“Emotional Blocks or Plain Bigotry,” or Something Else? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=182

“Emotional Blocks or Plain Bigotry,” or Something Else?

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Allegedly, “it was Darwin, above all others, who first marshaled convincing evidence for biological evolution...” (“Evidence Supporting...” 1999). Creationists insist that their point of view is substantiated by evidence, so it is natural that evolutionists claim to bolster their theory by pointing to evidence. Frequently, evolutionary scientists proclaim to have found original, striking evidence that confirms beyond doubt the factuality of the naturalistic view of origins. One hardly can scan the morning paper or search the Internet without seeing a new piece of “evidence.”

Is such evidence piled so high that creationists have no hope of climbing high enough even to stage an argument? As Trevor Major noted: “Indeed, newspaper stories frequently talk about ‘creationism’ versus ‘evolution’ as if belief in creation were exactly that—an ‘ism’—whereas evolution is an established fact” (2000). Stephen J. Gould put it strongly, if not without contradiction:

“[E]volution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered” (1983, pp. 254-255).

And perhaps Dobzhansky summarized the prevailing view of the scientific community when he wrote: “Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry” (1983, p. 27).

Are creationists so skewed in their perceptions of the data that they are blind to a mountain of undeniable evolutionary evidence, ignoring the proverbial elephant in their own living rooms? Are they just ignoring what the New England Skeptical Society calls “the mountain of evidence for evolution” (see “Intelligent Design”)? Francois Tremblay echoes: “How do [creationists—CC] refute the mountain of evidence for evolution?” (2003). Richard Dawkins affirms: “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. 7, emp. in orig.). Gould, Dobzhansky, Dawkins, and many others would be troubled by the fact that there are those who, “hampered” by a belief in God, “just don’t get it.”

Consider this important principle: If someone labels data, even a large set of data, as “evidence” for his theory, the data may or may not support his theory. The law of rationality dictates that a person draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence (Pugh, 2002, p. 29). However, a person may label anything as evidence, whether or not it supports his theory. Quite simply, a lot of data may not support a particular view simply because a person says it does. More data does not necessarily equal stronger evidence. We must analyze each new piece of data to see how, and whether, it bears on the origins discussion. This is a Scriptural process. “‘Present your case,’ says the Lord, ‘Bring forth your strong reasons, says the King of Jacob’” (Isaiah 41:21). Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to “test all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Jesus rebuked the apostles for initially questioning the evidence for His resurrection (Mark 16:14; cf. Gray, 2005, pp. 216ff.).

Sadly, personal prejudice or wishful thinking might cause one to believe that theory is fact without full knowledge or understanding of the facts. For example, consider the University of California at Berkeley’s “Understanding Evolution” Web site (“Understanding Evolution,” n.d.). In 1956, American geologist Clair Patterson announced that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. He based his old age for the Earth upon “evidence” from radiometric dating. Since then, it has been shown that radiometric dating systems are unreliable because they are based on groundless assumptions (see Jackson, 2003, pp.13-22; cf. Harrub, 2003). However, the Berkeley site continues to offer radiometric dating as an evidence for an old Earth and naturalism (“Radiometric Dating,” n.d.).

Similar criticism has disproved other alleged evidences for evolution, such as homology, horse evolution, the geologic column, and many others. Living things, such as viruses, may exhibit microevolution but not macroevolution (cf. Harrub, 2001). We could go on. What of that mountain of evidence for evolution? If we may subtract evidence supported by radiometric dating methods from the mountain of evidence, should we remove other portions of the mountain? How much of the mountain would be left if we removed all the pieces that resulted from irrational conclusions?

Bruce Silverthorne observed: “Evidence...makes us honest when we are asked to form and explain premises” (2004, p. 145). Both evolutionists and creationists should be honest when addressing the evidence. The Christian must be careful of “pursuing the inquiry with so fixed a determination that the Bible shall be found true, as to lead him to accept shallow sophisms for sound arguments, and to disregard the force of serious objections” (McGarvey, 1974, p. 3). Unfortunately, many will fail to analyze data, will feel that the “evidence” for evolution is too strong, and therefore will blindly subscribe to evolution. Our plea is that they will pay close attention to what scientists and others offer as evidence supporting their theory.

REFERENCES

“Intelligent Design” (no date), The New England Skeptical Society, [On-line], URL:http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=31.

Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review,” The New York Times, section 7, p. 34. April 9.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1983), “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy, ed. J. Peter Zetterberg (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx).

Gould, Stephen Jay (1983), Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes (New York: W.W. Norton).

