming Dinosaurs?"

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D. Kyle Butt, M.Div.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and when it comes to dinosaurs, that certainly is the truth. Thousands of children across the globe have learned more about dinosaurs by flipping through picture books or graphic-laden magazine articles than they will ever learn by reading articles about these amazing creatures. Since we know this to be true, those of us at Apologetics Press often utilize graphics, pictures, and illustrations to teach the truth that dinosaurs and humans lived together in the past. In the process, we sometimes appropriate illustrations that portray humans and dinosaurs interacting with each other in various ways. We might have a picture of a person fighting a T-rex, watching an Apatosaurus run through the yard, or chasing a herd of Iguanodons. These illustrations, just like Bible pictures or many scientific illustrations, are not presented to say exactly how things were, but instead to illustrate, based on what we know, how things could have been.

For instance, when a scientific illustrator paints a picture of a dinosaur, he will often use different colors. But the color of a dinosaur is anybody’s guess. Would we accuse the illustrator of “error” simply because he painted a Stegosaurus with a red and yellow neck, even though such a detail is unknown? Of course not. We all understand that some aspects of an illustration are plausible, educated guesses, not facets designed to dogmatically demand that something was exactly a certain way. When a Bible illustrator draws a picture of David and Goliath and includes certain types of bushes or grass in the picture, is there any way to know that there was grass on the hillside if the text does not mention it? No. Nor are we suggesting that we know exactly what David and Goliath looked like. But we would not accuse an artist of “lying” because he painted grass in a realistic fashion on the side of a hill that most likely had some kind of vegetation on it.

The Apologetics Press poster of Lewis Lavoie's painting, "Deers in the Forest"

Coming to the point, recently Apologetics Press produced a poster of Lewis Lavoie’s painting “Deers in the Forest” (http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=450). The poster is a beautiful illustration of a child leading a plant-eating dinosaur through the woods with a rope and harness. Some who have seen the picture have questioned our use of such illustrations. They suggest that while we can know that humans and dinosaurs lived together in the past (see Lyons and Butt, 2008), we cannot know that a child ever pulled one with a rope. Thus, they contend that we are, at least in a minor way, “misleading” people who see the picture. If we have no record of a person ever pulling a dinosaur, why would we use such an illustration?

While we appreciate the conscientious nature of such a question, there is a good reason to use such illustrations. In James 3:7, the Bible says: “For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea is tamed and has been tamed by mankind” (emp. added). The original Greek term that is translated “reptile” is the word herpeton, from which we get the English word “herpetology” which is the study of amphibians and reptiles. Thus, it is saying that all kinds of animals, including reptiles have been tamed by mankind. [NOTE: The text is not saying that every animal has been tamed—not every individual grizzly bear has been tamed, or is even tamable. Rather, the text is giving a general statement that the different kinds of animals can be and have been tamed.] When we explore the book of Genesis, we discover that God had Adam name all the different kinds of animals (Genesis 3:20), including dinosaurs. In addition, God created humans with the ability to have dominion over all the animals (Genesis 1:26), including dinosaurs as well.

We can see mankind’s dominion over the animal world quite clearly. Trainers can teach vicious killer whales to perform tricks, they can teach lions to jump through fiery hoops, elephants to stand on tiny stumps, and bears to dance in the circus ring. If we know that mankind was given dominion over all the beasts from the beginning of creation, and we know that all kinds of animals, including reptiles, have been tamed by mankind, is it reasonable to conclude that humans tamed dinosaurs in the same way that other animals have been tamed? It certainly is. Of course, we are not suggesting that we know for a fact that a nine-year-old boy pulled a dinosaur through the woods during a harvest of exotic white flowers. Just as we are not saying that the boy had brown hair as a matter of factual history, or that the child was actually barefooted, or that the dinosaur that he pulled had the exact number of spots as the one in the picture. What we are saying is, given what we know, this is a plausible scenario that could describe a similar past event.

