5/21/14

From Jim McGuiggan... A greater fear than death

A greater fear than death

I mentioned (click) that Pip, in Great Expectations, had shown himself fickle and self-serving but was now trying to right great wrongs and was balancing a number of things that had to come together if he was to manage the complex situation. At a critical moment and in an isolated place he was captured by Orlick, a long time enemy, and the drunken man swore he was going to end Pip's life. Not only would he kill him, but since they were at a limekiln he would dispose of Pip entirely so that absolutely nothing of him would ever be found.

Having every reason to believe he was right on the brink of destruction Pip's mind raced through all the letters he had written, arrangements and promises he had made to make things right. Finally, when he had purposed to do what was right in the face of great danger and loss to himself, he was about to vanish and no one would know where he went.

He said he feared death but that he feared something worse and while the drunken murderer was rehearsing his threats to kill him here's what Pip was thinking:

"My mind with inconceivable rapidity, followed out all the consequences of such a death. Estella's father would believe I had deserted him, would be taken, would die accusing me; even Herbert [his intimate friend] would doubt me, when he compared the letter I had left for him, with the fact that I had called at Miss Havisham's gate for only a moment; Joe and Biddy would never know how sorry I had been that night, none would ever know what I had suffered, how true I had meant to be, what an agony I had passed through. The death close before me was terrible, but far more terrible than death was the dread of being misremembered after death. And so quick were my thoughts, that I saw myself despised by unborn generations—Estella's children, and their children—while the wretch's words [Orlick's words] were yet on his lips."

In his pride and new-found income Pip had developed into a 24-carat snob and became ashamed of Joe, his dearest and most faithful friend. This led to his misjudging Biddy (later Joe's wife) and avoiding both her and Joe and when he discovered that his devoted and extremely generous benefactor was a criminal Pip loathed him too, despite the fact that his benefactor risked a death sentence in order to come halfway round the world to see him. All this reprehensible behaviour and the spirit that fed it was in the past but no one would ever know it thanks to Orlick who was about to shut a door Pip could never reopen.

Death away from all those who had proved to be his friends was bad enough but worse still—worse than death—was the certainty that he would be "misremembered"—his shameful ways would have the last word.

Many of us fear the lies that will have the last word while others of us fear the truths that will have the last word. Pip's shameful treatment of Joe Gargery, his loathing of his once criminal but now selfless benefactor and his generally selfish approach to life were not fabrications; but in recent times Pip had seen himself for what he was, was working to make up for it all and now no one would know "how true he meant to be." Orlick would freeze Pip's life in that selfish and thankless mode; that would be the summary of his life and the stories—the truths, at least aspects of the truths—about his worst ways would be all that would be told about him. He knew he merited criticism but he feared that those who mattered most to him would think him "worse than he was." In his awful fear he believed that he would now die with his repentance and attempts at restitution unknown and no one would say of him with profound feeling what he would later say of his once-wicked and now "softened" benefactor, "O Lord, be merciful to him a sinner."

Some sin and have the good sense and strength to move on, to dismiss the past and pursue honour with all their might but others, for whatever reasons, have neither the sense nor the strength to leave the ugly past and move on. Their sin is ever before them, their agony robs them of peace though they try with all their might to do what is right and out-live what cannot be set right. And there are "Orlicks" who wouldn't lift a finger to do physical violence to anyone but who, finding "good reasons" to tell even ancient stories, kill any possibility of peace and endanger the possibility of usefulness in the life of sinful "Pips". In their sly ways they find it "necessary" to spread the word and freeze the life of a sinner in an ancient setting (always presuming that they really know what they're talking about).

I've sinned greatly here (and been sinned against) by taking a truth and shrinking a man's life until his crime is the sum total of it. I've done it by ignoring the length and breadth of his goodness and his avowed purpose to live openly and in honour before God and man.

To speak or look or act or raise an eyebrow to freeze someone's life in that way is to bring Orlick to life. To spread the news to people who will never know the now penitent "Pip" is to freeze him in their minds. They'll never know his agony or "how true he meant to be." All they will know is what "Orlick" allowed them to know.

How trivial this must appear to be to some readers but Dickens knew better. Noted Cambridge scholar, author and Dickens specialist, Peter Ackroyd, acknowledges Dickens' great psychological accuracy and understanding. Some of us don't need Ackroyd's opinion to see that in Dickens; we feel it in us, as if Dickens were inside our heads and hearts. This agony and absence of peace is all too real and is created by the Orlicks who feed those who are willing to eat the putrid. The fear that haunts some sinners is given a solid basis when many years later they're confronted by an often garbled horrible truth they wished they could forget. They realize a new generation is learning to despise them.

"The death close before me was terrible, but far more terrible than death was the dread of being misremembered after death."

From Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A. ... The Design's in the Details

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1338

The Design's in the Details

by	Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

Michael J. Behe (1996), Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press), hardbound, 307 pages, $25.00.
Hailed by some as a coup for the cause of creation, this eagerly-awaited book does not disappoint. Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, unabashedly argues a case for intelligent design in life. Others have tackled this same argument, but Behe breaks new ground in having his book printed by a division of a major publishing company (Simon & Schuster).
Behe presents three major points. First, he argues that evolution has to go further in explaining the origin of complete structures or organs. Currently, evolutionary speculations involve nothing more than arranging or rearranging a stockpile of preexisting components. Perhaps, following the most vociferous opponents of design such as Richard Dawkins, evolutionists could argue that the nerve cell, retina, cornea, and other parts of the eye came together accidentally. They may even offer a seemingly persuasive scenario whereby this occurred in gradual, successive steps. But this is woefully inadequate, Behe argues.
Following the title motif, the author likens the eye to a kind of black box, and its components to a series of smaller black boxes. A “black box” is a term drawn from the world of modern machines. It is something very complicated that an average mechanic will not touch. He will unplug it, send it away to the factory for repair, and replace it, but he will never open it up to fix anything inside. Someone could go to an airplane, for example, remove the black boxes, put them together with some fresh aluminum sheets and parts from other airplanes, and create a whole “new” design. But he will get nowhere without those preexisting, highly complicated black boxes. When special kinds of scientists—people such as biochemists—open up the black boxes of molecular machines, blood coagulation, and the metabolic pathway (to mention some of Behe’s favorite examples), they fail to find still smaller black boxes. At some point they run into “irreducible complexity”—a single system which, if any part were removed or crippled, would cease to perform its obvious function. But Behe does not merely throw down the gauntlet and walk away. He devotes considerable space to describing the irreducible complexity of the preceding examples, and shows the difficulty in explaining these systems by any sort of blind, unthinking, natural process.
In the second part of the book, Behe takes an unusual approach. He starts out by trying to find the evolutionists’ explanations for any complex biochemical system. A comprehensive search in a seemingly promising source, the Journal of Molecular Evolution, turns up very few attempts to explain the evolution of such systems. Some papers offer very imaginative, or very simplistic, solutions, but none offers a detailed Darwinian model. Behe broadens his search to other likely journals and textbooks, with the same result. He concludes that molecular evolution has not published and, therefore, it should perish.
Finally, Behe tries to establish that the search for intelligent design is possible without ruining science. He eliminates a couple of non-Darwinian, but naturalistic, proposals, and concludes that intelligent design is the only explanation for the irreducible complexity he observes. But the author also draws a distinction between the claims for design or evolution, and scientific proof for such claims. Presumably, Behe would expect to find many examples of design throughout nature, but he urges fellow scientists to look at each organism, part of an organism, or intricate system within the living world, on a case-by-case basis.
Overall, the book is very well-written and presented. Technical descriptions not crucial to the argument are set aside in specially-marked sections, and Behe (with some good editors, no doubt) has done a good job at writing on as popular a level as possible. The author does not hide his belief in God, but a few brief, sporadic comments indicate a desire to distance himself from young-Earth creationism. Perhaps these were intended to make the book more marketable, but they were unnecessary because Behe’s arguments stand without any reference to the age issue. Nonetheless, everyone should catch this glimpse of a design argument for the new millennium.
[For a somewhat objective critique of Darwin's Black Box by an evolutionist, with responses, see The Boston Review. For further reactions from evolutionists (especially ultra-Darwinists), see the (unofficial) Richard Dawkins site.]

From Mark Copeland... The Conversion Of The Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-40)

"THE BOOK OF ACTS"

The Conversion Of The Ethiopian (8:26-40)

INTRODUCTION

1. The conversions we have noted so far have involved large numbers of
people...
a. The 3000 at Pentecost - Ac 2:1-41
b. The 2000 on Solomon's Porch - Ac 3:1-4:4
c. The multitudes in Samaria - Ac 8:5-13

2. In each case, the gospel message was basically the same...
a. Christ is proclaimed
b. Responses called for included faith, repentance and baptism

3. Now we have the opportunity to examine the conversion of just one
person...
a. A queen's treasurer, a eunuch from Ethiopia
b. A very religious man, who had traveled a great distance to
worship God

4. With the account of the conversion of "The Ethiopian"...
a. We not only have the opportunity to confirm what we have already
learned
b. We can also glean a few more points regarding Biblical conversions

[Let's start with a reading and review of the basic facts related to this
conversion...]

