11/24/17

What Happened to the Body? by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1120

What Happened to the Body?

by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

Q.

Christianity is based in its entirety on the claim that Jesus arose from the dead. Is there any actual evidence to support such a claim?
A.
The unexpected happened. He told them it would; He even told them how. They simply refused to believe. Thursday, Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem with His friends; Friday, He was dead. His battered, lifeless body was removed from the cross and carried away. Friday night it was there—undisturbed. All day Saturday it was there—under guard. Sunday dawned. The tomb was empty. What happened to the body?
Jesus Christ met death face-to-face, and defeated it. The tomb was empty Sunday morning because Jesus was alive. Tombs are for the dead—not the living. By His resurrection, every claim Jesus made regarding His deity was confirmed “with power” (Romans 1:4). He not only kept His word that He would be raised, but He fulfilled a thousand-year-old prophecy by David (cf. Psalm 16:1-2; Acts 2:24-36).
In an age devoid of active miracles, people often wonder if such a claim can be proved. The answer is “yes!” A compelling case for the resurrection can be made from the information contained in the Gospel records. This article will present some of that material, and will answer common alternative theories employed to explain away the resurrection.

THE EMPTY TOMB

If Jesus was raised, His tomb had to be emptied. His bodily resurrection is indefensible if He remained in the tomb even one hour of day four. If the tomb was occupied Monday, Jesus is less than divine, and there is no hope in Him as Savior. This makes the witness of the tomb all-important.
Before discussing the evidence from the tomb, however, two preliminary points call for attention. First, was Jesus placed in a tomb? The Bible is clear on this point. His interment was witnessed by at least four individuals. Joseph of Arimathea received permission from Pilate to bury Jesus (Mark 15:43-45). He and Nicodemus hurriedly prepared and entombed the Lord’s body (John 19:38). Their activities were observed by Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph (Mark 15:46-47). Then, on the next day, the chief priests and Pharisees requested of Pilate that a guard be provided for the tomb (Matthew 27:62-65). They necessarily believed Jesus’ body remained there at the time of their request. This request was granted and a guard was sent. It is inconceivable that Pilate (who was responsible for maintaining the body of Jesus) would have sealed and set watch over a tomb that he did not believe was occupied. Hence, at least four people saw Jesus’ body in the tomb on Friday. The Jews, Pilate, and the guards acknowledged its presence on Saturday.
Second, Jesus was not buried in just any tomb; it was a new tomb. This is significant when one remembers that a dead man was once miraculously revived when his body was placed into the tomb that contained Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:21). Instead, Jesus was put into a tomb “in which no one had yet been laid” (John 19:41). The Lord’s resurrection was a unique event that could not be attributed to such a factor.
With these facts established, consider how the tomb offers powerful evidence of the Lord’s resurrection. First, it was impossible for Jesus to escape from the tomb without being detected. This is seen in various ways.
  • All four of the Gospel records explicitly declare that the Lord was dead prior to entering the tomb (Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:44-45; Luke 23:46; John 19:32-34).
  • The tomb was cut out of solid rock (Matthew 27:60). Tombs, like caskets, generally are not equipped with back doors!
  • The cave opening was blocked by a massive stone (Matthew 27:60).
  • The stone was affixed with a seal, and watched by soldiers (Matthew 27:66).
Obviously, it was impossible for Jesus to leave that tomb (apart from the resurrection miracle), let alone to do so without detection.
Second, the tomb did not contain the body of Jesus after the dawning of Sunday. This evidence is gleaned from those on both sides of the issue.
  • The empty tomb was seen by at least six of Jesus’ followers: Mary Magdalene (Matthew 28:1-10), Mary (the mother of James) and Salome (Mark 16:1-8), Joanna (Luke 24:10), and Peter and John (John 20:2-8).
  • The empty tomb was probably seen by at least a few Roman guards (Matthew 28:2,11-15).
  • That the tomb was empty was not denied by the antagonistic Jews (they merely attempted to explain why it was empty).
  • That the tomb was empty was loudly proclaimed on the day of Pentecost in the presence of literally thousands of Jews who most certainly would have denied it if they could (Acts 2:24-36).

WHO MOVED THE STONE?

One of the tomb’s most impressive features was the immense stone that acted as its door. Matthew used the Greek phrase lithon megan to describe the stone (27:60). This two-word combination is the source of our modern term, “megalith” (i.e., large stone). Mark and Luke report that the four women who came to the tomb wondered who would move the stone for them (Mark 16:2-4; Luke 24:10). Mark calls the stone “very large.” How large is “very large”? While we may never know, it is safe to assume that four women could move a fairly large stone without help; yet, apparently the force needed to move this stone exceeded their combined strength (Mark 16:3). If these women didn’t move it, who did? Can we rationally conclude that it was moved by a brutally beaten, crucified, and allegedly dead man? The record indicates that an angel of the Lord was dispatched from heaven to accomplish the task (Matthew 28:2).
Someone might contend that the stone could not have been too heavy since Joseph rolled it in place by himself (Matthew 27:60). But this is only partially correct. The stones used for this purpose often were set in a sloping groove with the low point in front of the tomb’s opening. While it may have taken many men to move and scotch the stone up and away from the doorway prior to burial, one man easily could have removed the block and allowed gravity to draw the stone down the slope into its proper resting position. Also, it is possible that the stone was set in place by a number of men under the direction of Joseph. After all, when we say that Alexander conquered the world, we do not mean that he did so without the aid of an army!
Moreover, the stone was not just nudged aside to allow a single man to slip through, but it actually was moved completely away from the tomb (John 20:1). The moving of the great stone by the angel was an event of such magnitude that Matthew tells us the soldiers “shook for fear of him, and became as dead men” (28:4). It is no wonder they left their post and returned to the city to make a report to the chief priests! Adding to their fear of this supernatural sighting was the fact that the tomb they were guarding was opened and empty. Perhaps they reasoned that if the Jews knew the circumstances, they would not press charges against them for losing custody of the body.
The impressive evidence from the tomb and stone may be summarized as follows. On Friday, at least four witnesses saw Jesus’ dead body placed into a previously empty tomb. The tomb was sealed with a stone too large for four women to move. Jesus’ presence in the tomb was acknowledged by friend and enemy alike on Saturday, when the stone was affixed with a Roman seal (McDowell, 1981, p. 59). On Sunday the stone had been moved and Jesus’ body was gone!

