8/22/16

A God Like That by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=906

A God Like That

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

If a hundred atheists, agnostics, or unbelievers were asked why they do not believe in God, they might give a hundred different reasons. Certainly, no single reason has emerged as the quintessential answer for unbelief. The problem of evil, pain, and suffering would rank at the top of the list, as well as the claim that “religion” is unscientific.

There is, however, another primary reason that many people give for not believing in the God of the Bible. They say that they would believe in a god if he acted different than the one in the Bible, but they simply “cannot” believe in a god that would act like the one discussed in the “holy book.” An excellent example of this argument comes from an article written by Ronald Defenbaugh. In it, he chronicled his life, pointing out specific times when his unbelief was confirmed by a particular action or idea taught by a “religious” individual or institution. In a paragraph detailing his early years of raising a family, he stated:

One evening, a friend about the same age as us rode home with us from one of our children’s sporting events. This was the first time I realized I may have a real problem with believing. She was a good friend of my spouse’s, a member of our Church and very religious. I don’t remember how the subject came up but salvation was our subject of conversation. She stated that even though my father had been an honest, caring person who did nothing but good, he would not receive salvation. He could only go to Heaven if he accepted Christ as his Savior. I remember thinking that I wanted no part of a deity that sent my father to Hell under those circumstances. Why would a baby, or my father, or even me be sent to Hell just because we didn’t accept Christ as our Savior? What about the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists? Again, what about me? This started me thinking that I probably was without belief. Or at least I didn’t understand it. It didn’t fit my logic (2003).

While his reference to God sending a baby to hell is without any biblical support, his understanding of the teaching of the concept that the God of the Bible will send to hell all individuals who have reached the age of accountability (the level of mental maturity at which a person is capable of understanding the concept of his or her own sin) and who have not accepted Jesus Christ, is absolutely accurate (John 8:24). Understanding this precept very clearly, he stated that he “wanted no part of a deity” like that. It is almost as if he is implying that if the God of the Bible were a little different, or if He better “fit” Defenbaugh’s own ideas, then he might be willing to believe in such a God.

Let’s analyze this position. Those who “cannot” believe in a God like the one in the Bible, conveniently accept as true all the characteristics of God that make Him look like a heartless tyrant. For instance, they accept that the God of the Bible is a deity Who has ordered executions of “immoral” nations that do not worship Him. They also accept that the God of the Bible will confine certain individuals to eternal destruction due to the “wrong” decisions of those individuals. (The word wrong is in quotation marks because the actions the Bible labels as wrong and the actions accepted as wrong by many unbelievers often are quite different.) After flipping through the Bible and compiling a list of all the things that they think a true god should not do, they then declare that they cannot believe in a god that would do such things.

In doing this, they neglect to accept the other characteristics of the God of the Bible that would make acceptable His actions and decisions. For instance, 1 John 3:20 states that God “knows everything.” There is not an unbeliever alive who would claim to know everything. Could it be that the things known by the God of the Bible, which are unknown to the skeptic, might just be the very things that could sufficiently explain God’s actions? Isaiah 55:8-9 states: “ ‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.’ ” If the skeptic accepts from the Bible the ideas about God with which he disagrees, is he not equally obligated to accept the statements about God that explain the depth of God’s character? If the thoughts of God and the ways of God are far above all the ways of man, could it be that, in the great cosmic scheme of things, an all-knowing God might have some plans of which the skeptic is not fully informed?

To postulate a capricious God Who confines people to eternal destruction simply because those people do not “dot a few i’s” or “cross a few t’s” seems an easy straw man to destroy. Yet, when the “rest of the story” is told, the picture becomes much clearer. The fuller portrait of the God of the Bible is of a deity Who is all knowing (1 John 3:20) everlastingly righteous (Psalm 119:142), loving (John 3:16), compassionate and merciful (James 5:11), anxious for all men to be saved (2 Peter 3:9), and willing to give them numerous opportunities to do so (Acts 17:26-27).

The later portion of Defenbaugh’s article reveals the true essence of rejecting the God of the Bible. Defenbaugh commented that atheism “means no belief—no belief at all, godly, ungodly or otherwise. No Satan, Hell, Heaven, God, Jesus, Angel, Holy Ghost, no nothing. I am free of all constraints. The only person I have to answer to is Man—each man.” Once again, Defenbaugh hit the nail on the head when it came to his concept of the God of the Bible. God demands certain things from His human creation. But since Defenbaugh does not want to comply with those things, he has chosen instead to disbelieve, so that he can be “free of all constraints.” Yes, it truly is easy to answer “each man” since all human opinion carries equal weight. But “God is not a man” (Numbers 23:19), and “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25). In reality, after the Bible’s entire picture of God is allowed to shine through, in all its glory, no other god could measure up to “a God like that.”