Gray, Phillip A. (2005), Training Manual for Cultural Combat: Apologetics and Preaching for the Postmodern Mind (Altamonte Springs, FL: Advantage).

Harrub, Brad (2001), “Are Viruses Really ‘Evolving’?,” [On-line], URL:http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1017.

Harrub, Brad (2003), “When Dating Methods Don’t Agree,” [On-line], URL:http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=703.

Jackson, Wayne (2003), Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth (Stockton, CA: Courier), second edition.

Major, Trevor (2000), “The Intelligent Design Movement [Part I],” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2514.

McGarvey, J.W. (1974), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

“Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution” (1999), A View from the National Academy of Sciences, [On-line], URL: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html.

Pugh, Charles (2002), Things Most Surely Believed (Sugarcreek, OH: Schlabach).

“Radiometric Dating” (no date), University of California at Berkeley[On-line], URL: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_23.

Silverthorne, Bruce K. (2004), The Pest Control Technician’s Guide to Christian Faith (Salt Lake City, UT: Millennial Mind).

Tremblay, Francois (2003), “The Intellectual Poverty of Creationism,” [On-line], URL: http://www.liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/IntellectualPoverty.html.

“Understanding Evolution” (no date), University of California at Berkeley, [On-line], URL: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.

America and Atheistic Evolutionists by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2060

America and Atheistic Evolutionists

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Amid militant cries by evolutionists to ban God from science, the public school, and America, how ironic that such talk is permissible only because America was founded by theists. For some fifty years now, atheistic evolutionists have been chipping steadily away at belief in God and the Christian religion throughout the public school and university system of this country. They have successfully indoctrinated many young people with their godless theory. Virtually every department in state universities has been infiltrated by humanistic presuppositions. Study and research are conducted from an evolutionary, relativistic framework that either jettisons the notion of God altogether, or dilutes it sufficiently to exclude the biblical portrayal of deity. Many American universities are now firmly under the control of atheists, agnostics, and skeptics who forthrightly reject belief in God, embrace a materialistic view of origins, and are determined to eradicate any residue of belief in God that may linger in the minds of their victimized pupils.

But the United States was born under such drastically different circumstances. Indeed, the foundational premise for severing ties with England, and the central rationale and justification for establishing a new nation, was articulated by the Founders in their declared intention to establish their independence (Declaration of..., 1776). In the very first sentence of that seminal document, they insisted that “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle[d] them” to achieve “the separate and equal station” of a new nation. The “Nature’s God” to whom they referred was the God of the Bible. In the second sentence they declared that they had been “created” (not evolved) by their “Creator” who invested them with “certain unalienable Rights.” In other words, the American Republic had a right to exist on the basis of the authority of the God of the Bible. Further, they justified their intentions by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world.” And they staked the entire enterprise on “a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” Four times in the brief literary missive that launched the United States of America, the Founders alluded to the God of the Bible; yet now, over two centuries later, evolutionists have declared war on those who believe in that God!

The architects of this country would be outraged—and thoroughly alarmed for national survival. As Benjamin Franklin declared to Thomas Paine:

For without the Belief of a Providence that takes Cognizance of, guards and guides and may favour particular Persons, there is no Motive to Worship a Deity, to fear its Displeasure, or to pray for its Protection. If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it? I intend this Letter itself as a Proof of my Friendship.... (1840, 10:281-282, emp. added).

John Adams played a central role in the birth of our nation, as delegate to the Continental Congress (1774-1777) where he signed the Declaration of Independence, signer of the peace treaty that ended the American Revolution (1783), two-time Vice-President under George Washington (1789-1797), and second President of the United States (1797-1801). In a letter to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817, John Adams insisted: “Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell” (1856, 10:254). He declared in 1778 that atheism ought to be treated with “horror” and those who embrace it are traitors, hypocrites, and guilty of treason:

The idea of infidelity cannot be treated with too much resentment or too much horror. The man who can think of it with patience is a traitor in his heart and ought to be execrated as one who adds the deepest hypocrisy to the blackest treason (1977-1989, 6:348).

Writing to Noah Webster on July 20, 1798, Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, said: “I anticipate nothing but suffering to the human race while the present systems of paganism, deism, and atheism prevail in the world” (1951, 2:799). Another signer of the Declaration, Samuel Adams, stated in a letter written in 1772: “I have a thorough contempt for all men...who appear to be the irreclaimable enemies of religion” (1906, 2:381). Signer of the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris, insisted in 1816:

There must be religion. When that ligament is torn, society is disjointed and its members perish. The nation is exposed to foreign violence and domestic convulsion. Vicious rulers, chosen by vicious people, turn back the current of corruption to its source. Placed in a situation where they can exercise authority for their own emolument, they betray their trust. They take bribes. They sell statutes and decrees. They sell honor and office. They sell their conscience. They sell their country. By this vile traffic they become odious and contemptible.... But the most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every State that rejects the precepts of religion” (Collections of..., 1821, pp. 32,34, emp. added).