While many people mentally acknowledge the truth that humans and dinosaurs lived together in the past, they are often taken aback when an artistic illustration actually portrays that truth. Many Christians are, understandably, still being unconsciously affected by the standard portrait that evolutionists paint concerning the nature of dinosaurs. Evolutionists have long had a monopoly on dinosaur images in the marketplace. Secular children’s pictures, shows, and books about dinosaurs rarely depict humans in the presence of dinosaurs. When they do, it is projected as a humorous, unbelievable scenario such as in the Flintstones. The evolutionary propaganda often leaves the impression that dinosaurs were all gigantic, ferocious, carnivorous beasts—a description which is inaccurate. Furthermore, such a description does not lend itself to the idea that dinosaurs could co-habit the Earth in a peaceful way with humans. But the average size of a dinosaur was that of approximately a large cow or rhinoceros and many species were herbivores. Many people simply have not stopped to think through all of the implications of the available evidence concerning dinosaurs and mankind. If an elephant or a cow can be subdued, why not a dinosaur? Especially a medium-to-small sized herbivore like the one painted in our most recent poster.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, why not use that form of teaching to get across the truth that humans and dinosaurs lived in the past, and humans have tamed every kind of “beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea”? It is time to reclaim the minds of young people and paint a more accurate picture of history for them. Just think, one such illustration has the potential to accomplish as much or more than all the 1,120 words in this article you just read!

REFERENCE

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion (Montgomery: AL: Apologetics Press).

A Look at 1 Corinthians 7:15 by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4183

A Look at 1 Corinthians 7:15

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

A current misconception with regard to divorce and remarriage is the notion that 1 Corinthians 7:15 is “later revelation” which “modifies” or “clarifies” Matthew 19:9. It is argued that 1 Corinthians 7:15 permits the Christian, who is deserted by a non-Christian mate, to remarry on the sole ground of that desertion. On the other hand, Matthew 19:9, which permits remarriage only on the ground of fornication, applies strictly to a Christian married to a Christian and therefore is not to be considered applicable to the Christian who is married to a non-Christian. Several factors make such a viewpoint untenable:

First, the context of Matthew 19 is divorce (Matthew 19:3), while the context of 1 Corinthians 7 is notdivorce, but the propriety of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1ff.). Jesus applied God’s original marriage law (paraphrased from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in Matthew 19:4-6) to the question of divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19:9. But Paul applied God’s general marriage law (paraphrased in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11) to several different questions which relate to celibacy and the legitimacy of marriage for widows/widowers, Christian/non-­Christians, and singles.

Second, it is fallacious to hold that if 1 Corinthians 7:15 relates to a Christian married to a non-Christian, Matthew 19:9 must refer exclusively to a Christian married to a Christian. Matthew 19:9 was uttered in context to a group of Jews who were seeking an answer to their question concerningJewish divorce (Matthew 19:3). Jesus gave them an answer that was intended for them—as well as for all those who would live during the Christian age. He appealed to Genesis 2 which resides in a pre-Jewish context and clearly applies to all men—the totality of humanity. Genesis 2 is a human race context. It reveals God’s ideal will for human marriage for all of human history—pre-Mosaic, Mosaic, and Christian. Though divorce and remarriage for reasons other than fornication was “allowed” (though not endorsed—Matthew 19:8) during the Mosaic period, Jesus made clear that the Jews had strayed from the original ideal because of their hard hearts. He further emphasized (notice the use ofδε [“but”] in Matthew 19:8-9) that the original marriage law, which permitted divorce and remarriage for fornication alone, would be reaffirmed as applicable to all persons during the Christian age. Prior to the cross, ignorance may have been “unattended to” (Acts 17:30), that is, God did not have a universal law, as is the Gospel (Mark 16:15-16), but with the ratification of the New Testament, all men everywhere are responsible and liable for conforming themselves to God’s universal laws of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. God’s original marriage law was and is addressed to all people (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6). Christ’s application to the question of divorce was implied in the original law and is addressed to all people (Matthew 19:9). Paul’s application to questions of sex, celibacy, and non-Christian mates is addressed to all people (1 Corinthians 7). Scripture harmonizes beautifully and God treats all impartially. Thus “to the rest” (1 Corinthians 7:12) cannot be applying to other marriage relationships since Jesus had already referred to all marriages (whether Jew or non-Jew, Christian or non-Christian).

