Calling Abortion “Good”—Really? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5195

Calling Abortion “Good”—Really?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

What do Americans call it when a doctor uses a knife-like device and suction from a powerful hose and pump (“29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner”) to chop and suck a human being out of the mother’s womb (“Abortion Methods,” 2010)? What is it called when a doctor uses plier-like devices to twist and tear a four-month-old unborn baby into pieces? (Usually this procedure requires crushing the baby’s skull and snapping the child’s spine in order to extract him/her.) How do Americans feel about a procedure where a doctor injects a strong salt solution through a mother’s abdomen, which acts as a corrosive and burns an unborn child inside and out, normally causing the child to suffer for an hour or more before dying (“Abortion Methods”)? What do Americans think about such actions?
Just a few miles from our offices at Apologetics Press, doctors perform such appalling procedures on living, unborn human beings on a weekly basis. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly 10,000 innocent unborn children were slaughtered in Alabama in 2011 (“State Facts About Abortion: Alabama,” 2015). Many of these abortions were performed at the Reproductive Health Services of Montgomery, which “has provided abortion services and other health care for women for more than 30 years” (2015). Consider some of the feedback from various patients that this abortion clinic highlights on its Web site:

• “Thank you for your hard work and for changing people’s lives with your compassion and dignity.”
• “Keep up the good work. As my very religious friend told me, I was against abortion until my own fifteen year old daughter became pregnant.”
• “To all who work to allow me to keep that right to choose: What you do is important, empowering and fine. I chose to have an abortion because it was theright decision for me at the time….”
• “I am saying prayers for your safety and success.”
• “Keep up the good work….”
• “Thank you for your brave work for justice and freedom for women.”
• “Every woman I know who has exercised her right to abortion made that decision with thoughtfulness, tortured consideration and integrity. All the recent talk of heroes comes into focus for me when I think of people like you who’ve been on the front line for so long. Please know you are supported not only with good thoughts and thanks but with resources, will and active determination.”
• “I thank God I was given a choice in September 1973. Abortion was just legalized a few weeks earlier” (emp. added).

Compassion. Dignity. Integrity. Justice. Fine, heroic, and good work. Prayers for success. Even thankfulness to God! These are the thoughts that various ones in our community have toward those who shed the blood of the most innocent among us?! Even President Barack Obama, in support of Planned Parenthood, the organization that murders more unborn children than anyone else in the United States, has stated:

No matter how great the challenge, no matter how fierce the opposition, there’s one thing the past few years have shown—it’s that Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It’s not going anywhere today. It’s not going anywhere tomorrow. As long as we’ve got a fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way. Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you. (“President Obama...,” 2013).

God bless you?! The Obama administration has proudly published the video from which these comments were made on the White House YouTube Channel.
What’s more, so committed are some elected officials to the murderous cause of Planned Parenthood that when evidence recently surfaced that the organization was not only killing hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year, but also attempting to sell their body parts, some Democrats in Congress petitioned the Department of Justice to investigate, not Planned Parenthood, but the whistleblowers (Ludden, 2015). And, apparently, the DOJ “agreed to look into…the group” (Mershon and Ehley, 2015). Did you catch that? There are some who are more up in arms about exactly how an undercover video was procured, rather than “whether Planned Parenthood illegally trafficked baby body parts” (“Obama DOJ…”). Why? It seems, at least in part, because some have vowed to fight to ensure that Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere today…or tomorrow.
These are sad and absurd times in which we live. Rather than “abhor what is evil” and “cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9), millions in the U.S. (including many so-called Christians) reject the Creator’s standard of right and wrong, choosing rather to do what is right in their own eyes (cf. Judges 21:25). As in Isaiah’s day, they “call evil good, and good evil” and put “darkness for light, and light for darkness” (5:20). Though God is the giver of life (Acts 17:25) and “hates…hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:16-17), many actually proceed as if they can pray to Him for the “success” of abominable abortion clinics and thank Him for the legality of willfully destroying innocent human life. God said to the degenerate city of Jerusalem in Isaiah’s day, “When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood” (Isaiah 1:15, emp. added). The once-“faithful city…full of justice” and “righteousness,” had become a city “full of…murderers” (1:21).
What is the message to America, to the world, to those who are wandering in darkness, and to those hypocrites who claim to be Christians, yet act nothing like the Christ? Repent (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 2:38). Stop calling evil good and good evil. Stop glorying in sin and shame—such “are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction” (Philippians 3:18-19). “Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rebuke the oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1:16-17). Stop provoking Almighty God to anger and submit to His Son and His Will. He can (and will!) save a sinner—but not before the sinner comes to grips with the reality that God hates sin and can have no fellowship with it (Isaiah 59:1-2; 1 John 1:5-6).