Speaking to the senior class at Princeton College in 1775, Declaration signer John Witherspoon declared: “Shun, as a contagious pestilence,...those especially whom you perceive to be infected with the principles of infidelity or [who are] enemies to the power of religion” (1802, 6:13).

With uncanny anticipation of the audacious, avowed determination by evolutionists to rid the nation of belief in God, Alexander Hamilton, another signer of the federal Constitution, condemned France in 1798 for a comparable aspiration: “The attempt by the rulers of a nation to destroy all religious opinion and to pervert a whole people to atheism is a phenomenon of profligacy.... [T]o establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity [is] to deprive mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes and to make a gloomy desert of the universe” (1979, 21:402-404). Also describing France, John Jay, first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, explained:

During my residence there, I do not recollect to have had more than two conversations with atheists about their tenets. The first was this: I was at a large party, of which were several of that description. They spoke freely and contemptuously of religion. I took no part in the conversation. In the course of it, one of them asked me if I believed in Christ? I answered that I did, and that I thanked God that I did.... Some time afterward, one of my family being dangerously ill, I was advised to send for an English physician who had resided many years at Paris.... But, it was added, he is an atheist.... [D]uring one of his visits, [he] very abruptly remarked that there was no God and he hoped the time would come when there would be no religion in the world. I very concisely remarked that if there was no God there could be no moral obligations, and I did not see how society could subsist without them... (Jay, 1833, 2:346-347, emp. added).

Even Benjamin Franklin chided the French with the near absence of atheism in early America:

[B]ad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country, without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an atheist or an infidel (1784, p. 24, emp. added).

Even Thomas Paine, who styled himself a deist and opponent of Christianity, nevertheless repudiated the atheism being perpetrated by today’s evolutionists. In his Age of Reason, he claimed to believe in God and afterlife: “I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life” (1794). He also wrote: “Were man impressed as fully and as strongly as he ought to be with the belief of a God, his moral life would be regulated by the force of that belief; he would stand in awe of God and of himself, and would not do the thing that could not be concealed from either” (1794). Paine not only believed in “the certainty of his existence and the immutability of his power,” he asserted that “it is the fool only, and not the philosopher, or even the prudent man, that would live as if there were no God.” In fact, he stated that it is “rational to believe” that God would call all people “to account for the manner in which we have lived here” (1794). According to Paine, today’s atheistic evolutionists are imprudent, irrational fools. The psalmist articulated the same conclusion centuries ago when he wrote: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1).

If atheistic evolutionists have their way in this country by having God expunged from public education, according to the Founders of America, this country will become a nightmare—a “gloomy desert,” or as John Adams believed, a living “hell” on Earth. Russia went down the same road of atheistic evolution a century ago. Because of their inability to discern spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14), the Soviet cosmonauts looked out of their spacecraft in the 1950s and, in ridicule, asked, “Where is God?,” echoing again the words of the psalmist: “Why should the nations say, ‘Where now is their God?’ But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases” (Psalm 115:2-3). Pride is a deadly pitfall that blinds one to the truth: “The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; all his thoughts are, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 10:4).

The Father of our country, George Washington, would be heartsick to hear the intentions of today’s evolutionists:

I am sure there never was a people who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that Agency which was so often manifested during our revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that Godwho is alone able to protect them (1838, 10:222-223, emp. added).

Nevertheless, the physical evidence remains abundantly clear: the Universe “declares” the plain work of the Creator (Psalm 19:1). Those who see “the things that are made” and deny the very One Who made them—are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1856), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.).

Adams, John (1977-1989), The Papers of John Adams, ed. Robert Taylor (Cambridge: Belknap Press).

Adams, Samuel (1906), The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Harry Cushing (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).

Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1821 (1821), (New York: E. Bliss & E. White).

Declaration of Independence (1776), National Archives, [On-line], URL:http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience /charters/declaration.html.

Franklin, Benjamin (1784), Two Tracts: Information to Those Who Would Remove to America and Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America (London: John Stockdale).

Franklin, Benjamin (1840), The Works of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston, MA: Tappan, Whittemore, & Mason).

Hamilton, Alexander (1979), The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press).

Jay, William (1833), The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper).

Paine, Thomas (1794), Age of Reason, [On-line], URL:http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/singlehtml.htm.