Third, 1 Corinthians 7 does not address different “classes” of marriages. The Corinthian letter was written in response to correspondence previously sent to Paul by the Corinthian (cf. 1:11; 5:1; 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1). Thus, 1 Corinthians amounts to a point-by-point response to matters previously raised by the Corinthians themselves. When Paul refers to the general question of sexual activity/celibacy (7:1), he is alluding to the method by which he is organizing his remarks in direct response to questions asked by the Corinthians. Thus, “to the rest” (7:12) refers to the rest of the matters or questions about which the Corinthians specifically inquired (and to which Jesus did not make specific application while on Earth). These matters (not marriages) are easily discernible from what follows. The “rest” of the questions would have included the following:

1. Should a Christian husband who has a non-Christian wife sever the relationship (vs. 12)?
2. Should a Christian wife who has a non-Christian husband sever the relationship (vs. 13)?
3. Are Christians somehow ceremon­ially defiled or rendered unclean by such a relationship (vs. 14)?
4. Are children born to such relation­ships ceremonially unclean (vs. 14)?
5. Is a Christian guilty of sin if his or her non-Christian mate severs the relationship (vss. 15-16)?
6. Does becoming a Christian mean that one should dissolve all conditions and relationships which were entered into before becoming a Christian (vss. 17-24)?
7. What should be the sexual and/or marital status of virgins and widows in light of the current period of distress (vss. 25-40)?

All of these questions may be answered in light of and in harmony with Jesus’ own remarks in Matthew 19. Jesus did not specifically make application to these unique instances. He did not address Himself to the application of God’s general marriage law to every possible scenario (specifically, to the spiritual status of a Christian married to a non-Christian). Yet, His teaching applies to every case of marriage on the question of divorce.

Fourth, the specific context of 1 Corinthians 7:15 relates to the person who becomes a Christian, but whose mate does not. The unbeliever now finds himself married to a different person (in the sense that his mate underwent a total change in thinking and morals, and began to live a completely different lifestyle). The unbeliever consequently issues an ultimatum, demanding that his mate make a choice: “either give up Christ, or I’m leaving!” Yet, to live in marriage with an unbeliever who makes continuance of the marriage dependent upon the believer’s capitulation (i.e., compromise of Christian responsibility or neglect of divinely-ordained duty) would amount to slavery (i.e., “bondage”—being forced to forego the Christian life). But neither at the time the marriage was contracted, nor at the present time, has the Christian been under that kind of bondage (such is the force of the perfect indicative passive in Greek). God never intended or approved the notion that marriage is slavery. Christians are slaves only to God—never to men or mates (Matthew 23:10; Romans 6:22; Ephesians 6:6; Colossians 3:24; Philemon 16; 1 Corinthians 7:15). So, Paul is saying that, though a believer ismarried to an unbeliever (and continues to be so), the believer is not to compromise his or her discipleship. To do so, to back away from faithful loyalty to Christ, at the insistence of the unbelieving mate, would constitute a form of slavery which was never God’s intention for marriage. To suggest that δεδουλωται (“bondage, enslaved, reduced to servitude”) refers to the marriage bond is to maintain that in some sense and in some cases the marriage bond is to be viewed as a state ofslavery. But God does not want us to view our marital unions as slave relationships in which we are “under bondage.” Yes, if our marriage is scriptural, we are “bound” (δεο—1 Corinth­ians 7:27,39; cf. Romans 7:2), but we’re not “enslaved” (1 Corinthians 7:15). So Paul was not commenting on the status of a believer’s marital status (i.e., whether bound or loosed). Rather, he was commenting on the status of a believer’s spiritual responsibilities as a Christian in the context of marital turmoil generated by the non-Christian mate and calculated to derail the Christian’s faithfulness to Christ. Paul was answering the question: “How does being married to a non-Christian affect my status as a Christian if he/she threatens to leave?” He was not answering the question: “How does being married to a non-Christian affect my status as a husband/wife (with the potential for remarriage) when the non-Christian departs?” Jesus already answered that question in Matthew 19:9—divorce and remarriage is permitted only upon the basis of your mate’s sexual unfaithfulness. Paul, too, spoke more directly to this question back in verses 10-11 when he ruled out remarriage.