REFERENCES

Defenbaugh, Ronald (2003), “Why I Couldn’t Deconvert,” [On-line], URL: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=263.

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” (Greek agathos) 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 being absolutely, 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 goodmen accept 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).

"Those Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, Wicked Creationists" by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=161

"Those Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, Wicked Creationists"

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

The attack is on. It’s not the first time. And if history teaches us anything, it will not be the last. Evolutionists are mad. But they do not intend to just “get angry”; they intend to “get even.” The walls of their Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around them. They know it. They’ve known it for a long, long time. The problem is, now other people are figuring it out as well. A lot of other people! The time to act has come. Take off the gloves. Get down. Get mean. Get dirty. Win—at all cost!

Creationism has been making far too much headway, in far too many places—with far too much favorable publicity. Sound the battle call. Rally the troops. Call out the reserves. Enlist the allies. Engage the enemy. Press forward. Refuse to retreat!

What enemy? The late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to that enemy as the “militant fundamentalists who label themselves with the oxymoron ‘scientific creationists,’ and try to sneak their Genesis literalism into high school classrooms under the guise of scientific dissent.” Dr. Gould complained: “I’m used to their rhetoric, their dishonest mis-and half-quotations, their constant repetition of ‘useful’ arguments that even they must recognize as nonsense.” Yet, he explained to his fellow evolutionists, “our struggle with these ideologues is political, not intellectual.” And last, he said he refused to engage in dialog with creationists, but rather chose instead to deal with “our allies among people committed to reason and honorable argument”—a description that, from Gould’s vantage point, apparently would exclude creationists by definition (1987, 8[1]:64, emp. added).

And it gets worse. Richard Dawkins, the enraged evolutionist of Oxford University, put it this way: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” [1989, p. 3, emp. added].

Now comes John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American, to enter the fray. In the July 2002 issue, Mr. Rennie penned an article titled “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense” in which he caricatured creationism, while feebly attempting to bolster the increasingly faltering theory of organic evolution. Joining Mr. Rennie is Thomas Hayden, a staff writer for U.S. News & World Report who authored the cover story of the magazine’s July 29, 2002 issue (“A Theory Evolves”)—a feature plainly intended to “strike back” at creationists, as Hayden made clear when he echoed the evolutionists’ party line: “The evidence against evolution amounts to little more than ‘I can’t imagine it.’ That’s not evidence. That’s just giving up” (133[4]:50).

Well, gentlemen, I have news for you. We are not giving up! You have thrown down the gauntlet; we will not hesitate to pick it up. You have drawn the line in the sand; we will not shrink from crossing it. Your bullying tactics and name calling may intimidate some and impress others. It accomplishes neither with us. We know what you are trying to do, and we know why you are trying to do it. We know about your “hidden agenda.”

Your compatriot, geneticist Richard Lewontin of Harvard, let it slip in his 1997 review of Carl Sagan’s posthumously published book, Billions and Billions, when he admitted that evolutionists “have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” (1997, p. 31, emp. added).

Just as we thought all along! You must find a way—organic evolution—to rid yourself of that “Divine Foot in the door.” Nice to see you finally admit it. Well, once again, gentlemen, I have news for you. God’s foot is in the door, whether you like it or not—all your attempts to prevent it notwithstanding. And there is nothing you can say or do to stop it, because neither He, nor we, will be going “quietly into the night.” Not now. Not ever. Yes, the attack is on. But we are at the vanguard of that attack. You are losing the battle—and you will lose the war! Truth always triumphs over error.

REFERENCES

Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review” (of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Blueprint), The New York Times, section 7, April 9.

Gould, Stephen J. (1987), “Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory,”Discover, 8[1]:64-65,68-70, January.

Hayden, Thomas (2002), “A Theory Evolves,” U.S. News & World Report, 133[4]:42-50, July 29.

Lewontin, Richard (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9.