Rush, Benjamin (1951), Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L.H. Butterfield (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Washington, George (1838), The Writings of George Washington, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston, MA: Ferdinand Andrews).

Witherspoon, John (1802), The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Philadelphia, PA: William Woodward).

How Much Water Could "the Sea" Hold? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=742&b=2%20Chronicles

How Much Water Could "the Sea" Hold?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Almost 1,000 years before Jesus set foot on the Earth, the first temple dedicated to Jehovah was built out of Lebanon cedar (the finest there was), costly stones, and pure gold. The Bible indicates that over 183,000 men were involved in the construction of this glorious house of worship during the reign of King Solomon (1 Kings 5:13-16). The vessels that were housed within the temple, and those that remained in the inner court, were equally as elaborate. One of these vessels that stood on the right side of the sanctuary between the altar and the porch of the temple was an immense bronze basin known as “the Sea” (1 Kings 7:23). It was five cubits (7½ feet) high, ten cubits (15 feet) in diameter at the brim, thirty cubits (45 feet) in circumference and rested on 12 bronze oxen (1 Kings 7:23-26, 39; 2 Chronicles 4:2-5,10). Unlike the ten lesser basins that were used to bathe portions of the burnt offerings, the Sea served as a washing pool for the priests (2 Chronicles 4:6). For many years the capacity of the inner court’s large basin known as “the Sea” has been at the center of controversy. The reason: 1 Kings 7:26 indicates that it held 2,000 baths. (A bath was the largest of the liquid measures in Hebrew culture; estimates are that it corresponds to anywhere from 4½-9 U.S. gallons). However, 2 Chronicles 4:5 says that the Sea held 3,000 baths. Thus, critics of the Bible’s inerrancy have charged that a blatant contradiction exists and that such lack of agreement discredits divine authorship.

There are at least three possible solutions to this alleged contradiction. First, the answer could be that a copyist, while attempting to ensure a “carbon copy” of the manuscript from which he was working, made an error. [For a general background on copyists’ errors, please see our foundational essay on that subject.] Keil and Delitzsch, in their commentary on 2 Chronicles, indicated their support of this theory. They tend to believe that the number 3,000 given in 2 Chronicles 4:5 has arisen from the confusion of the letter gimel (Hebrew transliterated letter-number for “3”) with beth (Hebrew transliterated letter- number for “2”). By a comparison of the two Hebrew letters, it easily is seen that their shape is quite similar. Even a tiny smudge from excessive wear on a scroll-column or a slightly damaged manuscript could have resulted in making the gimel look like a beth. With such an adjustment, the statements in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles are harmonized easily. However, it very well may be that this is not a copyist’s error at all.

A second possible explanation to this alleged contradiction revolves around a Hebrew word used in 2 Chronicles 4:5 that does not appear in 1 Kings 7:26. Whereas in 1 Kings it says that the molten Sea “held” (ASV) 2,000 baths, 2 Chronicles says that it “received (Hebrew machaziyq) and held three thousand baths” (ASV, emp. added). The difference in phraseology may indicate that the Sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths, but when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000 baths (Haley, 1951, p. 382). Thus, the chronicler informs the reader that 3,000 baths of water were required to completely fill the Sea, which usually held 2,000 baths (Barnes). Anyone who has ever been around large pools of water (like a swimming pool) knows that the pool actually can hold a few thousand gallons of water more than generally is kept in it. It very well may be that the wording in 2 Chronicles indicates such a difference about the water level in the Sea.

A third possible solution to this “problem passage” is that the “bath” unit mentioned in 1 Kings was larger than the “bath” unit used in 2 Chronicles. Since the latter account was written after the Babylonian exile, it is quite possible that reference is made to the Babylonian bath, which might have been less than the Jewish bath used at the time of Solomon. As Adam Clarke observed: “The cubit of Moses, or of the ancient Hebrews, was longer than the Babylonian by one palm…. It might be the same with the measures of capacity; so that two thousand of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to three thousand of those used after the captivity.” In considering a modern-day example, a 20% difference exists between the U.S. gallon and the Imperial gallon, even though the same term is used for both quantities. Thus, this alleged discrepancy may be simply a misunderstanding on the part of 21st-century readers.

The fact of the matter is that critics of the Bible cannot prove that this is a legitimate contradiction. Second Chronicles could represent a copyist’s error. On the other hand, I believe that one of the last two explanations represents a more plausible solution to the problem: either (1) the addition of the Hebrew word machaziyq (“received”) in 2 Chronicles 4:5 means that the Sea could actually hold 3,000 baths (though it normally held 2,000 baths); or (2) the “bath” unit used during the time of Solomon was larger than the one used after the Jews were released from Babylonian captivity. Until one can prove that these three solutions are not possibilities, he should refrain from criticizing the Bible’s claim of divine inspiration.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Haley, John W. (1951 reprint), Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.

