Right, Wrong, and God's Existence by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=878

Right, Wrong, and God's Existence

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Everyone in the world believes that some things are right and other things are wrong. At times, people do not agree on the exact way to decide whether something is right or wrong. But it is undeniable that the concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, do exist.

The person who does not believe that God exists has only one choice when it comes to explaining morality—man must have thought it up by himself. However, since man is seen as little more than the last animal to be produced by evolution, this becomes problematic. A lion does not feel guilty after killing a gazelle for its lunch. A dog does not feel remorse after stealing a bone from another dog. And a female pig feels no guilt after eating her newborn piglets. Yet man, who is supposed to have evolved, feels both guilt and remorse when he commits certain acts that violate his “moral code.” The simple fact that we are discussing morals establishes that morality—which is found only in humans—had to have a cause other than evolution. After all, one ape never sat around and said to another, “Today, I think we should talk about right and wrong.” Even the famous atheist George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard admitted that “morals arise only in man.” What, or should we say, Who, instilled a conscience in humans? The apostle Peter provided the only legitimate answer. In 1 Peter 1:16, he wrote that we should be holy because God is holy. The only possible source of knowledge regarding right and wrong is the almighty God who embodies all that is good. In Ecclesiastes 7:29, wise King Solomon wrote: “Truly, this only I have found: that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.”

To suggest that the morality inherent in all mankind evolved from a warm pool of inorganic slime in the great long ago is an inadequate explanation. Morals could only have been placed in mankind by a Being who understood, even to a greater degree than men, the difference between right and wrong. This knowledge should lead us to follow the directive Jesus gave in Matthew 5:48: “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

Recent Turing Award Implies Creation by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3739

 Recent Turing Award Implies Creation

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The A.M. Turing Award is one of, if not the, highest awards that can be given to those in the computing field. It was named after British mathematician Alan M. Turing, and awarded to those who are believed to have made breakthrough advancements in computing technology (Robertson, 2011). The most recent recipient of the Turing award was Harvard University professor Leslie Valiant. He received the award based on his contributions to the field of “computer learning.” Jordan Robertson, AP Technology Writer, noted that Valiant’s efforts “paved the way for computers that more closely mimic how humans think” (2011). Robertson quoted ACM President Alain Chesnais as saying that Valiant’s work, “has produced modeling that offers computationally inspired answers on fundamental questions like how the brain ‘computes’” (2011).

Valiant’s work is truly amazing. He has spent 30 years of his life trying to help synthetic machinery “compute” more like the human brain. In many ways, however, the computers are still vastly inferior to the human brain. Reasoning through this situation leads to a very important conclusion. If Valiant is a brilliant computational scientist, and he has spent three decades trying to mimic the computational abilities of the brain, what does that imply about the brain? It means it was designed by an Intelligent Designer even more brilliant than Valiant. That is the only conclusion that adequately evaluates the evidence. Yet sadly, many in the scientific community will pat Valiant on the back for the efforts he has made to understand the brain’s computational abilities, while they will completely ignore the implication of design that is inherent in his work. In reality, God’s design of the human brain has paved the way for scientists like Valiant to mimic His work and build better computers.

REFERENCE

Robertson, Jordan (2011), "Turing Award Goes to ‘Machine Learning’ Expert", http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110309/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_technology_prize/print.

 

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Two Great Commandments (12:28-34) by Mark Copeland

 

 

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

Two Great Commandments (12:28-34) 

 INTRODUCTION

1. Having silenced the Pharisees,  Herodians, and Sadducees, Jesus was approached by a scribe...
   a. Who asked which is the first (foremost) commandment of the law - Mk 12:28
   b. Jesus replied by offering two great commandments - Mk 12:29-31
   c. With which the scribe agreed with grace and wisdom - Mk 12:32-33
   d. Prompting Jesus’ comment:  "You are not far from the kingdom of God" - Mk 12:34

2. Though part of the Law, these "Two Great Commandments" are very important to Christians...
   a. For they have their counterpart in the New Covenant
   b. And keeping the commandments of God is just as important now - cf. 1Co 7:19; 1Jn 5:3

[Therefore it is proper to ask, do we love God and our neighbor?  Do we
understand what is involved?  By reflecting upon these "Two Great
Commandments" we can find the answer to such questions...]