Summarizing, though God’s marriage law is stringent (for everybody), and though God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), neverthe­less, there are times when an unbelieving mate will actually force the believer to make a choice between Christ and the unbelieving mate. To choose the mate over Christ—to acquiesce to the non-Christian mate’s demand to compromise one’s faithfulness in any area of obligation to God—would be to subject oneself to, and to transform the marriage into, a state of slavery (i.e., “bondage”). Yet, the believer is not now and never has been in such enslavement. Thus, the believer must let the unbeliever exit the relationship in peace. The believer must “let him depart”—in the sense that the believer must not seek to prevent his departure by compromising his loyalty to Christ. Of course, the Christian would continue to hold out hope that the marriage could be saved. If, however, the non-Christian forms a sexual union with another, the Christian is permitted the right to exercise the injunction of Matthew 19:9 by putting away the non-Christian solely on the grounds of fornication, freeing the innocent Christian to marry an eligible person.

Fifth, one final factor to consider. Verses 17-24 cannot be requiring an individual to remain in whatever marital state he or she is in at the time of conversion. Paul uses the examples of slavery and circumcision to show that, merely because a person becomes a Christian, he is not absolved of his pre-Christian circumstances. If he is a slave prior to baptism, he will continue to be a slave afterbaptism, and should not think that becoming a Christian gives him the right to shirk his legal status as a slave. Such is why Paul instructed Onesimus to return to his position of servitude (Philemon 12). So, Paul was encouraging the person who becomes a Christian, but whose mate does not become a Christian, to remain in that marriage rather than think that becoming a Christian somehow gives him or her the right to sever the relationship with the non-Christian mate. Being married to a non-Christian mate is not sinful in and of itself (see Miller, 2002). But Paul was not placing his stamp of approval upon relationships, practices, and conditions that were sinful prior to baptism and encouraging Christians to remain in those relationships. Such would contradict what he later tells the Corinthians concerning unequal yokes (2 Corinthians 6:17) and repentance (2 Corinthians 7:8-10). He was referring to relationships and conditions that were not sinful prior to baptism. Christians still have the same obligations to conduct themselves appropriately (i.e., according to God’s laws) within those pre-conversion situations, though they have now become Christians. Such instructions apply to anyrelationship, practice, or condition that was not sinful (i.e., in violation of Christ’s laws) prior to baptism. But this directive does not apply to any practice or relationship that was sinful prior to baptism (i.e., adultery, homo­sexuality, evil business practices, etc. cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

May God grant us the humility and determination to conform our lives to His will concerning marriage—no matter how “narrow” it may seem (Matthew 7:14). May the church of our day be spared any further harm that comes from the promotion of false theories and doctrines which are calculated to re-define God’s will as “wide” and “broad” (Matthew 7:13). May we truly seek to please, not men, but God (Galatians 1:10).

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2002), “Be Not Unequally Yoked,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=431&topic=37.

Hazor and Old Testament Accuracy by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=389&b=Joshua

Hazor and Old Testament Accuracy

by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

The city of Hazor lay almost nine miles north of the Sea of Galilee. During the time of Joshua, it was a Canaanite stronghold in northern Palestine. In the conquest of Canaan, as Joshua marched his army northward, he was confronted by a coalition of forces under the leadership of Jabin, King of Hazor. The biblical record declares that the Israelite army resoundingly defeated this confederation and burned Hazor to the ground (Joshua 11:1-14).