WHY BRIBE THE GUARDS?

The Jews’ primary effort to prevent the disciples of Jesus from making any resurrection claims for their Master served as one of the strongest evidences supporting those claims. Matthew recounts the incident:
The next day, after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together before Pilate, saying, “Sir, we remember that the deceiver said, I will arise after three days. Command therefore that the tomb be made secure until the third day to guard against his disciples stealing the body and saying, He has been raised from the dead. The last deception will be worse than the first.” Pilate replied to them, “Take guards and go and make the tomb as secure as you can.” They departed and secured the tomb, sealing the stone, and stationing the guards (Matthew 27:62-66; McCord, 1988).
Although they did not believe Christ, the Jews realized the importance of His words. The passage implies that the Jews were obtaining a Roman guard. Some scholars contend that Pilate told the Jews to take their own temple guard for the task. This seems unlikely. In the Greek, the phrase, “Take a guard” is in the imperative. It was a “curt permission” to take guards (Robertson, 1930, 1:239). Why would the Jews approach Pilate to request a Jewish guard? If they used their own guard, they would have been open to criticisms should the body turn up missing. Why would the temple guard fear Pilate’s reaction (Matthew 28:14)? It seems more probable that the Jews wanted a Roman guard to prevent Jesus’ disciples from stealing their Lord’s body.
As noted above, the guards were terrified when the angel moved the giant stone away from the tomb. They left their post and some of them returned to the city to report the incredible event. No doubt fearful of what would become of them, they went to the Jews (to plead for help?). The record continues:
When they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, “Tell them, His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept. And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will appease him and make you secure.” So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day (Matthew 28:12-15).
The guards were left with an empty tomb, and the Jews were faced with a dilemma. They had to deal with not just an empty tomb, but also eyewitness accounts (from neutral witnesses) of the resurrection of Jesus. What could they do? Three options were possible: they could accept the testimony and believe in the One they crucified; they could complain to Pilate about his incompetent soldiers; or, they could enact a cover-up. They were not yet willing to accept this Jesus as the Messiah. If they complained to Pilate, he might either believe or slay the soldiers. If he believed them, the Jews would be defeated. If he slew them, the Jews would be left with an inexplicably empty tomb. There was really only one option for them—a cover-up. So they bought a false report and circulated it in all directions. However, contrary to their desire, everywhere that false report traveled, so went one important fact—the tomb was empty!

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES

Some persist in doubt. They reject the possibility of Christ’s resurrection and offer various explanations for the data.

The Swoon Theory

Some have suggested that Jesus did not actually die. He just fainted (“swooned”) and merely seemed to be dead. Thinking He was dead, His friends buried Him according to custom. After resting upon that cold stone slab, the Lord’s body naturally revived; thus revived, He moved the stone and exited the tomb (carefully avoiding being spotted by the guards). This view is utterly without foundation and collapses after even the most cursory glance at the evidence.
First, the body was acknowledged as dead by all parties involved. The Romans (who were experts at crucifixion) saw He was already dead and did not need to have His legs broken (John 19:33). Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus had died so quickly, and investigated the matter (Mark 15:44-45). The followers of Jesus knew He was dead, for they began to prepare Him for burial, and even anticipated the coming of Sunday so they could finish the job. The Jews were sure He was dead, otherwise they would not have been so concerned with keeping His disciples from stealing His body (Matthew 27:62-66).
Second, no one who has been scourged, nailed to and hung upon a cross for six hours, and has had a spear pierce his side, is going to wake up capable of rolling away a stone that four women could not move!
Third, if this theory were true, the Jews would have been more successful claiming that Jesus had only swooned than in manufacturing an excuse for the empty tomb.
Fourth, where is Jesus now? The divine record has Him appearing for only forty days after His alleged swoon—what of the rest of His life?
Fifth, can any clear-thinking person really believe that the apostles lived persecuted lives and died as martyrs for a cause they knew to be false, or that Jesus would have been so cruel as to be the cause of such (either directly or indirectly)? Everything we know of Jesus mitigates against this thought.

The Wrong Tomb Theory

Some suggest that although Jesus was actually dead and buried, His followers accidentally went to another tomb that was empty. This theory hardly deserves mention; it defies nearly every detail of the resurrection narratives and leads to the absurd conclusion that not only His friends, but His enemies, and the Roman soldiers all went to the wrong tomb. On the contrary, the Gospel records mention that the interred body was seen by at least four people. How long would it take before someone recognized the mistake? After all, Joseph of Arimathea surely knew how to locate his own tomb, and easily could have corrected this error. Finally, Paul told of more than five hundred witnesses who did not see the empty tomb, but who had seen the risen Lord (1 Corinthians 15:6).

Friends Stole the Body

The most common theory suggests that Jesus’ friends stole His body while the guards slept. This was the story circulating when Matthew wrote his history (Matthew 28:15). But, where is the evidence that the guards slept? How could the disciples have moved the stone and kept from waking the guards? Why would the Jews have paid the guards to say the very thing that they tried to avoid in the first place? The whole reason the Pharisees asked Pilate to grant them a guard was to keep the disciples from stealing the body!
This view implies that the disciples knowingly devoted their lives to a falsehood. But, J.P. Moreland points out, “the disciples had nothing to gain by lying and starting a new religion. They faced hardship, ridicule, hostility, and martyrs’ deaths. In light of this, they could have never sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie” (1987, pp. 171-172).

Enemies Stole the Body

Some might aver that Jesus’ body was stolen by the Jews to keep the disciples from doing so. Hence, they took the body and hired a guard to watch an already vacant tomb. But this is ridiculous. If they stole the body, why did they not expose the disciples’ lie? Instead, they maintained the unprovable position that it was really the disciples who took the body. They never produced the body. What did they have to gain by concealing the most powerful evidence conceivable against the resurrection? Imagine how devastating it would have been for the disciples, had the Jews paraded Jesus’ rotting corpse before the many thousands on Pentecost. Such an act would have strangled the infant church in its crib.