I. THE CONVERSION OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH

A. PHILIP IS SENT TO THE EUNUCH...
1. An angel of the Lord tells Philip to go toward Gaza - Ac 8:26
2. On the way there is a man sitting in his chariot - Ac 8:27-28
a. A eunuch of Ethiopia, in charge of the treasury of Queen
Candace
b. Returning home from having gone to worship in Jerusalem
c. Reading from the prophet Isaiah
3. The Spirit tells Philip to overtake the chariot - Ac 8:29

B. PHILIP PREACHES JESUS TO HIM...
1. Hearing the eunuch reading Isaiah, Philip asks if he understands
- Ac 8:30
2. The eunuch asks Philip to help him - Ac 8:31-34
a. He expresses a need for someone to guide him, and invites
Philip to sit with him
b. The scripture under consideration is Isa 53:7-8
1) Which speaks of one led as a sheep to the slaughter
2) Which describes one whose life is taken from the earth
c. The eunuch asks if Isaiah was speaking of himself, or of
someone else
3. Beginning with that Scripture, Philip preaches Jesus to him
- Ac 8:35

C. THE EUNUCH IS BAPTIZED...
1. The eunuch expresses a desire to be baptized - Ac 8:36-37
a. Seeing some water along the way, he wonders what would hinder
him from being baptized
b. Philip replies that if he believes with all his heart, he may
c. The eunuch confesses his faith in Jesus as the Son of God
2. Philip baptizes the eunuch - Ac 8:38-40
a. Stopping the chariot, both Philip and the eunuch go down into
the water
b. Philip then baptizes him
c. When they come up out of the water, the Spirit catches Philip
away
d. Though seeing Philip no more, the eunuch goes on his way
rejoicing
e. Philip is found at Azotus, and continues preaching in the
cities until he arrives at Caesarea

[One might wonder why the Spirit led Luke to spend so much time
describing the conversion of just one person. Clearly there must be
important lessons or principles that we can glean from this historical
account. With that in mind, let me offer..]

II. SOME OBSERVATIONS

A. PROSPECTS FOR THE GOSPEL...
1. The Ethiopian eunuch was a very religious man
a. He had traveled a great distance to worship in Jerusalem
b. He was reading from the Scriptures when Philip found him
2. In fact, most examples of conversions involved very devout
people
a. The 3000 at Pentecost, who had traveled to observe the feast
b. Later, we will study the conversions of such people as:
1) Paul, the Pharisee zealous for the Law
2) Cornelius, the devout Gentile who feared God and prayed
always
3) Lydia, a woman who met every Sabbath to pray with others
3. From this we can glean the following...
a. Just because one is religious does not mean they are saved!
b. Religious people are often good prospects for the gospel!
1) They already fear God and respect His authority
2) As such, they simply need to be shown "the way of God
more accurately" - cf. Ac 18:26
c. Those who are truly seeking God's will, will one day have
an opportunity to hear the gospel and obey it! - Mt 5:6
-- This does not discount the fact that rank sinners are often
receptive (cf. the Corinthians, 1Co 6:9-11), but good people
are usually more open to the Word

B. WHAT IT MEANS TO PREACH JESUS...
1. From Isaiah's "quotation" (Isa 52:13-53:11), we know it involves
teaching:
a. How Jesus died for our sins - cf. 1Co 15:1-3
b. How Jesus has been exalted by God - cf. Ac 2:36; 3:13;
5:30-31
2. From the Eunuch's "question" (Ac 8:36), we know it includes
stressing:
a. The importance of baptism
1) Why did the eunuch ask, "What hinders me from being
baptized?"
2) Perhaps because Philip told him...
a) What the Lord had said - Mk 16:15-16
b) The purpose of baptism, as expressed by Peter and Paul
- Ac 2:38; Ro 6:3-4; 1Pe 3:21
-- As we have seen and will see, baptism is the expected
response when one believes in Jesus
b. The immediacy of baptism
1) Why did the eunuch asked to be baptized right then ("See,
here is water.")?
2) Perhaps because baptism's purpose is such that one does
not want to delay
a) It is "for the remission of sins" - Ac 2:38
b) It is to have one's sins "washed away" - Ac 22:16
c) It is an appeal for a clear conscience - 1Pe 3:21
-- Indeed, in every example of conversion found in Acts,
people were baptized immediately, after just one lesson!
3. From Philip's "qualification" (Ac 8:37), we know it requires
explaining:
a. The necessity of faith in Jesus
1) One must believe in Jesus as the Son of God - Jn 8:24;
20:30-31
2) Without faith, God won't do His work in our baptism - cf.
Col 2:12
b. The necessity of whole-heartedness in our faithThe Conversion Of The Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-40)
1) God has always required whole-heartedness - cf. Mt 22:37
2) Without it, even those saved are in danger of falling away
- cf. He 3:12-14
-- Unless "you believe with all your heart", you are not a
proper subject for baptism!