I. THE COMMAND TO LOVE GOD

   A. UNDER THE OLD COVENANT...
      1. The Israelites were expected to love God (Deu 6:5)...
         a. "with all your heart"
         b. "with all your soul"
         c. "with all your strength"
         d. "with all your mind"
         e. Emotionally, physically, intellectually, they were to love God
      2. Thus they were to love God with their whole being, not like some who...
         a. Serve God emotionally, while committing intellectual suicide
         b. Serve God intellectually, but with no emotion
         c. Serve God emotionally and intellectually, but with no actual
            obedience requiring the exercise of strength (i.e., action)

   B. HOW WE ARE TO LOVE GOD TODAY...
      1. Does God expect any less of us?  Of course not!  We are to love God:
         a. With all our heart - cf. 1Co 16:22 (note the use the word "phileo")
         b. With all our soul (body and mind) - cf. Ro 12:1-2
         c. With all our strength - cf. He 10:36
         d. With all our mind - cf. Col 3:1; Php 4:8
      2. We demonstrate our love for God through keeping His commandments
         a. This is the love of God - 1Jn 5:3
         b. This is evidence that we love Jesus - Jn 14:15

   C. HOW TO GROW IN OUR LOVE FOR GOD...
      1. By letting God’s love for us to move us - cf. 1Jn 4:9-10; Ro 5:8
      2. By asking God to help us grow in love - cf. 2Th 3:5
      3. By praying, and growing in love when He answers - cf. Ps 116:1-2
      4. By keeping the word of God - cf. 1Jn 2:5

[Do we love God any less than what was expected of the Israelites?  We
certainly have compelling reasons to love Him even more (e.g., the gift
of His Son)!  Now let’s consider...]

II. THE COMMAND TO LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR

   A. ENJOINED UPON CHRISTIANS...
      1. We owe it to love our neighbor - Ro 13:8
      2. When fully applied, it fulfills what the Law required - Ro 13:8-10
      3. Five of the Ten Commandments spoke to working no ill toward our fellow man
      4. If one truly loves his neighbor, he will not kill, commit adultery, lie, steal, etc.

   B. ENHANCED BY A NEW COMMAND...
      1. Jesus taught us to love one another - Jn 13:34-35
      2. This new command takes our love to a higher level
      3. No longer do we just love one another as we love ourselves
      4. We must love one another as Christ loved us! - cf. Jn 15:13; 2Co 8:9

   C. EXPERIENCED WHEN WE KEEP GOD’S COMMANDMENTS...
      1. We demonstrate true love of one another by keeping the commandments of God - 2Jn 1:5-6
      2. This is how we know that we really love one another - 1Jn 5:2
      3. Not by just claiming to love one another
      4. But by setting the proper example, and encouraging each other by the example we set!

   D. EDUCATED BY THE EXAMPLE OF GOD...
      1. We develop love for one another by being taught of God - cf. 1Th 4:9-10
      2. The Thessalonians had been taught of God to love their brethren
      3. They did so remarkably, though there was always room for improvement
      4. Jesus by His own example demonstrates what true love is - 1Jn 3:16-18
      5. If we wish to learn how to love one another properly, look to God and Jesus!

CONCLUSION

1. How great were these two commandments...to love God, and to love your neighbor?
   a. "There is no greater commandment than these." - Mk 12:31
   b. "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." - Mk 22:40
   c. "Love is the fulfilling of the Law." - Ro 13:9

2. When one truly loves God, and loves his neighbor as himself...
   a. They are on the path that leads to the kingdom of God! - cf. Mk 12:34
   b. They are on the road that leads to eternal life! - cf. Lk 10:28

If you wish to receive eternal life, and become a citizen of the
kingdom, then demonstrate your love for God by obeying His commands (cf.
Mt 28:18-20; Mk 16:16), and live a life of faith in Jesus that is focused on loving God and others...! 

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Coming Soon! “GOSNELL” The Movie by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2014/05/14/coming-soon-gosnell-the-movie/#more-5622

Coming Soon! “GOSNELL” The Movie

Yesterday was the one year anniversary of the first degree murder conviction in the trial of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion doctor.