“Come now, and let us reason together,” says the Lord, “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword;” for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

REFERENCES

“Abortion Methods” (2010), http://www.lifesitenews.com/abortiontypes/.
Ludden, Jennifer (2015), “Sting Videos Part of Longtime Campaign Against Planned Parenthood,” NPR, July 22, http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/22/425314909/sting-videos-part-of-longtime-campaign-against-planned-parenthood.
Mershon, Erin and Brianna Ehley (2015), “IPAB’s on the Horizon—House Republicans Vow to Subpoena Planned Parenthood Official—Casey Takes on Foster Children’s Health Insurance,” Politico, July 23, http://www.politico.com/politicopulse/0715/politicopulse19266.html.
“Obama DOJ Plans to Investigate…The Group That Busted Planned Parenthood” (2015), The Federalist, July 23, http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/23/doj-investigate-planned-parenthood-video/.
“President Obama Speaks at the Planned Parenthood Gala” (2013), The White House YouTube Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laYQ2DDFmCg, April 26.
Reproductive Health Services (2015), http://www.rhs4choice.com/index.html.
“State Facts About Abortion: Alabama” (2015), Guttmacher Institute, https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/alabama.html.

The Bible's Teaching on Baptism: Contradictory or Complementary? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=806&b=John

The Bible's Teaching on Baptism: Contradictory or Complementary?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

According to numerous skeptics, the Bible is inconsistent regarding whether or not water baptism is necessary (e.g., Drange, 1996; Morgan, 2003; cf. Wells, 2001). In Dennis McKinsey’s book, Biblical Errancy (2000), he lists several verses that teach the need for one to be baptized in order to be saved (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; etc.), but then he lists four verses (John 4:2; 1 Corinthians 1:14,16,17) which allegedly teach that baptism “is not a necessity” (p. 61). According to these men, Jesus and Paul were confused regarding the purpose of baptism.
There is no doubt that Jesus and His apostles taught the essentiality of being immersed in water for salvation. After Jesus commissioned His apostles to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” He stated that “he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16; cf. Matthew 28:19). The Jews who had murdered Christ, and to whom Peter spoke on the Day of Pentecost when he ushered in the Christian age, were told: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Before becoming a Christian, Saul of Tarsus was commanded to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). The biblical solution to the problem of soul-damning sin is that the person who has heard the Gospel, who has believed its message, who has repented of past sins, and who has confessed Christ as Lord must then—in order to receive remission (forgiveness) of sins—be baptized. [The English word “baptize” is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, meaning to immerse, dip, plunge beneath, or submerge (Thayer, 1958, p. 94).] According to Peter, “baptism,” corresponding to Noah’s salvation through water, “now saves us…(not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Although baptism is no less, nor more, important than any other of God’s commands regarding what to do to be saved, the New Testament clearly teaches that water immersion is the point at which a person is saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If it is the case then that baptism is essential for salvation, then why did the apostle John write: “Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), He left Judea and departed again to Galilee” (John 4:1-3, emp. added)? And why did the apostle Paul write to the church at Corinth: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name…. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:14-17, emp. added)? Do these statements indicate that baptism is not necessary for a person to be saved as skeptics allege? No, they do not.
First, John did not indicate that Jesus thought baptism was unnecessary; he merely stated the fact that Jesus did not personally do the baptizing; rather, His disciples did (John 4:2). The phrase in 4:1 regarding Jesus “baptizing” more disciples than John is simply a figure of speech where a person is represented as doing something when, in fact, he merely supplies the means for doing it. For example, Joseph indicated on one occasion that his brothers sold him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5; cf. Acts 7:9), when actually they sold him to the Ishmaelites (who then sold him into Egypt). This is a well-known principle in law—a person who acts through another to break the law (e.g., paying someone to commit murder) is deemed by authorities to be guilty of breaking the law himself. Similarly, Jesus did not personally baptize anyone. But, His teaching and influence caused it to be done. Jesus, the subject, is mentioned, but it is the circumstance of His influence that is intended. His teaching was responsible for people being baptized. Thus, this passage actually implies that Jesus commanded that His listeners be baptized. It in no way contradicts teachings found elsewhere in the Bible.
Second, Paul’s statements in his letter to the church at Corinth must be taken in their proper context in order to understand their true meaning. In 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, Paul was dealing with the division that was plaguing the Corinthian Christians. He had heard of the controversy in Corinth, and begged them to stand united, and resolve their differences.