Does the church of Christ consist of the saved? by Roy Davison

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

Jesus built His church on a Rock

(Matthew 16:18)

Does the church of Christ consist of the 

saved?

“The Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47).

I. The church is the assembly of the saved.

A. The church of Christ came into being on the Day of Pentecost, when the Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, proclaimed God’s message of Salvation, and God added those who were saved to His church.

1. To the question “What shall we do?” Peter replied: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:37, 38).

2. “And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation.’ Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them” (Acts 2:40, 41).

3. “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47).

B. By definition then, the church of Christ consists of those who are saved. God adds the saved to His church.

C. Salvation is needed because people sin. Only God can forgive sins. To make forgiveness possible, He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to be the Savior of the world. People who believe in Him, repent of sin, confess faith and are baptized, receive forgiveness, and God adds them to His church.

II. “Salvation is of the LORD” (Jonah 2:9).

A. “Our God is the God of salvation” (Psalm 68:20).

1. “I, even I, am the LORD, and besides Me there is no savior” (Isaiah 43:11).

2. “Oh come, let us sing to the LORD! Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation” (Psalm 95:1).

B. Through the ages, men of faith have looked to God for salvation.

1. In the depths of despair Job still could say: “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.” ... “He also shall be my salvation” (Job 13:15a, 16a).

2. Shortly before his death, Jacob said: “I have waited for your salvation, O LORD!” (Genesis 49:18).

4. David looked to God for salvation. “Lead me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation” (Psalm 25:5).

5. Isaiah wrote: “I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for He has clothed me with the garments of salvation” (Isaiah 61:10a).

6. Jeremiah said: “It is good that one should hope and wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD” (Lamentations 3:26).

7. Micah said: “Therefore I will look to the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation; my God will hear me” (Micah 7:7).

8. Habakkuk said: “Though the fig tree may not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines; though the labor of the olive may fail, and the fields yield no food; though the flock be cut off from the fold, and there be no herd in the stalls - yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation” (Habakkuk 3:17, 18).

III. God promised to send a Savior for the whole world.
Old Testament prophets told of the coming Messiah who would bring salvation, not only to Israel, but also to the whole world.

A. “There is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me. Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:21b-22). [See also Isaiah 25:9; 35:3, 4; 49:6; 52:7.]

B. “In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely” (Jeremiah 33:15, 16a).

C. Joel wrote: “And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved” (Joel 2:32).

IV. God’s promised salvation has come: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, Savior of the world.

A. Joseph was told in a dream regarding Mary: “And she will bring forth a Son and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).

B. After Jesus was born, an angel proclaimed to shepherds nearby: “I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David, a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10b, 11).

C. John the Baptist testified when he saw Jesus: “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).

D. Believers at Sychar in Samaria, after hearing Jesus preach for two days, said: “We have heard for ourselves and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world” (John 4:42).

E. To the Jewish leaders Peter said of Jesus: “This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11, 12).

V. We are saved by the sacrifice of Christ who “bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24).

A. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

B. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

C. Because of our sins, we deserve to die, but “the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6).

VI. What is the message of salvation preached by the church?

A. Once when Jesus spoke of the difficulty of entering God’s kingdom, His disciples said: “Who then can be saved?” His reply was: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:25, 26).

1. Salvation depends on the grace of God. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:8, 9).

2. Man cannot save himself.

a. Some think they will be saved because they are relatively good people, but good deeds do not remove sin. Cornelius was a good man but he still needed the gospel to be saved (Acts 11:13, 14).
b. Some think they can be saved by law-keeping, but law-keeping cannot save because no one keeps laws perfectly (Romans 8:3, 4).
c. Some think political systems can save mankind, but in all systems, including democracies, sinners misuse political power to the detriment of others. John “saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together to make war” against Christ and His army (Revelation 19:19-21).
d. Some think modern technology can save mankind, but technology facilitates evil as well as good. After a century of unprecedented technological advancement, man still has the same horrible problems caused by sin. Unprecedented evils occurred during the last century. Two world wars killed fifty million people. Nuclear weapons capable of destroying civilization were developed, deployed and stockpiled. Medical doctors murdered two billion unborn babies by abortion. Millions died of famine because of the uneven distribution of wealth. Earth’s resources started being consumed at an unsustainable rate. An AIDS pandemic killed more than 25 million people, with 30 million currently infected by HIV, a virus spread by immorality, especially homosexual relationships. Yet sexual perversion has been given human-rights status in many so-called developed countries.
Thus, in spite of amazing technological advancement, the four horsemen of Revelation chapter six (lust for power, war, famine and death) still gallop throughout the earth wreaking havoc as God allows men to suffer the consequences of their sins. In spite of these plagues “they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts” (Revelation 9:20, 21).
e. Man definitely cannot save himself. But the good news is that God offers salvation to all!