In excavations at Hazor (1955-1958, 1968), Yigael Yadin discovered evidence that this city had been destroyed in the thirteenth century B.C. He identified it with Joshua’s conquest. The problem with this assertion is this: it does not harmonize with scriptural chronology regarding the time of the Exodus from Egypt. The data contained in 1 Kings 6:1 indicate that the Exodus occurred some 480 years prior to the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (c. 966 B.C.), thus in the mid-fifteenth century B.C. Liberal critics, subscribing to the documentary hypothesis, simply dismiss 1 Kings 6:1 as an addition of some later time, and therefore chronologically worthless. It is interesting to note, however, that “the name of the month which appears in that text is the archaic form of the name and not the late one” (Davis, 1971, p. 29).

But the fact of the matter is, Professor Yadin’s discoveries revealed that there were two destructions at Hazor: one in the thirteenth century B.C. and another in the fifteenth century B.C. (Avi-Yonah, 1976, 2:481-482). Actually, this is precisely the picture presented in the Old Testament.

In addition to the conquest of Hazor during the time of Joshua in the mid-fifteenth century B.C., two centuries later, in the period of Israel’s judges, the Israelites again engaged the King of Hazor in battle. Under the leadership of Deborah and Barak (c. 1258B.C.), the armies of Hazor, under Sisera, were decisively defeated (Judges 4:2ff.), and as professor Siegfried H. Horn observed, “undoubtedly Hazor was destroyed” (Horn, 1963, p. 31).

Once more, the precise accuracy of the biblical record has been vindicated, and the charges of liberal critics have been shown to be baseless.

REFERENCES

Avi-Yonah, Michael, et al. (1976), Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Davis, John J. (1975), Moses and the Gods of Egypt (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Horn, Siegfried H. (1963), Records of the Past Illuminate the Bible (Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald).

From Roy Davison... What are Spiritual Disciplines?

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/whatarespiritualdisciplines.html

What are Spiritual Disciplines?

The Scriptures do not mention ‘spiritual disciplines’. The word ‘discipline’ does occur in the Bible, but with a different meaning.
Biblical discipline
Discipline is chastisement to discourage improper behavior. Parents discipline their children and God disciplines His children: “He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly” (Proverbs 13:24); “You should know in your heart that as a man chastens his son, so the LORD your God chastens you” (Deuteronomy 8:5); “For whom the LORD loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives” (Hebrews 12:6; see verses 5-11); “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent” (Revelation 3:19).
One can discipline himself: “When I wept and chastened my soul with fasting, that became my reproach” (Psalm 69:10); “But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified” (1 Corinthians 9:27).