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect (1 Corinthians 1:10-17).

Later, Paul added:

For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:3-7).

When a person reads 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 in view of the problem of division in Corinth that Paul was addressing in chapter one and throughout this letter, he or she has a better understanding of Paul’s statements regarding baptism. He was not indicating that baptism was unnecessary, but that people should not glory in the one who baptizes them. Some of the Corinthians were putting more emphasis on who baptized them, than on the one body of Christ to which a person is added when he or she is baptized (cf. Acts 2:41,47; Ephesians 4:4). Paul was thankful that he did not personally baptize any more Corinthians than he did, lest they boast in his name, rather than in the name of Christ (1:15). Likely, this is the same reason why “Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples.” As Albert Barnes surmised: “[I]f he [Jesus—EL] had baptized, it might have made unhappy divisions among his followers: those might have considered themselves most worthy or honoured who had been baptized by him” (1956, p. 213, emp. in orig.). Paul understood that the fewer people he personally baptized, the less likely they were to rejoice in his name. [In 1 Corinthians 1:13, Paul implied that the only way to be saved is to be baptized into the name of Christ, saying, “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”] Paul’s desire was for converts to tie themselves to the Savior, and not to himself. He knew that “there is salvation in no one else” but Jesus; “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Paul concerned himself with preaching, and, like Jesus, left others to do the baptizing.
When Paul stated: “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” he meant that preaching was his main work, and that others could immerse the converts. He did not mean by this statement that baptism is unimportant, but that the baptizer is inconsequential. Consider this: If Paul did not baptize, but preached, and, if others baptized those who heard Paul’s teachings, what can we infer about the content of Paul’s teachings? The truth is, at some point, he must have instructed the unsaved to be baptized (which is exactly what occurred in Corinth—read Acts 18:1-11; 1 Corinthians 6:11). Similar to how we logically infer from the Ethiopian eunuch’s baptism (Acts 8:36-39), that when Philip “preached Jesus to him” (8:35), he informed the eunuch of the essentiality of baptism, we can truthfully affirm that Paul taught that baptism is essential for salvation. The allegation that Paul and Jesus ever considered baptism non-essential, simply is unfounded.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1956), Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Luke and John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Drange, Theodore M. (1996), “The Argument from the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Morgan, Donald (2003), “Biblical Inconsistencies,” [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml.
Thayer, J.H. (1958 reprint), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

Finding one's self (Who am I) by Eugene C. Perry

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Perry/Eugene/Charles/1922/Articles/whoarewe.html
 

Finding one's self
(Who am I)

(The following is an adaptation of remarks made as a senior member at a recent family reunion. ecp)

Often, when people get involved in deviant behaviour, seem directionless or manifest other symptoms of troubled lives, we hear the remark, “He/she just needs to find himself/herself?” The person is not lost but rather is confused or unsure of his/her place in the family, community, nation, world. Where do I fit in? What do I stand for? It involves being lost in the sense of needing to decide/determine/find one’s place among the diverse world-views and value systems of a pluralistic society.

