God, Design, and Natural Selection by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=5362

God, Design, and Natural Selection

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In a September 2016 New Scientist article titled “Can We Ever Know If God Exists?”¹ Executive Editor Graham Lawton insisted that “the only coherent and rational position is agnosticism.”² Allegedly, there is not enough legitimate evidence to come to the rational conclusion that “God exists.” For example, Lawton called the design argument for God’s existence a “superficially persuasive argument” that is “very refutable.”³ And how is it supposedly refuted? What evidence did Lawton offer in contradiction to the design argument? He presented only one statement: “Evolution by natural selection, working over vast lengths of time, is all you need.”⁴
Sadly, many people will naively take Lawton at his word and assume, “He must be right. I guess we can’t prove that God exists.” The simple fact is, however, his “refutation” of the design argument is nothing of the sort. First, the design argument for God’s existence is an actual logical argument.
Premise 1: Anything that exhibits complex, functional design demands an intelligent designer.
Premise 2: The Universe exhibits complex, functional design.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe must have an intelligent Designer.
This argument for God is logically sound and observationally true. Even atheists frequently testify to the “design” in nature. For example, Australian atheistic astrophysicist Paul Davies has admitted that the Universe is “uniquely hospitable,” “remarkable,” and “ordered in an intelligible way.” He even confessed to the “fine-tuned properties” of the Universe.⁵ The simple fact is, to deny either premise of the design argument is to deny reality, while to deny the conclusion is to deny logic.
Second, “Evolution by natural selection, working over vast lengths of time, is [not!]⁶ all you need.” Certainly the fit adapt and survive, and pass along their advantageous genetic traits [example: longer legs in some animals] to their offspring, but such processes (1) cannot create complex, functional design from nothing, (2) cannot change non-design into design, and (3) do not (and cannot) change one kind of animal into another. The simple fact is, natural selection does not design anything. As evolutionist Hugo de Vries admitted long ago, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”⁷ It cannot explain the arrival of the perfectly designed “bomb-producing” bombardier beetle anymore than it can rationally explain the communication skills of the “sophisticated,” “intelligent,” “tailor-made,” color-changing Cuttlefish.⁸
Atheistic evolution is simply inept to deal with the reasonable arguments for the existence of God, including the logically sound design argument. To say that the design argument has “turned out to be very refutable” is simply false. And to act as if natural selection over long periods of time is the answer to the design observed in nature is equally fallacious. Such talk may sound nice in theoretical circles, but the evidence on a real observational and philosophically sound level still points to design that demands a designer. In truth, regardless of what Lawton and New Scientist say, we can know that God exists.⁹

Endnotes

¹ Graham Lawton (2016), “Can We Ever Know If God Exists?” New Scientist, 231[3089]:39, September 3.

² An agnostic is “a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable”—Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary (2016), http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic, emp. added.

³ Lawton, p. 39, emp. added.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Paul Davies (2007), “Laying Down the Laws,” New Scientist, 194[2610]:30,34, June 30.

⁶ Parenthetical comment added.

⁷ Hugo De Vries (1905), Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, ed. Daniel Trembly MacDougal (Chicago, IL: Open Court), pp. 825-826, emp. added.

⁸ Eric Lyons (2008), “The Cause of the Cuttlefish,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2505&topic=328.

⁹ See the Existence of God section of ApologeticsPress.org for a plethora of articles on this subject: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12.

Should Christians Favor Accepting Syrian Refugees? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5295

Should Christians Favor Accepting Syrian Refugees?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The recent civil war in Syria, involving the Assad regime and various radical Islamic rebel elements and factions—both Sunni and Shiite (Seale, 2012; “Syrian Refugees…,” 2012; Cloud and Abdulrahim, 2013; “Migrant Crisis…,” 2015; “Kingdom Slams…,” 2015) has resulted in millions of Syrian Muslims fleeing their homeland. This circumstance has sparked a considerable discussion among Americans and the world regarding the propriety of refusing to receive refugees into one’s home country. Setting politics and other considerations aside, the Christian’s primary concern is to ascertain God’s will on such a matter. What does He want Christians to do in response to this “humanitarian” crisis?
The only way to know God’s will on any subject is to go to the only resource on the planet that contains that will—the Bible. What is God’s will regarding accepting refugees and immigrants from other countries? Interestingly, the only civil law code in human history authored by God Himself is the Law of Moses. When one cares to examine everything the Bible says about treatment of “strangers” under the Law of Moses, it is quickly evident that the #1 concern of God in the acceptance of foreigners into one’s country is their moral, religious, and spiritual condition. That is, God was vitally concerned about the spiritual impact the foreigners would have on Israel’s ability to remain loyal to Him, untainted by moral and religious contamination. Hence, God issued several civil decrees that strictly regulated the acceptance of foreigners into Israelite society. Among other strictures, foreigners were required to:

• observe the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14)
• be excluded from Passover (Exodus 12:43,45—unless the foreigner was willing to naturalize via circumcision [Exodus 12:48])
• refrain from eating blood (Leviticus 17:12)
• abstain from sexual immorality, including homosexuality, bestiality, incest, and adultery (Leviticus 18:26)
• not blaspheme the name of God (Leviticus 24:16,22)—an offense that at one time was upheld by American courts (e.g., in People v. Ruggles, the New York State Supreme Court declared: “Blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches, and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, are offenses punishable at the common law, whether uttered by words or writings.”)

For those who (1) believe in God and trust God, and (2) understand that His directives in the civil law code given to the Israelites were “holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12; cf. Psalm 19:7-11; Psalm 119:72,77,97,113,142,163), then such directives—which emanated from the mind of Deity—carry great weight in sorting out the current discussion regarding the acceptance of foreign refugees.
It would seem that foreigners who immigrated to Israel were not required by God to convert to Judaism. However, they were strictly forbidden from engaging in any religious practices that were deemed unacceptable according to God’s will. For example, one of the religious precepts practiced by the Canaanite peoples of Ammon and Phoenicia was to offer their children as a propitiatory sacrifice to their god Molech. Such a false religious practice was an abomination to God. He demanded that the death penalty be invoked for such conduct (Leviticus 18:21). Religious freedom did not extend to an Ammonite immigrant to the extent that he was allowed to practice his religion on this point; he was to be executed if he did (Leviticus 20:2).

Contemplate the following scenario. Suppose in ancient Israel the Moabites attacked the Ammonites, or the Ammonites themselves experienced an internal political upheaval, causing thousands of Ammonite refugees to flee north, west, or south to the corresponding transjordanic tribal lands of Manasseh, Gad, and Reuben (see map on previous page). Would God have insisted that godly love for neighbors would require that the Israelites take them in? The relevant passages indicate that God would not have wanted them received unconditionally. He would not have sanctioned a massive influx of pagan peoples into the heart of Israelite society, bringing their immoralities and false religion with them, with no safeguards or means by which to protect the moral and spiritual health of the Israelites. Further, what Ammonite would want to come to Israel where he would not be allowed to practice his religion, and where the morals and customs of the people would contradict his own? One could only imagine that Ammonites would not want to be subjected to such rigid moral conditions. However, they most certainly would want to come if they discovered that they could retain their evil religious practices, get welfare money from the Israelites, and locate in such numbers that they could take over local city government and schools.

The Founders

The Founders of the American Republic possessed precisely the same concerns. To them, “freedom” did not mean permission to engage in any practice deemed by Christian standards to be immoral or threatening to the Christian community. Consider, for example, prominent Founder Gouverneur Morris, who served as a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York State militia, was a member of the Continental Congress, signing both the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution, served as America’s Minister Plenipotentiary to France during the notorious French Revolution (1792-1794), and also served in the U.S. Senate. Though the French sought to establish a Republic like America, Morris’ observations of French life, which he witnessed firsthand, led him to believe the population of France was incapable of governing themselves and creating a Republic like we enjoy. Why? Among other concerns, he saw very little evidence of worship of the true God, and with an air of regret, he observed: “I do not yet perceive that reformation of morals without which liberty is but an empty sound” (Morris, 1888, 2:7-8, emp. added). As the storm clouds of the Revolution were gathering over France, writing from Paris in 1789, he explained:

The materials for a revolution in this country are very indifferent. Everybody agrees that there is an utter prostration of morals—but this general position can never convey to the American mind the degree of depravity…. The great mass of the people have no religion but their priests, no law but their superiors, no morals but their interest.... Paris is perhaps as wicked a spot as exists. Incest, murder, bestiality, fraud, rapine, oppression, baseness, cruelty;…every bad passion exerts its peculiar energy. How the conflict will terminate Heaven knows. Badly I fear; that is to say, in slavery (1:68-69,200-201, emp. added).