He was found guilty of murdering three babies born alive in his abortion clinic by severing their spines with scissors following delivery.   And convicted on two counts of gross negligence of two mothers.  In addition Gosnell was convicted for killing 21 babies in utero, which is not murder in these cases, but a violation of Pennsylvania’s legal-abortion limit.

Now, “FrackNation” producer Phelim McAleer wants to make a movie about the Gosnell story.  However, Hollywood, the industry not shy about filming grotesques flicks featuring blood, guts, and gore  is not interested in making the movie!

Lila Rose writes, in the Washington Times, “It’s strange to see Hollywood refuse to touch the story of the worst serial killer in America’s history — and to see even an independent film maker rebuffed in his efforts to pick up the slack.”

“Why does a story like this — an “if it bleeds, it leads” tale, if ever there was one — cause such unique aversion, to the point where mainstream media ignore it and private companies twist themselves in rhetorical knots to keep it under wraps? Why does even the average American who enjoys “Law and Order” look away?”

First, she says, “there is the extreme horror of Gosnell’s acts. It is one thing when victims can run or scream for help, as in the Ariel Castro story. Gosnell’s victims, though, had absolutely no chance; they were barely developed enough to scream. These infants were completely at the mercy of their killer, with no escape from the surgical scissors on their necks.”

Secondly, Rose writes,“There are also the implications for the ‘pro-choice” movement.’  Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the rest try to distance themselves from Gosnell. Yet Planned Parenthood is far more sympathetic to “after-birth” abortion than its press releases would have us believe. Those 21 babies killed — and denied justice through Gosnell’s conviction”

As a result Mr. McAleer has turned to “crowdfunding” to finance the filming of the Gosnell movie through individual donations.  After the web site Kickstarter refused the project unless he agreed to censor the horrible description of Gosnell’s crimes, the rival site IndieGoGo agreed. As of this date, they have reached the  remarkable goal of $2.1 million in donations.

The liberal intelligentsia of America does not want the truth told about Abortion.  Of the millions of women who suffered as a result.  Of the 55 million children who’ve been slaughtered  on Satan’s altar of selfishness, convenience, and promiscuity. Of fathers denied the right to fight for their child’s life.  Of the terms “abortionist” and “serial killer” becoming synonymous. Of the nagging guilt of this nation before the Throne of Almighty God.

ThePreachersWord is not interested in this issue from a political perspective.

The Bible uses the expression “with child” 26 times to refer to pregnant women. The term fetus is never used. Luke, the physician, records that Elisabeth, the mother of John the Immerser, conceived a son (1:35). In verse 41 the doctor wrote “the baby leaped in her womb.” The baby! Not the fetus! It is the same Greek word that Luke uses to describe Jesus after he was born (2:12, 16). God views the unborn baby and the newborn baby in the same way. Both are living human beings.

In the midst of his suffering Job cries out, “Or why was I not hidden like a stillborn child, Like infants who never saw light?” (3:16). The unborn child is called an infant! 

It was 41 years ago that the Supreme Court decision, Roe v Wade, legalized abortion.  Ironically, as I write these words today is the 41^th birthday of our son, Kenny.   In looking back, never once did we think of Norma Jean’s pregnancy as carrying a fetus.  Or a clump of issue.  We said, “We’re going to have a baby!  Baby Kenny!”

Now, we’re soon to be grandparents.  Our daughter, Rachél, is expecting a baby boy in October!  She, and her husband, Jared, have already chosen a name for the baby!

Ms Rose concludes her article by asking and observing, “Can Kermit Gosnell be the catalyst by which Americans realize that we cannot build our nation on the broken bodies of our littlest children? Maybe. One thing is sure: We have to learn about America’s biggest serial killer before we can learn from him.”

She says, “The Gosnell story must be told.”

What do you think?

"THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS: WHAT DO THEY TELL US?" by David Vaughn Elliott

 

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-dead-sea-scrolls-do-they-tell-us-by.html

"THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS:
 WHAT DO THEY TELL US?" 
by David Vaughn Elliott 

A young Bedouin shepherd scrambled up the cliffs above the Dead Sea searching for a lost goat. When he spotted a cave and tossed in a rock, he heard earthenware shatter. Inside the cave he found jars containing ancient scrolls. It was 1947. By 1956, eleven caves had yielded thousands of parchments from small fragments to entire scrolls. Scholars dated them from about 250 B.C. to A.D. 70. 