God Stole the Body

One of the most unusual theories regarding the resurrection of Jesus was penned by Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses:
Our Lord’s human body was, however, supernaturally removed from the tomb; because had it remained there it would have been an insurmountable obstacle to the faith of the disciples, who were not yet instructed in spiritual things—for “the spirit was not yet given.” (John 7:39.) We know nothing about what became of it, except that it did not decay or corrupt. (Acts 2:27,31.) Whether it was dissolved into gases or whether it is still preserved somewhere as the grand memorial of God’s love, of Christ’s obedience, and of our redemption, no one knows (1912, 2:129).
Obvious problems with this theory are numerous. Not only does it deny the plain teachings of Scripture, but it implies that the disciples’ faith in the resurrection was based upon a falsehood. In other words, they believed the Lord was raised, and had irrefutable proof of it—when in fact He wasn’t. This makes God guilty of deliberate deception.

The Hallucination Theory

Another alternative theory is that the disciples never actually saw the Lord’s risen body—they only imagined they did. However, the biggest hindrance to this view is that many of these eyewitnesses were not easily convinced. Thomas was hardly alone in his skepticism concerning the resurrection. When the women went to the tomb on Sunday they found it empty. Their first reaction was one of bewilderment, not belief (Luke 24:4). Remember the disciples’ reaction to Mary’s incredible report? They had been with Jesus and had no doubt heard Him say many times that He would rise again, and yet Mark wrote: “And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe” (Mark 16:11). Jesus later rebuked them for this unbelief (Mark 16:14). They should have expected His resurrection, but obviously they did not. Jesus was also disappointed in the two disciples from Emmaus for failing to believe in the resurrection claims (Luke 24:25). Even at nightfall of the resurrection day the disciples were still doubting (Luke 24:38). The point is this: at first, these witnesses were unwilling to accept the fact of the resurrection.
Had they been predisposed to believe the reports of the resurrection, we might wonder if they simply believed what they wanted to about the matter. On the contrary, here were people who initially were skeptical and required evidence for belief. If they had believed all along that they would see the Lord alive again, then isolated hallucinations might have taken place among the mentally unstable disciples (if there were any). But, hallucinations do not occur in people of stable mental condition (unless artificially induced). Regardless, the empty tomb remains unexplained by this theory.

CONCLUSION: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESURRECTION

If compelled by the evidence to believe the resurrection, what is its relevance? First, the resurrection is the strongest single argument for the deity of Jesus (Romans 1:4). If He was raised from the dead as David prophesied, and as He so often promised, then He must have been deity! If He was not raised, then David spoke of another, and Jesus was a liar.
Second, the resurrection is the foundational principle upon which Christianity is built. Paul linked the reality of salvation to the fact of the resurrection; refute that fact, and Christians are a truly pathetic lot (1 Corinthians 15). Christianity is either the one true religion of the one true God, or it is a farce—the reality of the resurrection determines which.
Third, the fact of the resurrection is the greatest source of genuine hope available in this transient and confusing world. If Christ was raised, Christians will be raised (1 Corinthians 15). Since Christ was raised, He took away the power of death. His resurrection made it possible for Him to keep His promise to prepare a heavenly home for the faithful (John 14:1-4). No one fact offers more hope or assurance than does the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ!

REFERENCES

McCord, Hugo (1988), McCord’s New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel(Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College).
McDowell, Josh (1981), The Resurrection Factor (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers).
Moreland, J.P. (1987), Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Robertson, A.T. (1930), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Russell, Charles Taze (1889), Studies in the Scriptures (New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society).

Autonomous Control of Creation by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4154

Autonomous Control of Creation

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

AUTONOMOUS CONTROL AND "MOTHER NATURE"

Engineers regularly work with control systems. Autonomous control is a step beyond remote control. Remote control applications allow manual issuing of commands through some sort of transmission device (i.e., a remote controller) that controls something else (e.g., a robot or television) located some distance away from the controller. Autonomous control, on the other hand, uses a computer program to issue the commands. The computer becomes the controller, instead of a human being. It is common knowledge in the engineering community that autonomous control is a subject that is of particular interest today. From autonomous control of ground vehicles (Naranjo, et al., 2006), to autonomous missile guidance systems (Lin, et al., 2004) and aerial vehicles (Oosterom and Babuska, 2006), to autonomous aquatic vehicles (Loebis, et al., 2004) and satellites (Cheng, et al., 2009), and even to autonomous farming equipment (Omid, et al., 2010), notable success is being made in this area of technology.
The amazing thing from a Christian perspective, however, is that many engineers—the designers of the scientific community—are becoming aware of the fact that the world around us is already replete with fully functional, superior designs in comparison to what the engineering community has been able to develop to date. Biomimicry (i.e., engineering design using something from nature as the blueprint) is becoming a prevalent engineering pursuit. However, some engineers are not interested in copying creation in their designs since they simply cannot replicate many of the features that the natural world has to offer. They are realizing that the created order oftentimes comes equipped with natural “sensor suites” whose designs surpass the capability of engineering knowledge to date. Animals possess amazing detection, tracking, and maneuvering capabilities which are far beyond the knowledge of today’s engineering minds, and likely will be for many decades, if not forever. An insect neurobiologist, John Hildebrand, from the University of Arizona in Tucson, admitted, “There’s a long history of trying to develop microrobots that could be sent out as autonomous devices, but I think many engineers have realised [sic] that they can’t improve on Mother Nature” (Marshall, 2008, p. 41). Of course, “Mother Nature” is not capable of designing anything, since “she” is mindless. The Chief Engineer, the God of the Bible, on the other hand, can be counted on to have the best possible engineering designs. Who, after all, could out-design the Grand Designer? In spite of the deterioration of the world and the entrance of disease and mutations into the created order, after some six millennia, His designs still stand out as the best—unsurpassed by human wisdom.