He concluded that the French were “a nation not yet fitted by education and habit for the enjoyment of freedom” (1:109). Consequently, the Founders did not encourage immigration from such countries whose population would seriously undermine the underpinnings of the American Republic. [NOTE: For another example among many, see the opinion of the State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. Nesbit in 1859 which declared the attitude of the Founders and the nation as a whole in its utter rejection of pagan morality.]
The vast majority of the Syrian refugees are Muslims. They do not share Christian values in several key, critical points (including polygamy, treatment of women, and severing limbs as punishment—Miller, 2005, pp. 177ff.,192-197). Muslim enclaves already in America, like those in several European countries, gradually transform their neighborhoods into Islamic strongholds where Sharia law is applied (Gaffney, 2015; Hickford, 2015; Hohmann, 2015; James, 2014; Kern, 2015a; Kern, 2015b; Bailey, 2015; Selk, 2015a; Selk, 2015b; Sheikh, 2015, Spencer, 2014). Though it may take many years, gradual encroachment on American culture due to “immigration jihad” will conceivably transform the U.S. into an Islamic nation. The Founders so designed the Republic that the citizens govern themselves. Hence, the moral, spiritual, and religious condition of the majority of citizens ultimately determines which politicians are installed on every level of government, what laws are made, and what content the teachers will teach in public schools. In short, the influx of Muslims will radically transform American civilization. Such an observation hardly constitutes racism or hate speech.

Good Samaritan?

But what about the “Good Samaritan”? Shouldn’t Christians show compassion? Most certainly. But how? What does God expect in such a situation? The story of the Good Samaritan pertains to individuals treating other individuals kindly. It does not refer to God’s will regarding the immigration policies of nations. On the contrary, God expressed His will with regard to immigration in His civil law code He gave to the Israelites. Further, when the Good Samaritan rendered aid to the stranger he encountered, he saw to his immediate needs (Luke 10:33-35). This attention did not entail transporting the man to the Samaritan’s own country or home—many miles away.
Many political and religious disturbances occur in many countries of the world and have for thousands of years. America has long rendered assistance to a host of needy peoples of various countries. Yet Christian compassion does not—in God’s sight—necessitate bringing large numbers of displaced peoples to America without suitable regard for the potential moral and spiritual threat to the health, safety, and future of the nation. There is nothing in the Bible that would lead us to believe that refusing refugees into the country is a violation of the Bible principle of compassion and concern for others. Should the good Samaritan have taken into his home a complete stranger without regard to the man’s moral and religious condition? Should he have jeopardized the safety of his own wife and children when he left to continue his business, as the text says he did? The Bible, in fact, teaches that we have just as much responsibility to be kind and benevolent to ourselves, our families, and our fellow citizens as we do to peoples of other countries (Matthew 22:39; Ephesians 5:25,28). Is God, Himself, guilty of violating His own benevolent nature when He placed restrictions on immigrants and refugees to Israel? Clearly, carte blanche reception of refugees into one’s own country does not trump all other considerations—not the least of which is the spiritual impact of that reception.
A far more rational, appropriate solution would be to assist the refugees with returning to their own country, or other Muslim countries, by interceding on their behalf, whether diplomatically or militarily, to right the wrongs being inflicted on them by their persecutors. There is nothing about Christianity that necessitates relocating foreigners to America who possess conflicting—and counterproductive—moral and religious values.
So the question of receiving refugees into the U.S. is not about “compassion,” benevolence, or Christian kindness. After all, America leads the world in providing the greatest amount of humanitarian assistance in the Syrian refugee crisis (Chorley, 2015). Rather, in keeping with God’s own assessment of nations, the key, all-encompassing issue that our national leaders ought to be taking into consideration is: what will be the moral and religious impact with the entrance of these peoples, and will their presence over the long term affect the ability of America to retain its unique and historically unparalleled status? Indeed, will the moral and religious syncretism, that will inevitably result from such decisions, enable the God of the Bible to continue to bless America?