Why Was This Significant? 

Included among some 800 Hebrew manuscripts are portions of every Old Testament book except Esther. Before that, the oldest Hebrew OT manuscripts known to scholars were copied about A.D. 900. With the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries, scholars had before their eyes copies of OT books that were copied before the birth of Jesus. Naturally, everyone was interested to learn how much difference there was between the Dead Sea Scrolls and our current Bibles. 

The accusation is often made that we cannot trust the Bible because we do not possess the original manuscripts. It is pointed out correctly that men made copies of copies of copies. How do we know they didn't make mistakes or even make changes on purpose? A fair question. Before the invention of the printing press, everything had to be laboriously copied by hand. That was wide open for mistakes and even for making changes. 

Thanks to the Hebrew scrolls found by the Dead Sea, scholars had the opportunity to compare the oldest copies they already had with these copies that were made one thousand years earlier – made before Jesus came to earth. Were differences found? How many changes took place in one thousand years of copying? Let's start with one example. Arguably, the most amazing find was a virtually complete copy of the book of Isaiah dated about 125 B.C. At the time the scroll was made available, scholars were working on the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. As a result of the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, translators made only thirteen changes in the entire sixty-six chapters of Isaiah – all tiny, technical changes that most of us would not even notice. 

Some critics claim that early Christians altered the Old Testament in order to fit their ideas of Jesus. What does the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah tell us? Keep in mind that Isaiah offers so many predictions of Jesus that he is often called the Messianic prophet. Now we have proof that the book of Isaiah in our Bibles is substantially the same as the book of Isaiah copied a century before Jesus. The early Christians did not alter Isaiah to fit the facts of Jesus' life. Rather, the Old Testament was written by men who had supernatural foreknowledge. 

Scholars Speak
James C. VanderKam, professor emeritus of Hebrew Scripture of the University of Notre Dame, was a member of an editorial committee that prepared Dead Sea Scrolls for publication. In his prize-winning book, Professor VanderKam wrote: "Once scholars had had opportunity to study the great Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 (1QIsaa, copied in approximately 100 B.C.) and to compare it with the Masoretic [Hebrew] Text, they were impressed with the results. Despite the fact that the Isaiah scroll was about a thousand years older than the earliest surviving copy of the Masoretic version of Isaiah, the two were usually in very close agreement except for small details that rarely affect the meaning of the text... Many of the new scrolls do belong to the same textual tradition as the Masoretic Text. They are, however, centuries older and thus demonstrate in a forceful way how carefully the Jewish scribes transmitted that text across the years" (The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, Second Edition, James C. VanderKam, 2010, page 162).

Note: "Masoretic Text" is the term scholars use for the traditional Hebrew OT. The term comes from a group of Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes, who were the ones who produced the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the OT available to us before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  

Theodor H. Gaster, a Hebrew scholar, was a professor and lecturer in various colleges and universities. Gaster published the first English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls in which he omitted the Bible scrolls. In his Preface he explained why: "The purpose of this book is to provide a complete and reliable translation of the celebrated Dead Sea Scrolls, insofar as the original Hebrew texts have yet been published... no translation is provided of the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah or of the other more fragmentarily preserved Biblical manuscripts. The contents of the Bible are readily available in English, and the special contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls in this field is of interest only to scholars" (The Dead Sea Scriptures, Theodor H. Gaster, 1956-76; Preface, page xi).

Amazing! "Of interest only to scholars." What does that mean? It means that during one thousand years of copying, there were no great differences between the manuscripts before and after the thousand years. Can't trust copies of copies of copies? The hard facts prove that idea to be fiction. Some differences? Of course. But nothing to change the basic truths of our Bibles. 

The Septuagint
The Dead Sea Scrolls are also important for what they tell us about the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek, which was made in the third and second centuries before Christ. Scholars and some of us Bible students have long been aware that there are some differences between the Hebrew OT and the Greek Septuagint. This explains why some NT quotations of the OT don't quite match up with our OT, which is basically a translation from the Masoretic Hebrew. The NT quotations are most often in agreement with the Septuagint text. If you have a Bible with extensive footnotes, you will sometimes notice a variant reading found in the "LXX." That's the Roman numeral for "seventy." It's the common abbreviated way to identify the Septuagint. 