CONTROLLING THE LIVING

Recognizing the superiority of the natural world, the scientific community has become interested in learning how to remotely control living creatures instead of developing robotic versions. This line of thinking certainly adds new meaning to God’s command to mankind to “subdue” and “have dominion” over the created order (Genesis 1:28). One of the ways in which animal remote control is being done is by implanting electronics in animal bodies that are subsequently used to manipulate the movements and behaviors of the creature. Hybrid creatures such as these are known as bio-robots or cyborgs. Cyborg research has been conducted since the 1950s, when Jose Delgado of Yale University implanted electrodes into the brains of bulls to stimulate the hypothalamus for control purposes (Marshall, 2008). Since then, the list of remotely controlled animals using electrode implantation has grown to include:
  • sharks (i.e., spiny dogfish; Gomes, et al., 2006; Brown, 2006)
  • rats (Talwar, et al., 2002; Li and Panwar, 2006; Song, et al., 2006)
  • monkeys (Brown, 2006; Horgon, 2005)
  • mice (“SDUST Created…,” 2007)
  • chimpanzees (Horgon, 2005)
  • frogs (Song, et al., 2006)
  • pigeons (“SDUST Created…,” 2007)
  • cats (Horgon, 2005)
  • gibbons (Horgon, 2005)
  • cockroaches (Holzer, et al., 1997; “Researchers Develop ‘Robo-roach,’” 2001)
Cornell University, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and Arizona State University at Tempe are working on developing flying insect cyborgs, including hawkmoths and green June beetles (Ray, 2010; Sato, et al., 2008; Sato, et al., 2009; Bozkurt, et al., 2008). The University of Florida in Gainesville used electrodes to remotely control rats specifically for detection of humans (for search and rescue scenarios) and explosives (Marshall, 2008). Non-invasive remote creature control projects are underway as well. M.I.T. used virtual fencing coupled with Global Positioning System (GPS) for tracking and autonomously herding cows by implementing auditory cues and shock reinforcement to keep cows within a desirable area (Correll, et al., 2008; Schwager, et al., 2008).
There is beginning to be more interest in the prospect of remotely controlling canines as well (“Grand Challenge…,” 2010). Engineers realize that dogs can traverse a variety of terrains more efficiently than humans or robots and are effective at guarding territories, carrying out search and rescue missions, as well as providing guidance for the visually impaired. They also have an amazing sense of smell that makes them capable of detecting explosives, narcotics, tobacco, pipeline leaks, retail contraband, and even cell phones and bed bugs (“Detection Services,” 2010). Since engineers have not developed a device that can compare with a canine’s ability to detect odors, the use of canines for these applications is attractive. Although other creatures, such as rats (Marshall, 2008), have a keen sense of smell, canines are more appealing, especially due to their innate ability to interact with humans. Thus, using canines for these purposes is attractive to engineers, and the ability to remotely control a canine for many of these purposes is an even more attractive goal. Many scenarios could be envisioned to illustrate cases where the presence of a dog handler alongside a canine could be an impossibility (e.g., tight areas in search and rescue operations) or undesirable (e.g., scenarios where the handler should not be visible or in harm’s way). In a recent event in Afghanistan, a bomb detection canine detected an explosive a moment too late. The canine handler lost his left leg and received other serious injuries (“Grand Challenge…,” 2010). Remote control capability or autonomous guidance likely would have significantly altered the outcome of this unfortunate event, as well as many others.
Since engineers cannot yet develop an adequate robotic solution to this problem, the Office of Naval Research funded a research project to develop such a solution—a research project I was heavily involved in at Auburn University while engaged in doctoral studies. The Canine Detection and Research Institute (CDRI) at Auburn University demonstrated that detection canines can be remotely controlled using a canine vest we developed that was equipped with a tone and vibration generator (Britt, et al., 2010). However, many cases could easily be envisioned where the canine would be out of sight from the handler (e.g., moving behind a distant building), at which time remote control capability becomes useless. Therefore, the next natural step was to automate that remote control capacity (i.e., autonomous control of the canine).
Since canines can traverse a variety of terrains more efficiently than humans, and possess a natural array of “sensors” used to detect and locate items of interest that robots are not readily equipped with, many aspects that pose problems to unmanned ground vehicles are inherently removed with the canine. Canines can execute the low-level decision making that is necessary for rerouting their local path to avoid obstacles or unfavorable terrain. We proved with notable success that canines can be tracked using GPS, inertial sensors, and magnetometers (Miller and Bevly, 2007; Miller and Bevly, 2009a; Miller and Bevly, 2009b), as well as be autonomously guided along desired paths to distant end points (Miller, 2010; Britt, 2009). More important, this system was designed without having to develop the technology that would be required for a complete robotic solution. Instead, a pre-designed creature, already developed by the Chief Engineer, was utilized. In the interest of not plagiarizing Him, I happily reference His incomprehensible work, although, unfortunately I cannot speak for all of my doctoral colleagues.