[NOTE: Our responses to both U.S. News & World Report and Scientific American in this issue of Reason & Revelation are the abbreviated versions. To view or download the complete, uncut versions, please click here for the U.S. News & World Report refutation, or click here for theScientific American rebuttal.] — Bert Thompson

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 remarriageonly 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 not divorce, 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 concerning Jewish 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 of δε [“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:

Should a Christian husband who has a non-Christian wife sever the relationship (vs. 12)?
Should a Christian wife who has a non-Christian husband sever the relationship (vs. 13)?
Are Christians somehow ceremonially defiled or rendered unclean by such a relationship (vs. 14)?
Are children born to such relationships ceremonially unclean (vs. 14)?
Is a Christian guilty of sin if his or her non-Christian mate severs the relationship (vss. 15-16)?
Does becoming a Christian mean that one should dissolve all conditions and relationships which were entered into before becoming a Christian (vss. 17-24)?
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 is married 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 slaverywhich 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 of slavery. 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 slaveafter baptism, 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 any relationship, 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.

Jesus' Sermon on...the Mount or the Plain? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=800&b=Luke

Jesus' Sermon on...the Mount or the Plain?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the introductory comments to Jesus’ oft’-quoted sermon recorded in Matthew chapters 5-7, the first verse sets the stage for His “astonishing teachings.” Matthew indicates that “seeing the multitudes,” Jesus “went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him” (emp. added). When Luke gives the setting for Jesus’ masterful sermon, he says that Jesus “came down with them and stood on a level place” (emp. added). The question that has been asked by many people is why Matthew recorded Jesus preaching this sermon from a mountain, while Luke said it was while He stood on a level place. Could Matthew or Luke have made a legitimate geographical error here, or is there a reasonable explanation for the difference that exists?

First of all, for these passages to be contradictory one must assume the two sermons were delivered at the same place and at the same time. But, as H. Leo Boles stated in his commentary on Luke, this sermon “may have been repeated a number of times and Luke gives a record of the sermon which was repeated at some later time than the record given by Matthew” (1940, p. 134). It is more than possible that Jesus repeated His teachings on various occasions. He easily could have preached the beatitudes in Capernaum as well as in Cana. He could have taught the model prayer in both Bethany and Bethsaida. Who are we to say that Jesus preached the principles and commands found in Matthew 5-7 only once? There are some men today who travel to a different city nearly every week preaching the same sermons—and do so effectively. Could Jesus not have done something similar?

A more likely solution to this geographical “problem” is simply to understand that Matthew and Luke were referring to the same sermon, and that Jesus was preaching it while being both on a mountain and on a “plain” (KJV) at the same time. The word “plain” (tópou pedinoú) simply means “ level place” (Wycliffe, 1985), and is translated thusly in nearly all modern versions of the Bible. Since a mountain can have level places on it, no one can assert logically that Matthew 5:1 and Luke 6:17 are contradictory. I have been to the top of a mountain in Anchorage, Alaska, that is so level it is known as “Flattop Mountain.” To say Jesus stood on a level place on a mountain is no oxymoron.

REFERENCES

Boles, H. Leo (1940), A Commentary on the Gospel According to Luke (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1985), Electronic Database: Biblesoft.

The Lord your God is testing you by Roy Davison

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

The Lord your God is testing you

“The LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deuteronomy 13:3).

Our life is a testing-ground for eternity. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10).

We need to examine ourselves.

In preparation for a test, students review their work and check their knowledge. We must examine ourselves to see whether we are meeting God’s expectations. “Let us search out and examine our ways, and turn back to the LORD” (Lamentations 3:40). “Let each one examine his own work” (Galatians 6:4). “Let a man examine himself” (1 Corinthians 11:28). “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith.¹ Test yourselves” (2 Corinthians 13:5).

To effectively examine ourselves, it is helpful to know how God has tested mankind through the ages so we can understand how He is testing us now.

God tests everyone, including the righteous.

“His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men. The LORD tests the righteous” (Psalm 11:4, 5).

Belshazzar, king of Babylon, was terrified when he saw the handwriting on the wall: “Mene, mene, tekel, uphasin.” Daniel explained that “tekel” meant, “You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting” (see Daniel 5:25-28).

The most severe tests in the Bible were experienced by men of faith. Abraham was asked to offer his son;² Job lost his children, lost his possessions, and his body was covered “with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head”;³Joseph⁴ was sold into slavery by his own brothers and was imprisoned unjustly because of his integrity; Daniel was thrown in the lion’s den for faithfully praying to God.

These servants of God were strengthened by the trials they endured, and became examples of faith for others to follow down through the ages.

God tests our hearts and minds.

“The righteous God tests the hearts and minds” (Psalm 7:9). “The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, but the LORD tests the hearts” (Proverbs 17:3).⁵

God explains: “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings” (Jeremiah 17:10).