One very significant discovery is that, although the Dead Sea Scrolls are usually in harmony with the Masoretic Hebrew OT, sometimes the Dead Sea Scrolls are more in agreement with the Septuagint. Before the discovery and translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars often looked at the Septuagint as an inferior translation, which sometimes paraphrased and sometimes was just plain wrong. However, inasmuch as some of the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Septuagint in places where it differs from the Masoretic text, scholars have had to realign their assessment of the Septuagint. Rather than it being a loose translation, as was thought, the evidence now is that the Septuagint was a careful translation based on a Hebrew text slightly different from the Masoretic.

Bear in mind that, for the most part, we are talking about differences that the majority of us would never even notice. We are talking mainly of details, just like the details you may have noticed between, for example, the New King James Version and the New American Standard Version or the New International Version. Even though the Septuagint is a translation (just as our various English versions are), the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that the Septuagint is a better translation than was previously thought. And since NT quotes of the OT are usually from the Septuagint, this is an additional reason to deeply appreciate the discovery and study of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Evidence Is In
For some people all this evidence makes little difference. Mark Twain once said: "It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." Often people doubt the Bible, not because there is a lack of evidence for its trustworthiness and divine inspiration, but rather because it judges the way we behave.

If we go by the available facts, there is no evidence the Bible was substantially altered when it was copied through the ages. All the evidence points in the opposite direction. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in modern times is one of the most, if not the most, dramatic proof ever. The evidence tells us that the Bible has been faithfully copied through the years so that we can trust it. 

The Anvil of God's Word
attributed to John Clifford (1836 - 1923) 

Last eve I paused beside a blacksmith’s door
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime; 
Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers worn with beating years of time.

"How many anvils have you had?" said I,
"To wear and batter all these hammers so?"
"Just one,” said he, and then with twinkling eye,
"The anvil wears the hammers out, you know."

And so, thought I, the anvil of God’s Word
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The Anvil is unharmed – the hammers gone! 
_________________________________________
For a former Insight on the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll:
http://insight2bp.homestead.com/186.html

A Selfish, Greedy, Righteous Man by T. Pierce Brown

 

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Brown/T/Pierce/1923/greedy.html

A Selfish, Greedy, Righteous Man

In Genesis 13 we find that the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot were quarreling about where their herds should graze, so Abraham, a man of peace and good will, gave Lot the choice of which way they should go. Then we read in Gen. 13:10, "And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar." Most of us who have spoken of Lot in this connection have characterized him as a selfish, materialistic man who had little concern for others or his own spiritual welfare. There is little doubt that he wanted for himself the best he could get of material things. Do you? Who does not? Is there anything especially reprehensible about that? If someone offered you a choice of a hundred-dollar bill or a dollar bill and he would take the other, which would you choose? If you had been in Lot's shoes, what would you have done? It is easy for us to say, "He should have left the choice to Abraham," but Abraham already had the choice, and gave it to him.

It is generally assumed, and, in my judgment highly probable, that Lot knew of Sodom and its wickedness. It is easy for us to say, "He should have considered what disadvantage there would be in living so close to such wickedness." Of course he should, as each of us should always consider the consequences of any action we may take, especially one that leans toward or leads toward wickedness. A parent who sends his child to a secular, ungodly university instead of to a Christian college or university should consider the consequences. A parent who sends his child to a Christian college or university where many of the teachers promote the idea that the denominational world is about as well off as the Lord's church, and that doctrinal matters are unimportant and that the church of Christ is merely an outgrowth of the Restoration Movement should consider the consequences. A businessman who moves to Detroit, New York or San Francisco from middle Tennessee to get a better paying job should consider the consequences. A Christian who dates a person who is not a Christian or does not have high moral standards should consider the consequences.