CONCLUSION

How ironic that those who are designed, design based on the Designer’s designs, while simultaneously claiming that those designs are not designed. How could mindless rocks, dirt, gas, or slime bring about the amazingly complex designs we see in the World? Personifying inanimate materials such as these with names like “Mother Nature” does nothing but tacitly admit that some Being is in control of the natural order. The frontlines of the engineering community today—bringing about unparalleled technology, more advanced than any society in the history of mankind—cannot come close to replicating the designs around us. Engineers are forced to borrow from God’s design portfolio (oftentimes plagiarizing Him—not giving Him due credit for His designs). What a testament to the greatness of the Chief Engineer’s created order! We may be able to try to fix some of the damage that has been done to the created order due to sin and entropy, but in the words of John Hildebrand, quoted earlier, we certainly “can’t improve on” God’s design. Rather than plagiarizing Him, let all engineers know, “He who built all thingsis God” (Hebrews 3:4, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Bozkurt, A., R. Gilmour, D. Stern, and A. Lal (2008), “MEMS Based Bioelectronic Neuromuscular Interfaces for Insect Cyborg Flight Control,” IEEEMEMS2008 Conference, pp. 160-163.
Britt, W. (2009), “A Software and Hardware System for the Autonomous Control and Navigation of a Trained Canine,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Auburn University, Summer.
Britt, W.R., J. Miller, P. Waggoner, D.M. Bevly, and J.A. Hamilton (2010), “An Embedded System for Real-time Navigation and Remote Command of a Trained Canine,” DOI 10.1007/s00779-010-0298-4.
Brown, S. (2006), “Stealth Sharks to Patrol the High Seas,” New Scientist, 2541:30-31, March 4.
Cheng, C., S. Shu, and P. Cheng (2009), “Attitude Control of a Satellite Using Fuzzy Controllers,” Expert Systems with Applications, 36:6613-6620.
Correll, N., M. Schwager, and D. Rus (2008), “Social Control of Herd Animals by Integration of Artificially Controlled Congeners,” Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, pp. 437-447.
“Detection Services” (2010), Amdetech: Protection Through Detection, http://www.amdetech.com.
Gomes, W.J., D. Perez, and J.A. Catipovic (2006), “Autonomous Shark Tag with Neural Reading and Stimulation Capability for Open-ocean Experiments,” Eos Trans. AGU, 87(36), Ocean Sci. Meet. Suppl., Abstract OS45Q-05.
“Grand Challenge: Smart Vest for Detector Dogs” (2010), National Aerospace & Electronics Conference, http://www.naecon.org/challenge.htm.
Holzer, R., I. Shimoyama, and H. Miura (1997), “Locomotion Control of a Bio-Robotic System via Electric Stimulation,” International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Grenoble, France.
Horgon, John (2005), “The Forgotten Era of Brain Chips,” Scientific American, 293[4]:66-73.
Li, Y. and S. Panwar (2006), “A Wireless Biosensor Network Using Autonomously Controlled Animals,” IEEENetwork, 20[3]:6-11.
Lin, C., H. Hung, Y. Chen, and B. Chen (2004), “Development of an Integrated Fuzzy-Logic-Based Missile Guidance Law Against High Speed Target,” IEEETransactions on Fuzzy Systems, 12[2]:157-169.
Loebis, D., R. Sutton, J. Chudley, and W. Naeem (2004), “Adaptive Tuning of a Kalman Filter via Fuzzy Logic for an Intelligent AUV Navigation System,” Control Engineering Practice, 12:1531-1539.
Marshall, J. (2008), “The Cyborg Animal Spies Hatching in the Lab,” New Scientist, 2646:40-43, March 6.
Miller, J. (2010), “A Maximum Effort Control System for the Tracking and Control of a Guided Canine,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Auburn University, Winter.
Miller, J. and D.M. Bevly (2007), “Position and Orientation Determination for a Guided K-9,” Proceedings of the IONGNSS, Ft. Worth, TX.
Miller, J. and D.M. Bevly (2009a), “Determination of Pitch Effects in Guided K-9 Tracking,” Proceedings of the JSDE/IONJNC, Orlando, FL.
Miller, J. and D.M. Bevly (2009b), “Guided K-9 Tracking Improvements Using GPS, INS, and Magnetometers,” Proceedings of the IONITM, Anaheim, CA.
Naranjo, J.E., C. Gonzalez, R. Garcia, and T. Pedro (2006), “ACC+Stop&Go Maneuvers With Throttle and Brake Fuzzy Control,” IEEETransactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 7[2]:213-225.
Omid, M., M. Lashgari, H. Mobli, R. Alimardani, S. Mohtasebi, and R. Hesamifard (2010), “Design of Fuzzy Logic Control System Incorporating Human Expert Knowledge for Combine Harvester,” Expert Systems with Applications, 37:7080-7085.
Oosterom, M. and R. Babuska (2006), “Design of a Gain-Scheduling Mechanism for Flight Control Laws by Fuzzy Clustering,” Control Engineering Practice, 14:769-781.
Ray, Neil (2010), “The Cyborg Beetle: Progress or Ethical Deterioration?” The Triple Heliz, Issue 10.
“Researchers Develop ‘Robo-Roach’” (2001), VNUnet UK: UNU-MERIT—I&T Weekly, Issue 7, United Nations University, http://www.merit.unu.edu/i&tweekly/i&tweekly_previous.php?issue=0107&issue_show=7&year=2001.
Sato, H., C.W. Berry, B.E. Casey, G. Lavella, Y. Yao, J.M. Vandenbrooks, and M.M. Maharbiz (2008), “A Cyborg Beetle: Insect Flight Control Through an Implantable, Tetherless Microsystem,” IEEEMEMS2008 Conference, pp. 164-167.
Sato, H., Y. Peeri, E. Baghoomian, C.W. Berry, and M.M. Maharbiz (2009), “Radio-Controlled Cyborg Beetles: A Radio-frequency System for Insect Neural Flight Control,” IEEEMEMS2009 Conference, pp. 216-219.
Schwager, M., C. Detweiler, I. Vasilescu, D.M. Anderson, and D. Rus (2008), “Data-Driven Identification of Group Dynamics for Motion Prediction and Control,” Journal of Field Service Robotics, 25[6-7]:305-324.
“SDUST Created Remote-Controlled Pigeon” (2007), Shandong University of Science and Technology, http://www.sdkd.net.cn/en/news_show.php?id=65.
Song, W., J. Chai, T. Han, and K. Yuan (2006), “A Remote Controlled Multimode Microstimulator for Freely Moving Animals,” Acta Physiologica Sinica, 58[2]:183-188.
Talwar, S., S. Xu, E. Hawley, S. Weiss, K. Moxon, and J. Chapin (2002), “Rat Navigation Guided by Remote Control,” Nature, 417[6884]:37-38.