God tests our faith and love.

“Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance” (James 1:2, 3 NASB). When we remain faithful in spite of “various trials” it proves “the genuineness” of our faith (1 Peter 1:6, 7).

“The LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deuteronomy 13:3).

Faith and love are tested by obedience.

Abraham was tested to know whether he feared God. “Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham” (Genesis 22:1). After Abraham showed his willingness to offer Isaac, God said: “Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me” (Genesis 22:12).

God gave the Sabbath command to test Israel. They were to gather manna on six days, but not on the seventh, “that I may test them, whether they will walk in My law or not” (Exodus 16:4).

Jesus said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15).

Faith and love are tested by hardship.

Israel was tested in the wilderness: “You shall remember that the LORD your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD” (Deuteronomy 8:2, 3).⁶

Going through the Red Sea prefigured our baptism (1 Corinthians 10:1, 2). Entering the promised land prefigured our final rest (Hebrews 4:8-11). God tests us during our wanderings through the wilderness of this life.

God sometimes withdraws to test us.

Hezekiah, one of the most faithful kings of Judah, was tested in this way: “God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart” (2 Chronicles 32:31).

Do you sometimes feel that God has forsaken you? He may be testing your faith and love. Remember that Jesus also felt forsaken by God when He was hanging on the cross for you (Matthew 27:46).

The Messiah refines His people by fire.

Referring to the promised Christ, God warned: “But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like launderers’ soap.⁷ He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver; He will purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver” (Malachi 3:2, 3).⁸

Metals are purged and refined by fire to remove impurities. Silver melts at 962°C. Gold melts at 1064°C.

When I was thirteen our class visited the Kaiser Steel Mill at Fontana, California. I vividly remember the white-hot liquid metal flowing from the bottom of the blast furnace into moulds. Huge hammers pounded large, red-hot ingots into glowing flat slabs of steel that were then rolled under great pressure into sheets. Heat and pressure are required to produce steel sheeting from iron ore.

Heat and pressure of a different kind refine the people of God. “Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction” (Isaiah 48:10).

Jesus himself “learned obedience by the things which He suffered” (Hebrews 5:8) and His followers share in His suffering. “Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12).

“Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy” (1 Peter 4:12, 13).

Jesus comforted the believers at Smyrna: “Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10).

The fruitfulness of our faith is tested.

Jesus said: “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit” (John 15:1, 2).

Notice that all branches are cut. The fruitless are chopped off, the fruitful are pruned.

Our work will be tested by fire.

Paul writes: “I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation withgold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is” (1 Corinthians 3:10-13).

This does not refer to our own salvation⁹ but to God’s testing those we teach. How we preach and worship can influence the type of people we attract and whether we build with straw or with precious stones.

Apostate churches use worldly means to entice people, such as imposing buildings, pageantry with colorful costumes, and instrumental music.

Some congregations build with straw by using worldly attractions to entice people, for example, with what they call a “contemporary service” with loud instrumental music. One young woman, who had attended such a service at what once had been a church of Christ, said, “It was great! We were up dancing¹⁰ on the tables!”

Some use worldly allurements to attract people in the hope that eventually their attention might be redirected to spiritual things. But how spiritual is this approach? Can we picture Paul and Barnabas playing “Christian rock” to draw a crowd?

Jesus said: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself” (John 12:32). Paul declared: “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).

They who resort to worldly attractions lack faith in the drawing power of Christ and the gospel!

Entertainment attracts straw. Gold, silver and precious stones are harder to find, but they can withstand the fire. Hearts of gold are won when we exalt Christ and give them what they cannot find elsewhere, the undiluted and unadulterated doctrine of Christ.

False religions test us.

God allowed the surrounding heathen nations to test Israel: “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not” (Judges 2:20-22).

In our time God allows denominations with their confusing, contradictory and unscriptural doctrines and practices to test our faith and love. Will we serve God simply as Christians, members of the one body, the church of Christ?¹¹ Or do we prefer a denomination of human origin?

Miracles of false teachers test us.

To test people, God sometimes allows false teachers to perform wonders: “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’ - which you have not known - ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him” (Deuteronomy 13:1-4).

People are tested now the same way. Jesus warned: “For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Mark 13:22).¹²

Certain denominations use apparitions, wonders and signs to lead people astray. Two examples:

In 1858 a girl of 14 in Lourdes, France claimed that Mary had appeared to her in a cave. Since then this has been used to encourage people to worship an image, which is contrary to God’s word (Exodus 20:4; 1 Corinthians 10:14).