3. God saves those who respond to His grace with a good and noble heart.

a. Explaining the parable of the sower, Jesus said: “But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit” (Luke 8:15).
b. “The LORD is near to those who have a broken heart, and saves such as have a contrite spirit” (Psalm 34:18). “He will beautify the humble with salvation” (Psalm 149:4b).

C. What is this message of salvation that noble hearts gladly receive and obey?

1. “He who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6).

a. When the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” they replied, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:30, 31).
b. Paul said: “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).

2. Faith in Christ must be confessed.

a. Jesus said: “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32, 33).
b. Paul explains: “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation” (Romans 10:9, 10).

3. Repentance is required.

a. Jesus came to call sinners to repentance (Matthew 9:13).
b. When He sent out the twelve, they preached that people should repent (Mark 6:12).
c. Jesus told His hearers: “Unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).
d. Before His ascension, He told His disciples “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations” (Luke 24:47).
e. “Godly sorrow produces repentance to salvation” (2 Corinthians 7:10).

4. At baptism penitent believers are saved by God.

a. Jesus told Nicodemus: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
b. Ananias told Paul: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).
c. “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:26, 27).

d. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13), which is the church of Christ.

VI. What have we learned? Man cannot save himself. God is the only source of salvation that He offers freely through the sacrifice of His Son. All who accept God’s grace by believing in Christ, confessing His name, repenting, and being baptized for the forgiveness of sins are saved. It is still true, as it was 2000 years ago, that the Lord adds to the church day by day those who are being saved. The church of Christ consists of all the saved. Amen.

Roy Davison
http://www.oldpaths.com/RD

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)

One way only by Gary Rose

Please, read the picture from the top down and then reverse the procedure. How different the readings are! But, what caused the change? How could a boy go from such a loving suitor to a cur (cad, scoundrel, low-life - whatever)? 

Since actions like this do happen in real life, they are worth considering. And the Bible doesn't shy away from dealing with such issues. First, the down-side and then the cure...

2 Samuel, Chapter 13 (World English Bible)

  ¹ After this, Absalom the son of David had a beautiful sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her.  ² Amnon was so troubled that he became sick because of his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and it seemed hard to Amnon to do anything to her.  ³ But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David’s brother; and Jonadab was a very subtle man.  ⁴ He said to him, “Why, son of the king, are you so sad from day to day? Won’t you tell me?” 

Amnon said to him, “I love Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister.” 

  ⁵ Jonadab said to him, “Lay down on your bed, and pretend to be sick. When your father comes to see you, tell him, ‘Please let my sister Tamar come and give me bread to eat, and prepare the food in my sight, that I may see it, and eat it from her hand.’” 

  ⁶ So Amnon lay down and faked being sick. When the king came to see him, Amnon said to the king, “Please let my sister Tamar come, and make me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat from her hand.” 

  ⁷ Then David sent home to Tamar, saying, “Go now to your brother Amnon’s house, and prepare food for him.” ⁸ So Tamar went to her brother Amnon’s house; and he was lying down. She took dough, and kneaded it, made cakes in his sight, and baked the cakes.  ⁹ She took the pan, and poured them out before him; but he refused to eat. Amnon said, “Have all men leave me.” Then every man went out from him.  ¹⁰ Amnon said to Tamar, “Bring the food into the room, that I may eat from your hand.” Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the room to Amnon her brother.  ¹¹ When she had brought them near to him to eat, he took hold of her, and said to her, “Come, lie with me, my sister!” 

  ¹² She answered him, “No, my brother, do not force me! For no such thing ought to be done in Israel. Don’t you do this folly.  ¹³ As for me, where would I carry my shame? And as for you, you will be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you.” 

  ¹⁴ However he would not listen to her voice; but being stronger than she, he forced her, and lay with her. ¹⁵ Then Amnon hated her with exceedingly great hatred; for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. Amnon said to her, “Arise, be gone!” 

  ¹⁶ She said to him, “Not so, because this great wrong in sending me away is worse than the other that you did to me!” 