Destruction of Marriage Equals Destruction of America by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1981

Destruction of Marriage Equals Destruction of America

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
Since the God of the Bible exists (a fact that can be proven—see Flew and Warren, 1977), then the foundational building block of human civilization is the family as God designed it. He created one man for one woman for life (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:3-12; 1 Corinthians 7:1ff.). All deviations from that fundamental norm (e.g., polygamy, bigamy, and homosexuality) contribute to the breakdown of the ethical fabric of society. On the Day of Judgment, homosexuality and same-sex marriage surely will be pinpointed as one of the foremost culprits responsible for the dissolution of moral cohesion at this moment in American history. The militancy, arrogance, and unmitigated defiance that homosexual activists continue to manifest is astounding—and only underscores the absolute essentiality of those who embrace traditional American (i.e., Christian) values to rise up and oppose their efforts.
Instances of the insane and suicidal determination to destroy society’s moral underpinnings are occurring with increasing frequency. One recent example involves a lesbian couple from Rhode Island. Though the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, a law remains on the books there that prevents issuance of a license to out-of-state couples if their home state would refuse to recognize their marriage. The Rhode Island couple filed suit in Massachusetts in an effort to gain recognition of their “marriage” in Massachusetts which, in turn, they hope will enable them to gain recognition in their home state. The superior court has now ruled in favor of the couple (Cote-Whitacre v..., 2006).
Similar pressure to conform to the politically correct agenda is seen in the widespread capitulation of America’s corporate community to threats, coercion, and intimidation by gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender activists. Though corporations have been targeted for many years, homosexual forces are stepping up their efforts to force corporations to include “sexual orientation” in their non-discrimination policies. To be “gay friendly” is defined as supporting transgender workers, offering “inclusive” health insurance and other benefits, requiring diversity training for employees, and spending advertising money with GLBT organizations (Unruh, 2006). In other words, force everyone to endorse (not merely tolerate) the homosexual lifestyle. Bully employees into silence by stifling all free speech that questions the morality of homosexuality.
The success of the gay rights community along this line is alarming and heart-breaking. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest national homosexual political organization, reports an unprecedented 138 major U.S. corporations as having earned a top rating of 100% in their accommodation of alternative sexual lifestyles (“America’s Pro-Homosexual Giants...,” 2006). Some corporations quietly acquiesce. Others seem to jump on board the homosexual bandwagon with vigorous militancy. For example, Wal-Mart, the largest retailer in the world, has asserted its enthusiastic support of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender movement by initiating permission to join the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, as well as sponsoring the LGBTDiversity Week at a state university (“Wal-Mart Asks for...,” 2006; “Boise State...,” 2006). Likewise, Ford Motor Company is pursuing the same flagrant conduct (“Boycott...,” 2006). So are Walgreens (Sharp, 2005), Starbucks (Kleppinger, 2005), and many others. With the intense pressure to submit to political correctness, it is surprising that some major corporations are thus far resisting the intimidation by remaining unwilling to sign onto the homosexual agenda, including Reebok, Northwest Airlines, The Men’s Wearhouse, J.C. Penney, Nissan, Gallup, Kroger, Cooper Tire, Circuit City, Radio Shack, and Toys “R” Us (Unruh, 2006).
What is the ultimate outcome of this surrealistic inundation of America by outright paganism and moral depravity? What inevitably must happen to any country or society that enshrines morally deviant behavior by undermining the biblical definition of marriage? The social stability of that nation is placed in dire jeopardy. Its demise is inevitable (see Miller, 2005). Indeed, in 1848, the Supreme Court of South Carolina articulated the sentiment of the Founders and early Americans regarding what would happen to America if a sizeable portion of its citizenry ever abandoned Christian morality:
What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There certainly is none other. Say that cannot be appealed to and...what would be good morals? The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of pagan immorality (City Council of Charleston..., emp. added).
The nation is headed swiftly in that direction. The destruction of marriage will inevitably result in the destruction of the nation.

REFERENCES

“America’s Pro-Homosexual Giants: 2006” (2006), WorldNetDaily, September 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52052.
“Boise State University Recognizes LGBT Diversity Week with Series of Events” (2006), Boise State Office of Communications and Marketing News Release, September 25, [On-line], URL:http://news.boisestate.edu/newsrelease/092006/0925gaydiversity.shtml.
“BoycottFord.com” (2006), American Family Association, [On-line], URL:http://www.boycottford.com/.
City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin (1848), 2 Strob. L. 508 (S. C. 1848).
Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health (2006), Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court, 446 Mass. 350,352, No. 04-2656, [On-line], URL: http://www.glad.org/marriage/Cote-Whitacre/9_29_06.pdf.
Flew, Antony G.N. and Thomas B. Warren (1977), Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Kleppinger, Meghan (2005), Starbucks: A Habit Easily Broken,” WorldNetDaily, August 25, [On-line], URL: http://states.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8788&department=FIELD&categoryid= nation.
Miller, Dave (2005), “Is America’s Iniquity Full?” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/305.
Sharp, Randy (2005), “Walgreens’ Wayward Wisdom—Supporting Gay Games,” Agape Press, October 21, [On-line], URL: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/afa/212005gst.asp.
Unruh, Bob (2006), “Corporate America Gets ‘Gay’-Friendlier,” WorldNetDaily, September 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52060.
“Wal-Mart Asks for, and Receives, Permission to Join Homosexual Marriage Group” (2006), American Family Association, [On-line], URL: http://www.afa.net/Petitions/IssueDetail.asp?id=210.

The Calling of the Apostles by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2823&b=Matthew

The Calling of the Apostles

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Q.

Did Matthew, Mark, and Luke all refer to the same calling of Peter, Andrew, James, and John?

A.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Jesus summoning Peter, Andrew, James, and John to leave their fishing nets behind and become fishers of men (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11). However, whereas Matthew and Mark’s accounts of the event are nearly identical, Luke positions the account at a different location in His record and reports several other details that Matthew and Mark exclude.
Matthew and Mark both record the calling  immediately following their accounts of the temptations of Christ and the beginning of His ministry (Matthew 4:1-17; Mark 1:12-15) and before His healing of the demon possessed and the afflicted, including Peter’s mother-in-law (Matthew 4:23-25; 8:14-15; Mark 1:21-31). Luke positions Jesus’ calling of these two sets of brothers after Jesus’ healing of Peter’s mother-in-law and a demon-possessed man (Luke 4:31-41). Furthermore, Luke includes several details in his record that Matthew and Mark omit: (1) The fishermen had left their boats and were cleaning their nets (Luke 5:2); (2) A multitude surrounded Jesus as He approached the fishermen (5:1); (3) Jesus taught the multitudes from Peter’s boat (5:3); (4) Jesus instructed the fishermen to go to the deep part of the lake (5:4); (5) The fishermen’s catch was great (5:6-7); (6) Peter confessed his sinfulness (5:8); etc.
Just as it is possible that Jesus cleansed the temple twice (see Lyons, 2004), it is very possible that Jesus may have told His disciples twice that they would be fishers of men: the first time recorded by Matthew (4:18-22) and Mark (1:16-20), and then a second time recorded by Luke (5:1-11). Consider also that even prior to Matthew and Mark’s accounts of Jesus calling Peter and Andrew to become fishers of men, these two fishermen had already previously “followed” Jesus (John 1:35-42; see Lyons, 2007).
So what is the answer to the question? Did the synoptic writers all refer to the same calling in these passages? Although I tend to believe that these are two different callings, with Matthew and Mark recording an earlier encounter, and Luke a later one, one simply cannot be certain about the matter. Bible writers often arranged things differently because of their different purposes in writing. What’s more, although Luke includes several more details in his account of the calling, it could be that he, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was merely providing supplemental material. In either case, we can be sure that no discrepancies exist among these accounts—only differences that we would expect to find from inspired, independentwriters.