REFERENCES

Bailey, Sarah (2015), “In the First Majority-Muslim U.S. City, Residents Tense About Its Future,” The Washington Post, November 21, https://goo.gl/KW5KMc.
Chorley, Matt (2015), “British Aid to Refugees Smashes Through £1BILLION as Cameron Boasts UK is Spending More Than Any EU Country,” Daily Mail, September 4, http://goo.gl/Srf17S.
Cloud, David and Raja Abdulrahim (2013), “U.S. Has Secretly Provided Arms Training to Syria Rebels Since 2012,” Los Angeles Times, June 21, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-cia-syria-20130622.
Commonwealth v. Nesbit (1859), Pa. 398; 1859 Pa. LEXIS 240.
Gaffney, Frank (2015), “Sharia Shaping a New Europe,” Secure Freedom Radio Podcasts, Center for Security Policy, September 21, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/09/21/sharia-shaping-a-new-europe/.
Hickford, Michele (2015), “Already Here: Meet America’s FIRST Muslim Majority City,” Allenbwest.com, November 22, http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/11/already-here-meet-americas-first-muslim-majority-city/.
Hohmann, Leo (2015), “Major U.S. City Poised to Implement Islamic Law,” July 23, http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/major-u-s-city-poised-to-implement-islamic-law/#c23Cxzir1klfk84R.99.
James, Dean (2014), “Christians Win Big Lawsuit Against Muslim Thugs in Dearborn, Michigan!” America’s Freedom Fighters, March 24, http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/03/24/christians-win-big-lawsuit-against-muslim-thugs-in-dearborn-michigan/.
Kern, Soeren (2015a), “European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 1: France,” Gatestone Institute, January 20http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones.
Kern, Soeren (2015b), “European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 2: Britain,” Gatestone Institute, February 3, http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5177/no-go-zones-britain.
“Kingdom Slams Racism Against Muslim Refugees” (2015), Arab News, November 25, http://www.arabnews.com/featured/news/840761.
“Migrant Crisis: One Million Enter Europe in 2015” (2015), BBC News, December 22, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35158769.
Miller, Dave (2005), The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Morris, Anne Cary, ed. (1888), The Diary and Letters of Gouverneur Morris (New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons).
People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290 (N.Y. 1811).
Seale, Patrick (2012), “What Is Really Happening in Syria?” Washington Report, August, 17-18, http://www.wrmea.org/2012-august/what-is-really-happening-in-syria.html.
Selk, Avi (2015a), “Irving City Council Backs State Bill Muslims Say Targets Them,”The Dallas Morning News, March 19, http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20150319-dispute-on-islam-roils-irving.ece.
Selk, Avi (2015b), “Irving Muslims Join Voter Rolls in Record Numbers,” The Dallas Morning News, May 10, http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/local-politics/20150510-irving-muslims-join-voter-rolls-in-record-numbers.ece.
Sheikh, Zia (2015), “Islamic Center of Irving Statement Regarding ‘Shariah Court’,” Islamic Center of Irving, http://irvingmasjid.org/index.php/ici-statement-regarding-sharia-court.
Spencer, Robert (2014), “Dearborn: Muslim at City Council Meeting Calls for Sharia Patrols, Restriction on Free Speech,” JihadWatch, February 22, http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/02/dearborn-muslim-at-city-council-meeting-calls-for-sharia-patrols-restriction-on-free-speech.
“Syrian Refugees Flood into Turkey” (2012), The Telegraph, March 13, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9141678/Syrian-refugees-flood-into-Turkey.html.

Seeing God “Face to Face” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2682&b=Genesis

Seeing God “Face to Face”