A religious standard of conduct
The word ‘discipline’ in the expression ‘spiritual disciplines’ refers to a religious standard of conduct. This usage originates, not from the Bible, but from eastern religions and Roman Catholic mysticism.
The Buddhist ‘Vinaya’ can be translated as the Buddhist ‘Discipline’. A Buddhist monk must observe 227 training rules. A regular Buddhist has five rules.
Hindu and Catholic monasteries also have their ‘disciplines’ consisting of training rules, prohibitions, allowances and regulations that govern daily conduct.
In this sense, a discipline is a regimentation involving a technique or methodology intended to accomplish greater spirituality and closeness to God.
Mysticism involves spiritual ‘exercises’ that supposedly bring one closer to God in a direct personal ‘better felt than told’ way.
Disciplines almost always involve an hierarchy. One has a ‘spiritual director’ or ‘spiritual mentor’ who is supposedly more advanced and closer to God who helps one with his ‘spiritual formation’. This violates the command of Christ: “But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ” (Matthew 23:8-10). No one but Jesus is qualified to be our spiritual director or spiritual mentor. Anyone who sets himself up as such is a usurper.
Disciplines are usually elitist. Those who practice the disciplines consider themselves ‘more spiritual’ and ‘closer to God’ than others who do not practice them.
Disciplines are attractive to many people because they promise increased spirituality and communion with God.
By studying and applying the Scriptures we can accomplish these worthy goals. We can exercise ourselves toward godliness (1 Timothy 4:7). We can “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).
Disciplines, however, promise increased spirituality by means of humanly devised practices. Disciplines usually make reference to certain portions of Scripture, sometimes validly but often accompanied by misinterpretation. In substance, however, they are human formulations.
What did Jesus say about this approach to religion? “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’” (Matthew 15:7-9).
Disciplines have an appearance of wisdom but are worthless
In the first century some who were “vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind” (Colossians 2:18) were trying to impose their rules and regulations on Christians. Paul responded: “Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations -- ‘Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,’ which all concern things which perish with the using -- according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh” (Colossians 2:20-23).
What is the source of these ideas?
In the Catholic church, each order has its own discipline. You can take your pick: Augustinians (several different kinds), Carmelites (two kinds: with bare feet in sandals or with shoes and socks), Franciscans (several different kinds), Dominicans, Carthusians, Hieronymites, Cistercians, Trappists (the strictest branch of the Cistercians), Baladites, Benedictines, Basilians.
Non-Catholics in general have claimed that the whole Bible is their ‘rule of conduct’ not a set of man-made rules of devotion.
Certain groups, however, such as the Quakers are mystic religions with man-made rules and regulations (‘The Discipline of the Society of Friends’) intended to increase morality and communion with God. Quakers have periods of silence in their assemblies when they ‘wait for The Inward Teacher to speak to them’. They call this ‘expectant waiting’. When someone ‘gets a message’ they (men or women) stand up and pass the message on to the others. This message is viewed as coming from God.
The concept of ‘the Spiritual Disciplines’ was promoted by the Quaker, Richard J. Foster in his 1978 book, ‘Celebration of Discipline, the Path to Spiritual Growth’. He praised Medieval Catholic mystics who, according to him, had a closeness to God that we cannot attain unless we use similar techniques. Since ‘the Spiritual Disciplines’ do not come from the Bible, each proponent has his own list. Foster sub-divided them into ‘inward, outward and corporate’. Dallas Willard sub-divides his list into ‘Disciplines of Abstinence’ and ‘Disciplines of Engagement’. Another influential writer is Donald Whitney with his book ‘Disciplines for the Christian Life’ (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1991). Existential mysticism is advocated by some: develop your own set of practices that work for you. 
Each writer has his own list of ‘the spiritual disciplines’. Prayer is included but mystic ‘prayer’ is different from Biblical prayer. A mystic thinks God speaks directly to him when he prays. Other ‘disciplines’ such as simplicity, solitude and silence are borrowed from Catholic mystics such as the Trappist Cistercians. Each of these items is mentioned in Scripture in distinctive contexts, but they are never presented as ‘spiritual disciplines’. 
For the mystic, silence is not just silence. Tilden Edwards, founder of the ‘Shalem Institute for Spiritual Formation’ writes: “In its fullness silence itself is participation in God’s being, which is the depth of our own being.” He quotes John of the Cross that ‘silence is God’s first language’, and Mother Teresa that ‘silence is God speaking to us’, and Meister Eckhart that ‘there is nothing so like God as silence’. He concludes: “Silence thus is living, pregnant, sacred space.” Contemplative Possibilities in Corporate Worship/Liturgy by Tilden Edwards.
‘Contemplative Spirituality’ has been promoted in various forms among churches of Christ. Lipscomb University has an ‘Institute for Christian Spirituality’ with a ‘Spiritual Direction’ program led by Associate Director Jackie L. Halstead. Their brochure states: “She holds certificates from two programs with the Shalem Institute -- ‘Spiritual Guidance’ and ‘Leading Contemplative Prayer Groups and Retreats’, and is a member of the Lay Cistercians of Gethsemani Abbey.”
The web site of the latter states: “The Abbey of Gethsemani” follows “Christ under a rule and an abbot. We Trappist monks lead lives of prayer, work, and sacred reading, steeped in the heart and mystery of the Church. The Abbey is a monastery in the Order of the Cistercians of the Strict Observance (OCSO), part of the body of the Roman Catholic Church.” Notice that they follow Christ “under a rule and an abbot”. Their rule is the ‘Rule of Benedict’ which consists of 73 chapters.