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2004), “Chronology and the Cleansing of the Temple,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/528.
Lyons, Eric (2007), “When Did Jesus Call the First Apostles?” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3344.

“Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” Romans 6:1 by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/042-continuenotinsin.html

“Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?”
Romans 6:1
In the first century some were “turning the grace of our God into licentiousness” (Jude 4) by teaching that God’s grace would cover the sins of a person who just kept on living a life of sin. To combat this error Paul asks: “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” (Romans 6:1). His reply is unequivocal, “By no means. How shall we, who are dead to sin, live in it any longer?” (Romans 6:2).
This false doctrine is also refuted by John in his first letter, and he clarifies the difference between the saved and the lost with regard to sin.

Everyone sins.
“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. ... If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:8, 10).
If we say that we ‘have no sin’ or that we ‘have not sinned’, we are contradicting the word of God.
At the dedication of the temple, when Solomon prayed that God would forgive the people if they repented, he interjected, “For there is no one who does not sin” (1 Kings 8:46).
To establish that everyone needs God’s forgiveness, Paul states: “There is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:22b, 23). As in 1 John 1:8, 10 both the past and the present are included. All have sinned in the past and all fall short in the present. Thus if we say that we have not sinned or that we have no sin, we are contradicting God’s word, which is the same as calling Him a liar.
Of himself, Paul writes: “I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good” (Romans 7:21). “For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice” (Romans 7:19).
The sinfulness of man includes both bad things that are done and good things that are left undone (sins of commission and sins of omission). Anyone who evaluates himself honestly must confess that he is a sinner. That is why John writes, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1:8).
One woman told me that she did not recall that she had ever sinned. She thought only things like murder and adultery were sin.
In the Scriptures God designates many things as sin, such as love of the world, "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," carnal mindedness, hatred, arrogance, conceit, pride, prejudice, partiality, love of self, selfish ambition, love of money, envy, slander, outbursts of wrath, dissension, contentiousness, divisiveness, heresy, complaining and unthankfulness [Matthew 5:28; Romans 8:6, 7; 16:17; 2 Corinthians 12:20; Galatians 5:20; Philippians 2:3, 14; 1 Timothy 5:21; 2 Timothy 3:2-4; Titus 3:9, 10; James 2:9; 3:16; 1 John 2:15, 16].
In addition to deeds, there are also thoughts and attitudes that are sinful. The removal of such inner sins is a lifetime assignment in our “striving against sin” (as it is called in Hebrews 12:4).
What about sins of negligence: “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin” (James 4:17).
And what about those absolute commands such as: “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30). Do we not fall short in this every day? Is this not something we seek, yet never fully accomplish, in our “striving against sin”?
Many other commands come to mind, such as: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31); “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33); “Let all that you do be done with love” (1 Corinthians 16:14).
Who, without deceiving himself, can say at the close of any day, “Today I have not thought, done or said anything wrong, and I have committed no sins of omission”?
If we are honest with ourselves, and if the word of God is in us, we must humbly confess at the close of each day that we have sinned and that we fall short of the glory of God.
“The Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Galatians 3:22).

The pervasiveness of sin may not be used as an excuse to sin!
Since all have sinned, salvation is possible only by the grace of God.
Some had twisted Paul’s teaching to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). They misused Paul’s emphasis on salvation by grace to justify continuing in sin. He condemns such: “And why not say, ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? - as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just” (Romans 3:8). “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” (Romans 6:1, 2).
When one accepts the grace of God and is baptized into Christ, he dies to sin and does not continue to live in sin: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:3, 4). “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts” (Romans 6:12). “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!” (Romans 6:15).

Since everyone sins, what is the difference between the saved and the lost?
In Paul’s wording, the lost “live in sin” (Romans 6:2) and the saved “walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4).
John describes these two conditions as “walking in darkness” and “walking in light” (1 John 1:6, 7).
Paul also uses the contrast between light and darkness: “Let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light” (Romans 13:12).
To be cleansed from sin we must walk in the light. “If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:6, 7).
The Greek present tense as used here describes continuing action1: if we are walking in the light the blood of Jesus is cleansing us from all sin.
“Come and let us walk in the light of the LORD” (Isaiah 2:5).
If we follow Christ we walk in the light. Jesus said: “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life” (John 8:12).
All of us were in darkness before we became Christians, as Paul told the Ephesians: “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light” (Ephesians 5:8).
They who walk in the light do not continue in a sinful way of life. It is not possible to walk in the light and in darkness at the same time.

Walking in the light is a requirement for forgiveness.
The aim of the Christian is not to sin at all! Yet “we all stumble in many things” (James 3:2).
Walking in the light does not mean that there is never a need for forgiveness, since it is a condition for receiving forgiveness! “If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).
John clarifies this in chapter two: “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:1, 2). Here ‘if anyone sins’ [aorist2] does not refer to a situation where someone continues to live in sin.
Being wounded in battle or even losing a battle, is not the same as fighting for the enemy. When we are on the Lord’s side in the war with Satan, Jesus provides satisfaction for our sins. “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).