A very real part of who I am has to do with FAMILY. That is to say that family usually has much to do with one’s world-view, value system and life-style. WHO ARE WE?

To begin with, in a general sense, all are a part of God’s family. We are His children, His creation. We are daily recipients of His loving care. He provides what is needed to sustain our lives as well as the example and direction that enables us to live “full” lives (Jno.10:10).

Unfortunately, there are those who outright disown this relationship. Others just fail to cultivate or recognize it. God is our father and ideally this defines us – enables us to find ourselves and thus to know who we are and where we stand – our value system and life-style.

In a more particular sense, we are children of [mutual ancestor] whose name many of us bear and who provided us with example and, hopefully, direction. Once again, some might go so far as to deny or reject the relationship and influence while others tend to ignore or neglect to cultivate it. Most of us, however, acknowledge and even take pride in the relationship and accept it as a real part of who we are.

Ideally our forebears are worthy of recognition and their example and instruction defines who we are and influences our life-style and value system which is thus passed down from generation to generation. In our family many generations have been people of faith, defined by a desire to know and do God’s will. Bible study and church attendance have been characteristic along with honesty and a strong work ethic. Many of us, like our forebears, met and married as a result of associations in Bible Schools or churches.

We are a part of this heritage and it will be a part of who we are and what we stand for unless we have either disowned the relationship or are neglecting its significance and influence.

I remember and was impressed by my parent’s dedication to work on the farm. It seemed to take precedence over all else except church. When there were church services or gospel meetings we somehow managed to get some time away from the work. We would sometimes walk seven miles to attend such meetings and walk back home afterwards. Family traits that we were taught include faithfulness, honesty, dependability, hard work and independence.

We were moulded by our parents and this is an ongoing process. Those of you who are parents must face the fact that you have heavy responsibilities in this process. What are you “passing on”? Yes, you are expected to provide food, clothing and shelter. That part usually “comes naturally”. The greater burden on you is the preparation of your children for life by passing on values. Too often, this part tends to be neglected or poorly done.

When God chose Abraham to be the father of His chosen people, He said, “For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” (Gen.18:19).

As Moses led Abraham’s descendents and passed God’s instructions on to them, he wrote, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. ... Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” (Deut.6:6-9).

Both parents must be involved. Timothy’s “sincere faith” “first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice” (II Tim.1:5). Fathers are instructed to bring their children “up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph.6:4). It is most unfortunate when parents do not work together in this task.

This system breaks down when neglect occurs – when parents fail to assume their responsibility and/or when children reject or rebel against parental teaching and influence.

We are sometimes saddened to observe a downward generational process that goes something like the following. Great-grandpa had the Bible in heart and life, grandfather had it in his head, father on his shelf and son in the attic. May this not be the situation in our families.

WHO ARE WE? We are children of God and descendents of godly ancestors.

Eugene C. Perry

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

Beauty, position and blessings by Gary Rose

Admittedly, it was the fancy font that first caught my attention, but I must admit I DO like the seal (especially after I adjusted the color so that I could see it properly). Then my attention focused on the text of the picture and lastly on the context (which is listed below).

Ephesians, Chapter 1 (WEB)

³Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,  ⁴ even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and without defect before him in love,  ⁵ having predestined us for adoption as children through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his desire,  ⁶ to the praise of the glory of his grace, by which he freely gave us favor in the Beloved,  ⁷ in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,  ⁸ which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,  ⁹ making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him  ¹⁰ to an administration of the fullness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth, in him.  ¹¹ We were also assigned an inheritance in him, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who does all things after the counsel of his will,  ¹² to the end that we should be to the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ.  ¹³ In him you also, having heard the word of the truth, the Good News of your salvation—in whom, having also believed, you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,  ¹⁴ who is a pledge of our inheritance, to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory.

And that context emphasized the preposition "in", so I underlined it to reflect the train of thought.  What does the word mean, anyway? Well, "in" is what I will call a locater word;it shows position and location. In this case, Jesus, The Holy Spirit and God the father.  If you are a Christian, the you are "in", and if not, then you are logically not in (in other words, outside The Godhead).