Jackie “is a member of the Lay Cistercians of Gethsemani Abbey.” This is what their web site says about membership: “We welcome any Christian adult who feels called to live a lay contemplative lifestyle in the spirit of the Rule of St. Benedict and the Cistercian tradition.”
The Shalem Institute for Spiritual Formation states the following about their mission: “We trust that God is immediately present, and lovingly, liberatingly active and responsive in our lives. This Presence is always available to guide us toward being our deepest, truest selves in God.”
Mr. William C. Dietrich, who was Executive Director and Senior Faculty Member of the ‘Shalem Institute for Spiritual Formation’ for many years, is a Quaker who is also a council officer (the treasurer) of the ‘Silver Spring Zendo One Heart Sangha’, a Buddhist congregation.
The difference between mystic prayer and Biblical prayer
Not only is the whole idea of having humanly devised rules and practices condemned by the Bible, but mystic prayer expects direct guidance from God at the time of prayer. Did you notice this in the quotation from the Shalem Institute? “God is immediately present ... This Presence is always available to guide us toward being our deepest, truest selves in God.”
Jesus taught His followers how to pray (Luke 11:1-4). Paul wrote: “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God” (Philippians 4:6).
Mystic prayer includes being silent and listening for what God wants to whisper to you. Another designation for ‘listening prayer’ is ‘contemplative prayer’. Often, people are encouraged to have a notepad with them when they pray to write down anything God might tell them. This is called ‘journaling’. 
Stacey S. Padrick in ‘The Listening Side of Prayer’ says there are two techniques for listening to God. One is through His word. The other is by ‘journaling’. He suggests that we write out questions for God, meditate in silence, and then write down the responses that come in answer to the questions. He suggests that we should then discuss these replies with other believers to discern whether they are really from God!
Such a ridiculous idea is not found in the Scriptures. We make our requests known to God in prayer. He speaks to us through the holy Scriptures which equip the man of God for every good work. We do read about people who walk “according to the dictates of their own hearts” (Jeremiah 9:14) and prophets who “speak a vision of their own hearts” (Jeremiah 23:16, 26; Ezekiel 13:2, 17).
We must observe the warning and statement of Paul: “But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 2:13-17).
Beware of mystic Bible study
In connection with ‘Contemplative Spirituality’ a subjective approach to Bible study is often advocated. After reading a passage, the mystic waits and ‘opens his heart' to hear what God wants to tell him about that passage. This is promoted as being ‘God-centered Bible study’ but it is actually ‘man centered’. Certainly it is good to consider what a passage means and how it ought to be applied in one’s life. But God speaks in and through the Scriptures, not separately afterwards! If it is not in the Scriptures, it is not from God. If you long for something more than the Scriptures, you are opening up your heart, not to God, but to your own imaginations and even to satanic influences.
This approach is called ‘Transformative Bible Study’. This is how Rhonda Lowry (wife of the president of Lipscomb University) says she prepares for such study, as reported by John Mark Hicks in his blog of July 8, 2008:
“Before we can read Scripture transformatively, we must settle ourselves. We must rid ourselves of the busy-ness of life, focus on the task at hand, and seek God.
“I seek this with some meditative breathing exercises and prayer. To encounter God in the present, we need to be ‘in’ the present (rather than letting our mind wander back to the past or planning the future). I find the easiest way to do this for me is to pray the ‘Jesus prayer’ with rhythmic breathing. As I inhale I address Jesus with these words ‘Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God,’ and as I exhale I pray ‘have mercy on me, a sinner.’ I do this repeatedly until calm enters my soul, everything else is excluded from my consciousness, and I sense some focus on God’s comforting presence. It is an experience of calm. This prepares me to hear the text.”
Where in the holy Scriptures, which equip the man of God completely for every good work (2 Timothy 3:17), are we instructed to prepare for prayer or Bible study by means of breathing exercises?
Mysticism downplays doctrine
Jesus said: “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 3:31, 32). John warned: “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).
A mystic tends to consider doctrinal soundness unimportant because he thinks he can commune directly with God in silence without words.
Mystics of widely differing doctrinal backgrounds (even including heathen mystics) often feel a closer bond with one another than they feel with non-mystics in their own fellowship.
Referring to the ‘Shalem Institute for Spiritual Formation’, which is composed of mystics from many different religious denominations, Jackie Halstead wrote in her blog on October 16, 2010: “Next leg was five days at the Shalem gathering in Maryland. How do I describe this community of believers? My faith community, soul friends, people of my heart.”
Mysticism gives false hope. Many of the people at Shalem have never been born again according to the teaching of Christ. Yet, they all think they have close communion with God! They also think they are more spiritual than others who have been “born again of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5) but who do not espouse ‘contemplative spirituality’.
The Mystic Theologian Adolphe Tanquerey writes that mental prayer “is the most effective means of assuring one's salvation” (The Spiritual Life, A Treatise on Ascetical and Mystical Theology, #673).
Ritualism and mysticism enable people to feel close to God when their hearts are far from Him: “These people draw near to me with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men” (Isaiah 29:13).
‘Spiritual disciplines’ are unspiritual
The Holy Spirit commands us through Peter: “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). Since ‘Spiritual Disciplines’ are not in the Scriptures, they are not beneficial for spiritual growth. God condemns subjection to human disciplines and designates them as unspiritual, ‘basic principles of the world’ (Colossians 2:20-23).
Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