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the Kyle Butt/Dan Barker debate, Dan Barker alleged that He “knows” the God of the Bible cannot exist because “there are mutually incompatible properties/characteristics of the God that’s in this book [the Bible—EL] that rule out the possibility of His existence” (2009). One of the supposed contradictions that Barker mentioned was that God claims invisibility, yet has been seen. (His assertion is found 10 minutes and 55 seconds into his first speech.) Since biblical passages such as Exodus 33:20-23, John 1:18, and 1 John 4:12 teach that God cannot be seen, while other scriptures indicate that man has seen God and spoken to him “face to face” (Exodus 33:11; Genesis 32:30), allegedly “the God of the Bible does not exist.”
Although in modern times words are regularly used in many different senses (e.g., hot and cold, good and bad), Barker, like so many Bible critics, has dismissed the possibility that the terms in the aforementioned passages were used in different senses. Throughout Scripture, however, words are often used in various ways. In James 2:5, the term “poor” refers to material wealth, whereas the term “rich” has to do with a person’s spiritual well-being. In Philippians 3:12,15, Paul used the term “perfect” (NASB) in different senses. Although Paul had attained spiritual maturity (“perfection”) in Christ (vs. 15), he had not yet attained the perfect “final thing, the victor’s prize of the heavenly calling in Christ Jesus” (Schippers, 1971, 2:62; cf. Philippians 3:9-11). Similarly, in one sense man has seen God, but in another sense he has not.
Consider the first chapter of John where we learn that in the beginning Jesus was with God and “was God” (1:1; cf. 14,17). Though John wrote that Jesus “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14), he indicated only four sentences later that “no one has seen God at any time” (1:18; 1 John 4:12). Was Jesus God? Yes. Did man see Jesus? Yes. So in what sense has man not seen God? No human has ever seen Jesus in His true image (i.e., as a spirit Being—John 4:24—in all of His fullness, glory, and splendor). When God, the Word, appeared on Earth 2,000 years ago, He came in a veiled form. In his letter to the church at Philippi, the apostle Paul mentioned that Christ—Who had existed in heaven “in the form of God”—“made Himself of no reputation,” and took on the “likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6-7). Mankind saw an embodiment of deity as Jesus dwelt on Earth in the form of a man. Men saw “the Word” that “became flesh.” Likewise, when Jacob “struggled with God” (Genesis 32:28), He saw only a form of God, not the spiritual, invisible, omnipresent God Who fills heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:23-24).
But what about those statements which indicate that man saw or spoke to God “face to face”? Jacob said, “I have seen God face to face” (Genesis 32:30). Gideon proclaimed: “I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face” (Judges 6:22). Exodus 33:11 affirms that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” First, although these men witnessed great and awesome things, they still only saw manifestations of God and a part of His glory (cf. Exodus 33:18-23). Second, the words “face” and “face to face” are used in different senses in Scripture. Though Exodus 33:11 reveals that God spoke to Moses “face to face,” only nine verses later God told Moses, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live” (33:20). Are we to believe (as Barker and other critics assert) that the author of Exodus was so misguided that he wrote contradictory statements within only nine verses of each other? Certainly not! What then does the Bible mean when it says that God “knew” (Deuteronomy 34:10) or “spoke to Moses face to face” (Exodus 33:11)? The answer is found in Numbers 12. Aaron and Miriam had spoken against Moses and arrogantly asked: “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” (Numbers 12:2). God then appeared to Aaron and Miriam, saying: “If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the Lord” (Numbers 12:6-8, emp. added). Notice the contrast: God spoke to the prophets of Israel through visions and dreams, but to Moses He spoke, “not in dark sayings,” but “plainly.” In other words, God, Who never showed His face to Moses (Exodus 33:20), nevertheless allowed Moses to see “some unmistakable evidence of His glorious presence” (Jamieson, 1997), and spoke to him “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (33:11), i.e., He spoke to Moses plainly, directly, etc.
The Bible does not reveal “mutually incompatible characteristics of God” as Barker has alleged. His assertions in no way prove that the God of the Bible does not exist or that the Bible is unreliable. In truth, Barker’s comments merely reveal that he is a dishonest interpreter of Scripture. If Barker can work “side by side” with a colleague without literally working inches from him (Barker, 2008, p. 335), or if he can see “eye to eye” with a fellow atheist without ever literally looking into the atheist’s eyes, then Barker can understand that God could speak “face to face” with Moses without literally revealing to him His full, glorious “face.”

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Schippers, R. (1971), “Telos,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

The Basic Error of the Protestant Reformation by J.C. Bailey

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Bailey/John/Carlos/1903/Articles/basicerr.html

The Basic Error of the Protestant Reformation

We judge a tree by its fruit. In most ways great good has come from the Protestant Reformation. If we look at the countries where it flourished and compare them with the countries that clung to the old way, we can see what a good thing it was.

If the Reformers had lived up to their two great slogans, then the history of the religious world would have been different. Here are the two great slogans that were adopted by the Reformers:


THE UNIVERSAL PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVER
THE BIBLE THE FAITH OF THE PROTESTANT
But these noble slogans have been left far behind because today various Protestant denominations are as priest-bound and creed-bound as the Catholic church which they were trying to reform.