A Christian may not continue living a life of sin.
In chapter three, John discusses the incongruity of living in sin and claiming to be in Christ.
“Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him” (1 John 3:4-6).
Here John is not referring to the same situation as in 1 John 2:1 where he says: “If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father.” In that case the verb does not indicate continuation2. Here ‘whoever commits sin’ means ‘the one practicing sin’. The Greek present in this passage indicates continuation in sin1, which is not possible for someone who is abiding in Christ.
The present tense in English and Greek are quite different. In English ‘if anyone sins’ refers to sinning at anytime whatever, but in Greek, ‘if anyone sins’ communicates a continuing action: ‘if anyone keeps on sinning’.
“Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous” (1 John 3:7). This seems obvious, but false teachers were claiming that one could be declared righteous by the grace of God even though he continued living an unrighteous lifestyle!
“He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning” (1 John 3:8). Here again, the meaning in Greek is “the one who is practicing sin” referring to a way of life.
“Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:9). This refers to a continuing action: “does not practice sin” and “he is not able to be sinning.”
“In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God” (1 John 3:10).
Something wonderful about the fellowship among those who walk in the light is that we can pray for each other’s sins to be forgiven! But there is a limit. It does not apply for someone whose sin is such that he is walking in darkness.
“If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death” (1 John 5:16, 17).
“We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one” (1 John 5:18, 19). The form of the verb ‘does not sin’ means ‘does not keep on sinning’.

What does it mean to walk in the light?

In his first letter, John mentions various things that are associated with walking in the light3. Briefly summarized, this requires being in fellowship with the Father and the Son through the teaching of the apostles. Not only must we believe in God and in His Son, Jesus Christ, but we must confess His name and walk as He walked by obeying His commandments. We must know the truth and have the word of God dwelling in us. We must practice righteousness. The love of God must dwell within us and we must love the children of God. We may not love the world. We must confess our sins and purify ourselves. We may not continue in a life of sin.

What have we learned from the Scriptures ?
“Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? By no means. How shall we, who are dead to sin, live in it any longer?” (Romans 6:1, 2). Everyone sins. But the prevalence of sin may not be used as an excuse to keep on sinning. Since everyone sins, salvation is only possible by grace. The difference between the saved and the lost is that the lost “live in sin” (Romans 6:2) whereas the saved “walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4). The lost, walk in darkness. The saved, walk in the light. One must walk in the light to receive God’s forgiveness.
When a Christian sins he has “an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” who is the propitiation for his sins. But a Christian may not continue living a life of sin. To be forgiven he must walk in the light which involves being an obedient child of God who follows Christ. Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life” (John 8:12).
Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.
Footnotes:
1 Unless modified by the meaning of the word or the context, the present tense in Greek describes an action that is continuing. See the following explanation by Jeff Smelser, included with permission and downloaded from http://www.ntgreek.net/present.htm on March 31, 2012:
Aktionsart & the Present Tense
2 The aorist in Greek simply states the action without providing any information about its duration. See Robertson, ‘Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research’, pp. 831- 833.
3 What does it mean to walk in the light according to John’s first letter?
1. Having fellowship with the apostles and thereby with the Father and the Son (1:3).
2. Believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (5:1, 5, 10).
3. Believing in the name of God’s Son Jesus Christ (3:23; 5:13).
4. Believing the testimony that God has given of His Son (5:10).
5. Believing that God has given us eternal life in His Son (5:11).
6. Having confidence in Christ that God hears us when we pray according to the will of God (5:14).
7. Confessing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (4:2).
8. Confessing that Jesus is the Son of God (2:23; 4:15).
9. Being born of God (2:29; 5:1).
10. Being children of God (3:1).
11. Having an anointing from the Holy One (2:20, 27).
12. Having the Spirit who has been given to us (3:24; 4:13).
13. Knowing Christ (2:3, 4, 13, 14).
14. Abiding in Christ (2:5, 6, 24).
15. Knowing the Father (2:13).
16. Abiding in the Father (2:24, 27, 28; 4:12, 13, 15, 16).
17. Knowing the truth and having it in us (1:8; 2:4, 21).
18. Having God’s word abiding in us (1:10; 2:14, 24).
19. Being of the truth (3:19).
20. Practicing the truth (1:6).
21. Keeping the word of Christ (2:5).
22. Walking as Jesus walked (2:6).
23. Practicing righteousness (2:29).
24. Keeping the commandments of Jesus (2:3, 4).
25. Keeping the commandments of God and doing what is pleasing in His sight (3:22; 5:3).
26. Doing the will of God (2:17).
27. Loving God (4:19, 21).
28. Having the love of God abiding in us (2:5; 3:17).
29. Knowing and believing the love that God has for us (4:16).
30. Loving the children of God (5:1, 2).
31. Loving our brethren (2:10; 3:14, 23; 4:11, 12, 16).
32. Loving in deed and in truth (3:18).
33. Having fellowship with one another (1:7).
34. Having overcome the wicked one and the world (2:13, 14; 5:4).
35. Not loving the world or the things in the world (2:15).
36. Confessing our sins (1:9).
37. Purifying ourselves (3:3).
38. Not continuing in a life of sin (3:6; 5:18).

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

Thought and action by Gary Rose


Yesterday, Linda and I had thanksgiving dinner with our youngest daughter's family-the Merwins. Wonderful meal and good time all around. After the meal, the conversation somehow migrated to a description of a two-handed sword that they had recently purchased at an auction (for a ridiculously low price, I might add). It is made of solid steel and appeared to be approximately five foot long; in short - a beast!!!

Later on, my son-in-law, Mike, sent me these pictures of our granddaughter Elizabeth (Lizzy) carving the turkey. For those of you who do not know her, she is a quiet and reserved person, with a pleasant sort of impish humor. If you look closely at her face in the pictures, I think you will see what I mean! First, the idea and then its execution, WOW!!!

Being a day of Thanksgiving, I couldn't help but think about what I should be thankful for, so this passage from Paul's letter to the Ephesians came to mind.....


Ephesians, Chapter 1 (World English Bible)
 3 Blessed 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, (emphasis added vss. 3-5) 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.  


God chose us "before the foundation of the world". We have always been wanted and God's plan has always been to have us as HIS CHILDREN. This says a lot about HIM!!! I just can't help but wonder what sort of expression was on HIS face when HE first thought about all this and when the plan was completed?
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)