If you have some time, just read the passage a few times and I think you will readily see the advantages of being "IN".  Now, that I think about it, that "seal" in the picture looks a lot like a ribbon given to winners. Be one, be in Christ and be blessed!!!   

Your friend,

Gary

"THE BOOK OF DANIEL" Introduction To Daniel by Mark Copeland

"THE BOOK OF DANIEL"

Introduction To Daniel

INTRODUCTION

1. One of the more fascinating books of the Bible is the book of 
   Daniel...
   a. The first six chapters contain accounts of faith that inspire
      both young and old
   b. The last six chapters are filled with apocalyptic visions that
      challenge even the most advanced Bible students and scholars

2. It is a book that has often been attacked and abused...
   a. Attacked by liberals who deny its inspiration
   b. Abused by many who have taken its visions out of context to
      support all kinds of wild theories concerning the second coming
      of Christ

3. But when properly read and understood, the book of Daniel can...
   a. Inspire us to greater faithfulness in our service to God
   b. Strengthen our faith in the inspiration of the Bible

[In this lesson, we shall introduce the book and look at it as whole,
beginning with what we know of ...]

I. DANIEL AND HIS TIMES

   A. THE MAN...
      1. The name "Daniel" means "God is my judge"
      2. He was a person of deep and abiding faith
         a. As a youth, he purposed not to defile himself - Dan 1:8
         b. When old, he persisted in serving God despite threats
            against his life - Dan 6:10
      3. God blessed Daniel because of his faith
         a. He rose to great heights in the kingdoms of Babylon and
            Persia - Dan 2:48; 6:1-3
         b. He served as a statesman, a counselor to kings, and a
            prophet of God
      4. Daniel was contemporary with Jeremiah and Ezekiel
         a. Jeremiah prophesied in Jerusalem before and during the
            Babylonian exile (626-528 B.C.)
         b. Ezekiel prophesied in Babylon among the exiles (592-570 
            B.C.)
         c. Daniel prophesied in the capital of Babylon (605-586 B.C.)
      5. Nothing is known of his personal life outside of the book
         a. He descended from one of Judah's prominent families, if not
            from royal blood - Dan 1:3
         b. At an early age (12-18) he was taken from his family to be
            trained in the courts of Babylon - Dan 1:3-4
         c. Whether he ever married is uncertain

   B. THE TIME IN WHICH HE LIVED...
      1. Some key dates to remember
         a. 612 B.C. - Fall of Nineveh, capital of Assyria
            1) Assyria had ruled the world since the days of Tiglath-
               Pileser (845 B.C.)
            2) Nabopolassar came to the throne in Babylon and rebelled
               against the Assyrians in 625 B.C.
            3) Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar, was the general who
               led the Babylonian army against Nineveh, defeating it in
               612 B.C.
         b. 605 B.C. - Battle of Carchemish, establishing Babylonian
            domination
            1) Pharaoh-Necho of Egypt came to fight the Babylonians at
               Carchemish
            2) Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians, chasing them
               south through Judah
            3) At Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar heard of his father's 
               death; he returned to assume the throne in Babylon
            4) The first group of Jewish captives were taken, along
               with Daniel and his friends - Dan 1:1-4
         c. 597 B.C. - A second remnant taken to Babylon
            1) Jehoiachin (Jeconiah, Coniah) followed the reign of his
               father, Jehoiakim
            2) He lasted just three months, when Nebuchadnezzar took
               him and 10,000 Jews to Babylon - 2Ki 24:8-16
            3) This second group of captives included Ezekiel - Eze1:1-3
         d. 586 B.C. - Fall of Jerusalem and the temple destroyed
            1) Zedekiah was installed as king in Jerusalem, but was
               weak and vacillating
            2) Eleven years later, Jerusalem was totally devastated by
               Babylonian forces - 2Ki 25:1-10
            3) A third group was taken into Babylonian captivity, but
               Jeremiah was among those who stayed behind - 2Ki 25:
               11-12,22; Jer 39:11-14; 40:1-6
         e. 536 B.C. - The first remnant returns to Jerusalem
            1) Babylon falls in 539 B.C.
            2) Cyrus, king of Persia, sends the first remnant back
               under the leadership of Zerubbabel - Ezra 1:1-5; 2:1-2
            3) The foundation of the temple was soon started, but the
               temple was not completed until 516 B.C. - Ezra 3:8-13;
               6:14-16
         f. 457 B.C. - A second remnant returns to Jerusalem
            1) Ezra the priest returns with this group - Ezra 7:1-8:36
            2) He leads a much-needed revival - Ezra 9:1-10:44
         g. 444 B.C. - A third remnant returns to Jerusalem
            1) This group is led by Nehemiah - Neh 1:1-2:20
            2) Under his leadership, the walls of Jerusalem are rebuilt
               - Neh 3:1-7:73
            3) Together with Ezra, they restore much of the religion 
               - Neh 8:1-13:31
      2. Daniel lived through much of these times (605-534 B.C.)
         a. He was among the first group of captives taken to Babylon
            - Dan 1:1-4
         b. He continued there over the entire 70 years of captivity
            - Dan 1:21; 10:1; cf. Dan 9:1-2; Jer 25:11; 29:10