The very word REFORMATION is a mistake. It assumes that the Catholic Church was the church and it needed to be cleaned up. A candid perusal of the Bible will show that the Catholic Church is not the church of the Bible and no part of the church of the Bible. It is built on the traditions of men. Jesus described them exactly in Matthew 15:8,9. We have but to look at their doctrine and practices to see how true this is.

The errors of the Protestant world are borrowed largely from the Catholics: infant baptism, sprinkling for immersion, calling men "Reverend," a name that belongs only to God (Psalms 11:9).

However, the most serious error of Protestantism was not borrowed from the Catholics but came in opposition to the Catholic teaching that a man could be saved by the works of the church as prescribed by the church, regardless of what the Bible taught. The Protestants rightly taught that a man is saved by faith in Christ Jesus (John 3:16). We are not saved by the work of the law (Romans 3:28). We are not saved by our own righteousness (Titus 3:5). But men erroneously came to the conclusion that we are saved by faith ALONE.

One of the popular creeds of the Protestant world says: "Faith alone is a very wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort." The Bible does not so teach. The Bible teaches that a man must believe in the person of Christ (John 8:24). He must believe in the Word of Christ (Romans 10:17). When we reject the Word of Christ, we reject Christ: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my saying hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day (John 12:48). To this we add: "Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ hath not God, but he that abideth in the teaching hath both the Father and the Son" (II John 9).

We are saved by faith in Christ, but we are saved by an obedient faith (Romans 1:5; Romans 16:26; John 3:36). The Holy Spirit says PLAINLY that Jesus saves those who obey: "And having been made perfect he became unto all THEM THAT OBEY HIM the author of eternal salvation" (Hebrews 5:9). The whole Bible shows that God accepted man only through an obedient faith. To this there is no exception, from Abel to Paul. The Bible says that they that are of the faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham (Galatians 3:9). Abraham was blessed when he obeyed the voice of God AND NOT BEFORE: "And the angel of Jehovah called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said, by myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessings I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thee as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies and in thy seed [that seed was Christ: Galatians 3:16] shall all nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice" (Genesis 22:16-18). Abraham was blessed when he obeyed. The blessing came AFTER the obedience. We are blessed with the faithful Abraham. How can anyone say we are saved by FAITH ALONE, when the Bible from beginning to end testified that man is saved by an OBEDIENT faith?

In holding to this erroneous doctrine of justification by faith alone, men have rejected the plain teaching of the Word of God: that we are saved by an obedient faith. When one accepts the plain teaching of God's Word then he does not need to reject Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." He does not need to reject the plain teaching of the Holy Spirit: "And Peter said unto them, repent ye and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Judge a tree by its fruit. The doctrine of justification by FAITH ALONE causes man to reject these two Scriptures and many others. To accept the Bible teaching of justification by an obedient faith, one can accept these verses without question AND ALL OTHER SCRIPTURES THAT CALL UPON MAN TO BELIEVE AND OBEY.

The faith that was once for all delivered to the saints was an obedient faith, as is demonstrated hundreds of times in the Word of God. The devils believe but they are not saved FOR THEY DO NOT HAVE AN OBEDIENT FAITH (James 2:19).

We are all saved by faith in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:26). This faith causes us to be baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27). Salvation is IN CHRIST (Acts 4:12). We are in Christ by an obedient faith. Salvation is there and only there.

Let us give up the human doctrine of justification by FAITH ALONE. It is one of the traditions of men (Matthew 15:8,9). It is an old tradition that has been believed by millions of good people since the very beginning of the Protestant Reformation. BUT JUSTIFICATION BY AN OBEDIENT FAITH IS AS OLD AS THE BIBLE ITSELF.

"Choose you this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my house," we shall accept the Bible doctrine of justification by an obedient faith (Hebrews 5:9).

J.C. Bailey (1986, Bengough, Saskatchewan)


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

That which endures... by Gary Rose

Recently, Bruce Arnold sent me this poem and I greatly appreciate him doing it!!! Frankly, I had never considered writing this way and even more than that, the frailty of the written word, for even words written in stone eventually fade away.

However, these concepts and more are considered in the Bible. In fact, one of the wisest men that ever was, pondered great thoughts about what men do and the ultimate end of there efforts.  To fully address this, I would have to present the whole book of Ecclesiastes, but I will have to be content with its opening and closing chapters.