However my point here is that the fact that Lot made the wrong choice did not indicate that he was an ungodly, selfish, unusually materialistic wretch. As we see in chapter 19, even after he lived in Sodom he still showed courtesy, hospitality, shame at ungodliness, loyalty, gratitude and other good attributes. He was basically a righteous man. The outstanding lesson is: Regardless of how good or righteous one may be, the wrong choice can reap unexpected horrible consequences. The fact that Lot may have reasoned, "I know the city is wicked, but I do not have to participate in its wickedness" did not change the consequences. The fact that a young girl goes with a boy who is not a Christian or who has questionable morals and thinks, "We love each other enough that I will change him when we get married" will not change the consequences of her actions. Nelson's Bible Dictionary says, "Lot's character is revealed by the major decisions which he made throughout his life. He chose to pitch his tent with the worldly sodomites, seeking riches and a life of ease rather than a path of obedience to God. He prospered for a while, but this decision eventually led to his humiliation and the tragic loss of his wife and other members of his family." That may be true, but it is merely an assumption that he "chose a life of ease rather than a path of obedience to God." There is nothing in the story that indicates that he did not think he could obey God and still pitch his tent toward Sodom. There is nothing in the story that shows that he was disobeying God by moving closer to Sodom. The tragedy is that millions of others have followed his example. They have not chosen a path of deliberate disobedience to God. They have merely chosen a path that indicates an improper attitude toward sin and its influence and consequence. In 2 Peter 2:7-9 Lot is called a righteous man. Matthew Henry says, "This he was as to the generally prevailing bent of his heart and through the main of his conversation. God does not account men just or unjust from one single act, but from their general course of life. And here is a just man in the midst of a most corrupt and profligate generation universally gone off from all good. He does not follow the multitude to do evil, but in a city of injustice he walks uprightly."

Barnes suggests, "Perhaps it was one purpose of his remaining to endeavor to do them good, as it is often the duty of good men now to reside among the wicked for the same purpose. Lot is supposed to have resided in Sodom -- then probably the most corrupt place on the earth -- for 16 years; and we have in that fact an instructive demonstration that a good man may maintain the life of religion in his soul when surrounded by the wicked, and an illustration of the effects which the conduct of the wicked will have on a man of true piety when he is compelled to witness it constantly. (1) He will not be CONTAMINATED with their wickedness, or will not conform to their evil customs. (2) He will not become INDIFFERENT to it, but his heart will be more and more affected by their depravity. (3) He will have not only constant, but growing solicitude in regard to it -- solicitude that will be felt every day: 'He vexed his soul from day to day.' It will not only be at intervals that his mind will be affected by their conduct, but it will be a habitual and constant thing. True piety is not fitful, periodical, and spasmodic; it is constant and steady. It is not a 'jet' that occasionally bursts out; it is a fountain always flowing. (4) He will seek to do them good. We may suppose that this was the case with Lot; we are certain that it is a characteristic of true religion to seek to do good to all, however wicked they may be. (5) He will secure their confidence. He will practice no improper arts to do this, but it will be one of the usual results of a life of integrity, that a good man will secure the confidence of even the wicked. It does not appear that Lot lost that confidence, and the whole narrative in Genesis leads us to suppose that even the inhabitants of Sodom regarded him as a good man. The wicked may hate a good man because he is good; but if a man lives as he should, they will regard him as upright, and they will give him the credit of it when he dies, if they should withhold it while he lives."

We think Barnes is mostly right, but to say that a good man will not be contaminated by the wickedness of those with whom he lives for sixteen years is to go too far. We cannot but wonder why he even moved into the city if it "vexed his righteous soul" as Peter said it did. The only reason that makes sense to us is that he must have assumed that he was so righteous that it would not be worth the effort to stay outside, for he would not be influenced or contaminated by their evil ways. It may be that his family had friends there whose company they enjoyed, or that his wife was so attracted to the sights and shops in the city that she nagged at him until he moved there. Whatever the reasons are, the lesson is the same: The wrong choices we make can have far- reaching and disastrous consequences, not only for ourselves, but also for our families and others.

We cannot argue with the statement that he was a righteous man, at least compared to those about him, for the Bible says so. But we can recognize that even a righteous man can have improper motives and certainly unwise choices and take care that we do not follow in his steps. This is true with every choice we make, whether it is in the political realm, the business arena, scholastic choices, marriage or even where we will spend our vacation. Choose to live in such a way that all you do in word or deed will be to the glory of God.