[Daniel was certainly a remarkable man. His greatness was recognized by
his contemporary, Ezekiel (Ezek 14:14,20; 28:3). Now let's take a brief
look at...]

II. THE BOOK OF DANIEL

   A. THE THEME...
      1. "God Rules In The Kingdoms Of Men" - cf. Dan 2:21; 4:17,25,32,
         34-35; 5:21
      2. In this book, we see the rule of God is...
         a. Manifested in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar,
            Darius, and Cyrus, kings of the Babylonians, Medes, and
            Persians
         b. Foretold to occur in the days of the Persians, Greeks, and
            Romans
      3. In this book, we learn the rule of God would be especially
         manifested...
         a. With the establishment of God's kingdom - Dan 2:44
         b. With the vindication of the cause of His saints - Dan 7:27

   B. A BRIEF OUTLINE...
      1. God's Providence In History - 1:1-6:28
         a. Daniel and his determination to be pure - 1:1-21
         b. Nebuchadnezzar's dream and Daniel's promotion - 2:1-49
         c. Faith in the face of fire by Daniel's friends - 3:1-30
         d. Nebuchadnezzar's second dream and temporary insanity - 4:
            1-37
         e. The writing on the wall and fall of Belshazzar - 5:1-31
         f. Darius and his den of lions - 6:1-28
      2. God's Purpose In History - 7:1-12:13
         a. Daniel's dream of the four beasts - 7:1-28
         b. Daniel's dream of the ram and the goat - 8:1-27
         c. Daniel's prayer, and the vision of the seventy weeks - 9:
            1-27
         d. Daniel's vision of the time of the end - 10:1-12:13

CONCLUSION

1. As with all of Scripture, the book of Daniel is profitable for our
   study - 2Ti 3:16-17
   a. From Daniel and his three friends, we will learn the power of
      faith and commitment
   b. By studying this book, we can better understand our Lord's
      references to it - cf. Mk 1:14-15; Mt 24:15-16

2. Despite some of its more difficult and challenging passages, we can
   benefit from them as well, as long as we interpret them...
   a. In the context of the book itself
   b. Consistent with all else the Bible may say on the subject
   c. With the humility and openness that is incumbent upon all who
      would study and teach God' word - cf. 2Ti 2:24-25

In our next study, then, we will begin by taking a look at "The Faith
Of A Fifteen-Year-Old"...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Does Human Fallibility Imply a Fallible Bible? by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1358

Does Human Fallibility Imply a Fallible Bible?

by	Brad Bromling, D.Min.