There are people who claim to speak in tongues, yet women lead in their assemblies, something forbidden by God (1 Corinthians 14:34, 37).

By signs and wonders people are tested to see whether they want to obey God’s word or follow their own feelings and emotions.

We are tested by division.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “First of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you” (1 Corinthians 11:18, 19).

Jesus prayed for unity (John 17:20-23) but not for unity at the expense of truth. He prayed for unity based on God’s word (John 17:14, 17). When division comes - caused by people who depart from the truth - this “parting of the ways” purges and purifies the church. The unfaithful are chopped off, the faithful are pruned, and those who are approved can be recognized.

What have we learned?

“The LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deuteronomy 13:3).

We need to examine ourselves. God tests the hearts and minds of the righteous. He tests our faith and love by means of obedience and hardship. He sometimes withdraws to test us. The Messiah refines His people by fire. The fruitfulness of our faith and the quality of our work are tested. False religions, lying wonders and division test our respect for God’s word.

“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God” (2 Timothy 2:15). Amen.

Roy Davison

Endnotes

¹ To be “in the faith” is much more than merely believing that God exists. “As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving” (Colossians 2:6, 7). We are “in the faith” if we serve God according to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 4).
² “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called,’ concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense” (Hebrews 11:17-19).
³ Job 2:7.
⁴ Referring to the trials of Joseph it is said, “The word of the LORD tested him” (Psalm 105:19; see verses 16-21).
⁵ David prayed: “I know also, my God, that You test the heart and have pleasure in uprightness” (1 Chronicles 29:17). “Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; try my mind and my heart” (Psalm 26:2). Paul wrote: “But as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts” (1 Thessalonians 2:4).
⁶ Moses warned Israel not to forsake the Lord, “who led you through that great and terrible wilderness, in which were fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty land where there was no water; who brought water for you out of the flinty rock; who fed you in the wilderness with manna, which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do you good in the end” (Deuteronomy 8:15, 16).
⁷ Or “the lye soap of the fuller” referring to the cleansing and whitening of wool in preparation for cloth making.
⁸ “Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, against the Man who is My Companion,” says the LORD of hosts. “Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; then I will turn My hand against the little ones. And it shall come to pass in all the land,” says the LORD, “that two- thirds in it shall be cut off and die, but one-third shall be left in it: I will bring the one-third through the fire, will refine them as silver is refined, and test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, and I will answer them. I will say, ‘This is My people’; And each one will say, ‘The LORD is my God’” (Zechariah 13:7-9).
⁹ “If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Corinthians 3:14, 15).
¹⁰ This was said several years ago. Recently, on February 27 & 28, 2015, this congregation held “Daddy Daughter” dances costing $25 per dad and $5 per daughter (ages 4 through 12). “Come for dancing, dinner, dessert, carriage ride, photo booth, and crafts!” (downloaded on February 28, 2015 from http://www.thehills.org).
¹¹ The church is the body of Christ (Colossians 1:24) and there is only “one body” (Ephesians 4:4).
¹² Paul explained: “The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:9, 10).

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

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

From imagination to reality; looking heavenward by Gary Rose

No, this is NOT a bomb! It is just a natural cloud formation that was posted on a local Florida news program. With all the bad things happening in the world, I can understand how someone could imagine this being an explosion.

Clouds are wonderful; my earliest memories are of clouds- in the shape of horses, dragons and of course- Mickey Mouse!!! To this day, I enjoy seeing all sorts of shapes in the heavens and once-in-awhile, letting my imagination run wild on purpose. You know- just for fun!!!

Now, I wonder, what IF your wildest imaginings came true?

Consider this passage from the book of Mark....

Mark, Chapter 14 (WEB)

⁵⁵ Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witnesses against Jesus to put him to death, and found none. ⁵⁶ For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony didn’t agree with each other. ⁵⁷ Some stood up, and gave false testimony against him, saying, ⁵⁸ “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” ⁵⁹ Even so, their testimony did not agree.

⁶⁰ The high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it which these testify against you?” ⁶¹ But he stayed quiet, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”

⁶² Jesus said, “I am. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky.”

(emp. added GDR)

If I am alive when this happens, I am quite sure that at first I won't believe it and will rub my eyes just to make sure I don't have something in them and maybe even pinch myself to see if I am just daydreaming. But, Jesus said it, it will happen and someday my wildest dreams will come true. On that day imagination will be reality and hope will be fulfilled. I wonder- can you say the same??