T. Pierce Brown

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

No birds today... by Gary Rose

 

Thanks to Carole Curcio and Bruce Arnold for sending this picture to me; imagine, two recommendations in one day. Also, the title of the picture is important: “No Birds Today, but I know they're around”. The way that man is squinting, maybe he has his eye completely closed? Something must be very wrong for he should be able to see at least the one directly in front of the lens. A saying comes back to me: People see exactly what they want to see and ignore all the rest. With these things in mind, I thought of Jesus’ healing of a man born blind.

The Bible says…

John 9 ( World English Bible )

¹ As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth.

² His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

³ Jesus answered, “Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him.

⁴ I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day. The night is coming, when no one can work.

⁵ While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

⁶ When he had said this, he spat on the ground, made mud with the saliva, anointed the blind man’s eyes with the mud,

⁷ and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means “Sent”). So he went away, washed, and came back seeing.

⁸ The neighbors therefore, and those who saw that he was blind before, said, “Isn’t this he who sat and begged?”

⁹ Others were saying, “It is he.” Still others were saying, “He looks like him.” He said, “I am he.”

¹⁰ They therefore were asking him, “How were your eyes opened?”

¹¹ He answered, “A man called Jesus made mud, anointed my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash.’ So I went away and washed, and I received sight.”

¹² Then they asked him, “Where is he?” He said, “I don’t know.”

¹³ They brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees.

¹⁴ It was a Sabbath when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes.

¹⁵ Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight. He said to them, “He put mud on my eyes, I washed, and I see.”

¹⁶ Some therefore of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, because he doesn’t keep the Sabbath.” Others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” There was division among them.

¹⁷ Therefore they asked the blind man again, “What do you say about him, because he opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.”

¹⁸ The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight,

¹⁹ and asked them, “Is this your son, whom you say was born blind? How then does he now see?”

²⁰ His parents answered them, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind;

²¹ but how he now sees, we don’t know; or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. He is of age. Ask him. He will speak for himself.”

²² His parents said these things because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if any man would confess him as Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.

²³ Therefore his parents said, “He is of age. Ask him.”

²⁴ So they called the man who was blind a second time, and said to him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.”

²⁵ He therefore answered, “I don’t know if he is a sinner. One thing I do know: that though I was blind, now I see.”

²⁶ They said to him again, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?”

²⁷ He answered them, “I told you already, and you didn’t listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You don’t also want to become his disciples, do you?”

²⁸ They insulted him and said, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.

²⁹ We know that God has spoken to Moses. But as for this man, we don’t know where he comes from.”

³⁰ The man answered them, “How amazing! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes.

³¹ We know that God doesn’t listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshipper of God, and does his will, he listens to him.

³² Since the world began it has never been heard of that anyone opened the eyes of someone born blind.

³³ If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

³⁴ They answered him, “You were altogether born in sins, and do you teach us?” They threw him out.

³⁵ Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and finding him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of God?”

³⁶ He answered, “Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?”

³⁷ Jesus said to him, “You have both seen him, and it is he who speaks with you.”

³⁸ He said, “Lord, I believe!” and he worshiped him.

³⁹ Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment, that those who don’t see may see; and that those who see may become blind.”

⁴⁰ Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?”

⁴¹ Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

Jesus performed a notable miracle and that is wonderful thing. I am quite sure the blind man was a very, very happy man when Jesus healed him. But, not everyone was happy. The Pharisees were not, for they disapproved of Jesus for not keeping the Sabbath. After being thrown of the synagogue, the blind man was no longer happy, for he was disfellowshipped. His parents were not, because they were afraid that they would be expunged from the synagogue as well.

In all this, why so much unhappiness? The answer is that some people will just not accept something, even though the facts are right in front of them. The Pharisees could not believe that someone who practiced Judaism the way Jesus did could be righteous; HE MUST BE A SINNER! To them, even an unheard of miracle, something that was so wonderful, just could NOT be accepted as genuine.

Yet, I am sure that Jesus did not come into the world to please the Pharisees, but rather his heavenly father. By doing the will of his father, Jesus was proving he was the son of God. That proof led to a choice: accept Jesus for who and what he was or reject him.

That same “in your face” choice is before us today. Will we accept the plain truth of the Scriptures or not? Will we acknowledge Jesus as LORD of our life or not? Will we obey him in all things or not? The choice is both yours and mine; what will we do? Can we really look at the picture of the photographer and those birds and ask-- “No Birds Today, but I know they're around”.