But he would not listen to her.  ¹⁷ Then he called his servant who ministered to him, and said, “Now put this woman out from me, and bolt the door after her.” 

As compared to...

Ephesians, Chapter 5 (WEB)

  ²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly, and gave himself up for it;  ²⁶ that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,  ²⁷ that he might present the assembly to himself gloriously, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without defect.  ²⁸ Even so husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.  ²⁹ For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord also does the assembly;  ³⁰ because we are members of his body, of his flesh and bones.  ³¹ “For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will be joined to his wife. The two will become one flesh.” ³² This mystery is great, but I speak concerning Christ and of the assembly.  ³³ Nevertheless each of you must also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she respects her husband. 

The difference in the two passages is the difference between a life of sin and a life with God. Without God, women become an object; something to be used and discarded. With God, WIVES, are to be loved because they are a gift from God and God desires happiness in marriage.

Frankly, marriage is not easy, but where there is love there is hope. 

I don't know about you, but I will only read that picture from the top down from now on- the reverse lifestyle is sinful and I don't wish to even THINK ABOUT IT! How about YOU???

"THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS" The Three Tribunals (4:3-5) by Mark Copeland

                 "THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS"

                      The Three Tribunals (4:3-5)

INTRODUCTION

1. Among the many problems that existed in the church at Corinth...
   a. There was the problem of division - 1Co 1:10-11
   b. Which involved "preacher-itis" or "personality cults" - 1Co 1:12

2. In dealing with the problem, the apostle Paul...
   a. Rebuked the spiritual immaturity of such division - 1Co 3:1-4
   b. Revealed how one should view the role of preachers 

      - 1Co 3:5-9; 4:1-2
   c. Remarked that in his own case he was more interested in what the
      Lord thought - 1Co 4:3-5

3. In the text for this study (1Co 4:3-5), we are introduced to three
   different types of judgment...
   a. The court of judgment by men
   b. The court of judgment by one's conscience
   c. The court of judgment by Christ
   -- We might call these "The Three Tribunals"

4. In our federal court system, we have...
   a. The local federal court
   b. The federal district court of appeal
   c. The federal supreme court
   -- In which the judgment of one court is more final that the others

[So it is with "The Three Tribunals" of our text.  There is a difference
between them, and we do well to see what the Scriptures say about each
one.  We begin with the lowest "tribunal"...]

I. THE COURT OF JUDGMENT BY MEN

   A. PAUL'S VIEW OF THIS "TRIBUNAL"...
      1. "... it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or
         by a human court" - 1Co 4:3a
      2. Note carefully that he said "a very small thing", not "nothing"
      3. Paul was often concerned about what people thought in some matters
         a. About what his weak brother thought - 1Co 8:13
         b. About what the lost thought - 1Co 9:19-23; 10:31-33
      4. But what people thought of him personally was " a very small thing"...
         a. His accomplishments
         b. His status as a preacher

   B. THE REASON FOR PAUL'S VIEW...
      1. He knew how fallible the opinions of others could be
         a. The world loves false teachers - Lk 6:26; cf. Jer 5:30-31
         b. They hate those "not of the world" - Jn 15:18-19
      2. He new their criteria for judging was wrong
         a. They often look at the outward appearance - cf. 1Sa 16:7
         b. A problem Paul had to deal with - 2Co 10:7,10
         c. Yet he knew what the Lord had said - cf. Jn 7:24

[While there are times we should be considerate of what others think,
the final estimation needs to look to a higher court.  Some would say
"Let your conscience be your guide."  But let's examine...]

II. THE COURT OF JUDGMENT BY ONE'S CONSCIENCE

   A. PAUL'S VIEW OF THIS "TRIBUNAL"...
      1. "In fact, I do not even judge myself." - 1Co 4:3b
      2. Paul is not totally discounting the need to examine oneself
         a. We are to examine ourselves at the Lord's Supper 

            - 1Co 11:28-31
         b. We should periodically examine our own salvation - 2Co 13:5
      3. He certainly stressed the importance of a good conscience
         - 1Ti 1:5,19; 3:9; 4:2
      4. But in the matter at hand (evaluating preachers), Paul refused
         to depend on this "tribunal"

   B. THE REASON FOR PAUL'S VIEW...
      1. He knew how fallible one's conscience or self-estimation can be
         a. He had always served God with good conscience - Ac 23:1
         b. Even when he was killing Christians - cf. Ac 26:9-11
         c. When misinformed, one can have a clear conscience and still
            be dead wrong!
      2. Paul acknowledged this possibility
         a. "For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified
            by this;" - 1Co 4:4a
         b. While his conscience was clear, he knew that it did not make
            him right

[Paul knew there remained a final and infallible judgment...]