Ecclesiastes, Chapter 1 (World English Bible) 

 ¹ The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem: 

  ² “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher; “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” (emp. added vs. 2)  ³ What does man gain from all his labor in which he labors under the sun?  ⁴ One generation goes, and another generation comes; but the earth remains forever. ⁵ The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, and hurries to its place where it rises.  ⁶ The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north. It turns around continually as it goes, and the wind returns again to its courses.  ⁷ All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, there they flow again.  ⁸ All things are full of weariness beyond uttering. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.  ⁹ That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. ¹⁰ Is there a thing of which it may be said, “Behold, this is new?” It has been long ago, in the ages which were before us. ¹¹ There is no memory of the former; neither shall there be any memory of the latter that are to come, among those that shall come after. (emp. added vss. 9-11)

Ecclesiastes, Chapter 12 (World English Bible)

  ¹ Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, 

before the evil days come, and the years draw near, when you will say, “I have no pleasure in them;”   ² Before the sun, the light, the moon, and the stars are darkened, 
and the clouds return after the rain; 

  ³ in the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, 
and the strong men shall bow themselves, 

and the grinders cease because they are few, and those who look out of the windows are darkened, 

  ⁴ and the doors shall be shut in the street; 
when the sound of the grinding is low, 
and one shall rise up at the voice of a bird, and all the daughters of music shall be brought low; 

  ⁵ yes, they shall be afraid of heights, 
and terrors will be on the way; 
and the almond tree shall blossom, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, 
and desire shall fail; 
because man goes to his everlasting home, and the mourners go about the streets: 

  ⁶ before the silver cord is severed, 
or the golden bowl is broken, 
or the pitcher is broken at the spring, or the wheel broken at the cistern, 

  ⁷ and the dust returns to the earth as it was, 
and the spirit returns to God who gave it. 
  ⁸ “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher. 
“All is vanity!” 

  ⁹ Further, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge. Yes, he pondered, sought out, and set in order many proverbs.  ¹⁰ The Preacher sought to find out acceptable words, and that which was written blamelessly, words of truth.  ¹¹ The words of the wise are like goads; and like nails well fastened are words from the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.  ¹² Furthermore, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. 

  ¹³ This is the end of the matter. All has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.  ¹⁴ For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it is good, or whether it is evil. (emp. added, vss. 13-14) 

I have wondered at times if the words in my blog (short for weblog) have any lasting impact on anyone. At times, it is difficult to adequately express the combination of thought, feeling and action into something coherent that genuinely relates to the world around me as seen through the scriptures. However feeble my efforts have been, they are the best that I can do- and that will have to suffice. Solomon would have said (and did in chapter 1)...
  ² “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher; “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.”

And his searching for wisdom didn't stop until the end of the book, where his reflections turned to God and how marvelous it would be to seek God in ones youth (before the weight of old age became unbearable). 

His conclusion to wisdom and the cure for vanity- seek God and obey his commandments is not only humanly inspired, but heavenly as well. 

God has said in another place-

Isaiah, Chapter 55  (World English Bible)

  ⁶ Seek Yahweh while he may be found. 
Call on him while he is near. (emp. added vs. 6)
  ⁷ Let the wicked forsake his way, 
and the unrighteous man his thoughts. 
Let him return to Yahweh, and he will have mercy on him, to our God, for he will freely pardon. 

  ⁸ “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, 
and your ways are not my ways,” says Yahweh. 

  ⁹ “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, 
so are my ways higher than your ways, 
and my thoughts than your thoughts. 

  ¹⁰ For as the rain comes down and the snow from the sky, 
and doesn’t return there, but waters the earth, 
and makes it grow and bud, and gives seed to the sower and bread to the eater; 

  ¹¹ so is my word that goes out of my mouth: 
it will not return to me void, 
but it will accomplish that which I please, and it will prosper in the thing I sent it to do. 

The wise man will turn his thoughts to God's thoughts and seek to incorporate God's will into his life. God will change and perfect that wise one into the very best he can be. Believe this for it is true!!! That is why Isaiah 55:11 is in the Bible!!!

I think that somehow writing my blog will be easier from now on. 

MAY GOD'S WILL BE DONE- FOR THAT AND THAT ALONE IS ETERNAL!!!