Humanity is broken. Few would deny the biblical affirmation: “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). All people stand in need of redemption and are incapable of currying God's favor by their own imperfect efforts (Ephesians 2:3-9; Galatians 3:22). Even for those who “walk in the light” (1 John 1:7) personal sin remains a reality (1 John 1:10-2:1). The question, “Are Christians sinners who are forgiven or saints who sin?,” bespeaks the perplexity that saved people feel in the face of their daily struggles with the evil one (Saucy, 1995). This realization has driven some people to wonder whether it is even possible for the Bible to be infallible, since fallible humans were employed in its production.

WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?

The belief that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible has a long, venerable history. Although some conservative scholars are willing to grant that Moses may have employed ancient cuneiform tablets in his composition of Genesis (Harrison, 1969, p. 548), the case favoring his personal authorship of the Pentateuch is quite compelling (Archer, 1974, pp. 109-123). Moses was a man who at times was given to self-doubt, frustration, anger, and disobedience (Exodus 2:12; 3:11; 32:19; Numbers 20:10-13). Could he, with all his fallibilities, have written an infallible record of the first 2,500 years of sacred history?
The great giant-fighter, David, is credited with the authorship of much of the Psalter. As the sweet psalmist of Israel, his songs have inspired millions to rely on God when everyone else proves unreliable. Countless saints have been laid to rest under the comforting lyrics of Psalm 23. And yet, the shepherd-king had bloodstained hands. He fell prey to lust, deceit, and even murder. Could such a man compose poetic verses for an infallible volume?
The all-too-carnal actions of God’s prophets, priests, and kings embarrassingly remind us of humankind’s hopeless condition. Even apostles were unable to rise above the charge of sin and the threat of condemnation (Galatians 2:11). Is it reasonable to believe that sinners such as these—with the same penchant for error as the rest of us—collectively produced a volume that can be trusted?
One might even wonder how a book could at the same time be both of human and divine origin. Mechanical dictation (the view that the Bible’s human authors were totally passive and acted like a computer that converts voice input into typed words) has long been rejected as unsatisfactory (see Paché, 1969, pp. 66-70). The obvious stylistic differences between biblical writers have been the major objection to this view. In principle, the dictation view would be unable to alleviate the possibility of fallibility anyway, since it still requires some human involvement; if human involvement is inherently problematic, then anything short of God’s actually writing Scripture and handing it to humanity as a finished product would be suspect. The biblical writers do not shy away from ascribing human authorship to the Scriptures, which they viewed as of divine origin (Luke 24:27; Acts 4:25; 2 Peter 3:15). For them, human participation did not diminish Scripture’s divine authority (Acts 1:16; 2 Timothy 3:16; Mark 12:36; Matthew 19:4-5). Would their confidence have been so strong had they believed the Scriptures were fallible?

MUST HUMANS ERR?

The error-prone condition of humans and the imperfections of their handiwork, might lead us to the natural but incorrect conclusion that error, sin, and brokenness is inextricably inherent in being human. While it is true that nothing originating in humanity is sufficient to deal with the universal problem of sin, it is false to view sin as part of the essential definition of humanity. It is helpful to understand the difference between “truly essential” and “merely common” properties. Gerald O’Collins illustrates this point:
Until recently all human beings were conceived within their mother’s body. With the advent of in vitro fertilization, we now know that being conceived within our mother’s body is a common property but not an essential one (1995, p. 269).
While sin certainly is a “common property,” it is not essential to humanity. In their original state, Adam and Eve were sinless. Yet, they were nonetheless fully human. Sin amounts to a departure from the ideal humanity God intended for us. Since sin is not inherent in the definition of “human,” human involvement in the writing of Scripture does not demand that it is fallible.

AN ANALOGY FROM THE LIVING WORD

The incarnation of Jesus provides a helpful analogy to understanding the inspiration of Scripture. The New Testament writers unhesitatingly affirmed three propositions about Jesus: He was divine (John 1:1-3); He was human (Galatians 4:4); and, He was sinless (1 Peter 2:22). Just because the Savior was human, and bore the likeness of “sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3), does not imply that He sinned. Instead, Jesus’ sinlessness reminds us of the original state of Adam (see Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:22,45; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Timothy 2:5). Like the Living Word, we might say the written Word is both fully human and fully divine. Clearly, if God could produce a human being (Jesus) Who was infallible, then, reasonably, God could also produce a “human” book that is infallible (see Geisler and Brooks, 1990, p. 152). How this was accomplished has not been revealed. Apparently, like the prophets of old, all biblical writers were “borne” along by the Holy Spirit in their writing (2 Peter 1:21).