III. THE COURT OF JUDGMENT BY CHRIST

   A. PAUL'S VIEW OF THIS "TRIBUNAL"...
      1. He knew that "He who judges me is the Lord" - 1Co 4:4b
         a. This refers to the judgment by Christ is evident from v.5
         b. For Christ will judge men at His coming - 2Co 5:10
      2. He viewed the Lord's judgment as superior, for He will:
         a. "bring to light the hidden things of darkness" (things a
            clear conscience might miss)
         b. "reveal the counsels of the heart" (things often hidden from
            the view of others)
      3. Thus Paul viewed this "tribunal" as final, with no court of appeal!

   B. THE REASON FOR PAUL'S VIEW...
      1. He knew the judgment of Christ was certain
         a. For God provided proof through the resurrection of Jesus
            - Ac 17:31
         b. And so Paul often wrote of this judgment 

            - Ro 14:10; 2 Co 5:10; 2Ti 4:1
      2. He knew the judgment of Christ was superior
         a. He knew the Lord was judging even then (cf. the present
            tense) - 1Co 4:5; cf. Re 2-3
         b. He knew the Lord could know the secrets of men - Jn 2:24-25;
            cf. Mt 9:4

CONCLUSION

1. And so we have "The Three Tribunals"...
   a. The court of judgment by men
   b. The court of judgment by one's conscience
   c. The court of judgment by Christ

2. To which "tribunal" are we appealing for the hope of salvation...?
   a. Is our hope based on what fallible men have said?
   b. Is our trust based on what we feel in our hearts, or what our
      conscience tells us?
   c. Or do we place our trust and hope in the words of the Lord who
      will judge us? - Jn 12:48; cf. Mk 16:16; Re 2:10

I trust that we have seen there is only one "tribunal" we should look to
for the final answer to such questions, and that we might truly have the
attitude of Paul...

   "Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be
   well pleasing to Him." - 2Co 5:9

Note:  The main points of this outline are based on a sermon by
Alexander Maclaren with a similar title in his Expositions Of The Holy
Scriptures.

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

 

Biblical Accuracy Set in Stone by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=921

Biblical Accuracy Set in Stone

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Writing about a rock that was discovered almost 150 years ago certainly would not fit in a current “in the news” section. In fact, since 1868, so much has been written about this stone that very few new articles pertaining to it come to light. But the truth of the matter is that even though it was discovered more than a century ago, many Christians do not even know it exists, and need to be reminded of its importance.

The stone is known as the Moabite Stone (or the Mesha Inscription). A missionary named Klein first discovered the stone in August of 1868 (Edersheim, n.d., p. 109). When he initially saw the black basalt stone, it measured about 3.5 feet high and 2 feet wide. Upon hearing of Klein’s adventure, a French scholar named Clermont-Ganneau located the antiquated piece of rock and made an impression of the writing on its surface. From that point, the details surrounding the stone are not quite as clear. Apparently, the Arabs who had the stone thought that it was a religious talisman of some sort, and broke it into several pieces by heating it in fire and then pouring cold water on it. The pieces were scattered, but about two-thirds of the original stone has been relocated, and currently resides at the Louvre in Paris (Jacobs and McCurdy, 2002).

The written inscription on the stone provides a piece of “rock-solid” evidence verifying the Bible’s accuracy. Mesha, the king of Moab, had the stone cut in about 850 B.C. to tell of his many conquests and his reacquisition of certain territories that were controlled by Israel. In the over 30-line text composed of about 260 words, Mesha mentions that Omri was the King of Israel who had oppressed Moab, but then Mesha says he “saw his desire upon” Omri’s son and upon “his house.” The Mesha stele cites Omri as the king of Israel, just as 1 Kings 16:21-28 indicates. Furthermore, it mentions Omri’s son (Ahab) in close connection with the Moabites, just as 2 Kings 3:4-6 does. In addition, both the stele and 2 Kings 3:4-6 list Mesha as the king of Moab. The stele further names the Israelite tribe of Gad, and the Israelite God, Yahweh. Taken as a whole, the Moabite stone remains one of the most impressive pieces of evidence verifying the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. And, although this find has been around almost 150 years, it “still speaks” to us today (Hebrews 11:4).

REFERENCES

Edersheim, Albert (no date), The Bible History—Old Testament, book VI (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Jacobs, Joseph and J. Frederick McCurdy (2002), “Moabite Stone,” JewishEncyclopedia.com, [On-line], URL: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=680&letter=M.