From Gary... What MOVES you?

Voodoo child gone Asian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfOHjeI-Bns

Well, I just was doing my morning perusal of facebook, when I came across this video. WOW!!!! This puts a new spin on an old classic- AND IT MADE HENDRIX SOUND GREAT!!!  Who would have ever thought adapting Hendrix music to a Korean instrument would be so enjoyable?

OK, so I like some Rock n Roll, it just reminds me of my youth and how I the music molded and shaped me. And Yes, I like classical, R&B, a little country and even some Stevie Wonder for flavor. And YES, its good to focus on the the basics- something that just MOVES you.

The same is true for our faith. Remember your attitude towards God the day you became a Christian? How you felt? What you realized you had to look forward to?

Peter did this, and so can you...

2 Peter, Chapter 1 (WEB)

  1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:  2 Grace to you and peace be multiplied in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,  3 seeing that his divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and virtue;  4 by which he has granted to us his precious and exceedingly great promises; that through these you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust.  5 Yes, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence; and in moral excellence, knowledge;  6 and in knowledge, self-control; and in self-control patience; and in patience godliness;  7 and in godliness brotherly affection; and in brotherly affection, love.  8 For if these things are yours and abound, they make you to be not idle nor unfruitful to the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.  9 For he who lacks these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins.  10 Therefore, brothers, be more diligent to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never stumble.  11 For thus you will be richly supplied with the entrance into the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. 

  12  Therefore I will not be negligent to remind you of these things, though you know them, and are established in the present truth.  13 I think it right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you; 

Christianity is about God and you being PERFECT TOGETHER!!! Its about you transforming in the creature GOD had in mind. It will affect every part of your being and you will be MOVED!!!

And the song is great too!!!!

By the way- 3.9 million hits and growing!!!