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason L., (1974), Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, revised edition).
Geisler, Norman and Ron Brooks, (1990), When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor).
Harrison, R.K. (1969), Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
O'Collins, Gerald, (1995), Christology (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).
Paché, René (1969), The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Saucy, Robert L. (1995), “ ‘Sinners’ Who Are Forgiven or ‘Saints’ Who Sin?,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 152:400-412, October-December.

Dawkins Is An Atheist Because He Wants To Be by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2496

Dawkins Is An Atheist Because He Wants To Be

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Richard Dawkins has become internationally famous for his caustic criticism of religion. He is an atheist, and he wishes everyone else would join his “enlightened” cadre of fellow non-believers. In The God Delusion, Dawkins declared the purpose of his book: “I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented” (2006, p. 36).
Dawkins attempts to make atheism appealing by claiming that atheists are devoted to the truth, wherever it may lead. He stated: “We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that” (2006, p. 282). [NOTE: His statement is patently false, because the alleged evidence in support of evolution has been definitively disproved by many (Jackson, et al., 2007; Thompson, 2004.] Notice Dawkins’ rhetorical tactic, implying that atheists are unbiased, completely objective observers of facts.
In dealing with religious people, he suggests that their beliefs are tainted by what they desire to think or feel, and not by objective reasoning and observation. In his chapter titled “The Roots of Religion,” Dawkins attempted to discover the reason why people believe in an afterlife. He stated: “The idea of immortality itself survives and spreads because it caters to wishful thinking. And wishful thinking counts, because human psychology has a near-universal tendency to let belief be coloured by desire (‘Thy wish was father, Harry, to that thought’, as Henry IV Part II said to his son)” (2006, p. 190, emp. added).
A critical look at Dawkins’ reasoning reveals the pitfall into which he has plunged himself. Dawkins discounts belief in the afterlife because he claims that it is only held because people want to believe it. So why does Dawkins hold the belief that there is no god? Could it be the near-universal tendency to let his belief be colored by his desire? One can think of a host of reasons why an atheist would not want to believe in God. With God out of the picture, a person can behave how he wants, without feeling that he will ultimately be accountable for his actions. Without God, no regulations on sexual activity hinder a person’s unbridled lust. Furthermore, Dawkins’ atheistic writings and teachings have made him a very rich man. If there really is a God, and Dawkins wrote about His reality, what would separate Dawkins from so many other religious writers? Make no mistake, the concept of atheism is a very appealing, lucrative belief for Dawkins.
In some sense, Dawkins is right: most people let what they want to be true dictate what they believe. Many people hold false religious views because they desire to think or act in a certain way. But in at least one aspect of his thinking, Dawkins is tragically wrong. His atheistic belief is certainly not immune from this “near-universal” tendency. In fact, the Bible warned that atheism would survive only because of false belief based on a desire for godlessness. The apostle Peter wrote about scoffers who would deny God’s existence. Concerning these atheistic thinkers, Peter wrote: “For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old” (2 Peter 3:5, emp. added).
Dawkins is an atheist—but not because he adheres to a dogged determination to follow the evidence where it leads. Dawkins is an atheist because he wants atheism to be true. His desire for godlessness has produced his “willful” ignorance of the evidence of God’s existence.
It should be the goal of every individual to jettison personal desires and strive for absolute truth. If a person truly does that, he or she will arrive at the inevitable conclusion that there is a God. The realization of and obedient adherence to this fact is the only thing that can truly make a person free (John 8:32).

REFERENCES

Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin).
Jackson, Wayne, Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2007), Surveying the Evidence (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Thompson, Bert (2004), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/scfc.pdf.