C. BAPTISM...
1. Baptism involves water
a. When the eunuch was baptized...
1) "...both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water"
- Ac 8:38
2) "...he baptized him" - Ac 8:38
3) "...they came up out of the water" - Ac 8:39
b. Later, we see the same truth expressed by Peter - cf. Ac 10:47-48
2. Baptism involves a burial in water
a. Both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water - Ac 8:38
1) If sprinkling satisfies the meaning of baptism, it seems
strange that Philip would need to go down into the water
2) Why get wet, when all he needed to do was get a handful
of water?
b. Baptism means "to immerse", and such requires the baptizer
to get in the water with the one being baptized
c. Later, Paul describes baptism as a "burial" - cf. Ro 6:3-4;
Col 2:12
3. Baptism is NOT a public confession of one's faith
a. Some say that the purpose of baptism is to publicly confess
one's faith in Christ
1) Especially those who deny that baptism is for the
remission of sins
2) Seeking to provide a reason for baptism, they offer this
as an alternative
3) But the Bible nowhere says this is the purpose for
baptism!
b. If the purpose of baptism is to publicly confess one's
faith...
1) Why did Philip baptize the eunuch?
a) There was no one else around to witness the baptism
b) They were all alone in the desert
2) Why didn't Philip answer the eunuch's question
differently?
a) He wanted to know what would hinder him from being
baptized
b) If baptism is a public confession of one's faith, we
would expect Philip to say he must wait until they get
to town, find a church, etc.
c. But the purpose of baptism is such that it can be done...
1) In public or in private
2) With thousands present, or with just the one doing the
baptizing
-- Later, we will see that the conversion of the Philippian
Jailor also involved a baptism in relative privacy

CONCLUSION

1. With the conversion of "The Ethiopian", we are impressed with the
simplicity of salvation...
a. With a simple presentation of the gospel, one can be saved after
just one lesson
b. Whether it is preached to large crowds or to just one person, the
gospel is indeed God's power to save! - cf. Ro 1:16

2. When the gospel of Jesus is truly preached...
a. The death of Jesus for our sins will be stressed
b. The importance of baptism as commanded by Jesus will be mentioned
as well
1) Such that people will want to know "what hinders me from being
baptized?"
2) Such that people will want to baptized immediately
c. The purpose of baptism will be properly understood, knowing that
one can be baptized in private just as well as in public
d. The necessity for a wholehearted faith in Jesus will be emphasized,
otherwise one simply gets wet in baptism!

Was your conversion anything like that of "The Ethiopian"? When someone
"preached Jesus" to you, were you compelled to ask:

"See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" - Acts 8:36

If not, have you considered why not? Could it be that the gospel of
Jesus Christ was not shared with you in its fullness...?

From Gary... A different kind of "signing"

Signed copy? Autographed? Well, not since the ten commandments were given to Moses on mount Sinai has there been a signed copy. These things brought a flood of verses to mind, but here are a select few...

Exodus, Chapter 31

Exo 31:18 When He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God.

Jeremiah, Chapter 31

Jer 31:31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Jer 31:32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
Jer 31:33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Jer 31:34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

2 Corinthians, Chapter 3

2Co 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you?
2Co 3:2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men;
2Co 3:3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

Rules and regulations are good things; without them our society would degenerate into anarchy. But, the problem with laws is that it is human nature to want to S-T-R-E-T-C-H or even ~~BREAK~~ them. What is needed is an understanding of the author, in order to get the spirit of the desire of God. In a sense, every Christian is a living Bible, having the thoughts and intents of a living God inscribed on their hearts. Think about that one, the next time you look in the mirror!!!

5/20/14

From Jim McGuiggan... "Must" we sin?

"Must" we sin?

The question repeatedly arises if humans can be sinless. We hear some excusing of our sins because "we’re only human." The frivolous teeshirt claim The Devil Made Me Do It suggests the sort of thing I’m talking about. Others, much more serious, rant about God giving us certain drives and then condemning us for following them. I suppose a lot depends on the spirit in which the excuse is made; don't you think so? I don't mean that the spirit of the remark makes the excuse true or untrue; I mean it affects the way we hear it and very often affects the way we respond to it. If it sounds like it's excusing or making light of sin we find it more difficult to give it a balanced hearing.

If this response seems to meander quite a bit that might be because I'm that kind of thinker but it might also be because the question is rich and complex and I need to touch on related issues as I go along.

I'm one of those that think sin is inevitable. A view like that generates some questions that need answering; but to say that sin is not inevitable (that it's well within our ability to live sinlessly—to be holy within so that we fulfil all righteousness as well as avoiding all sinful doings)—that generates difficult questions also.

If we make the question abstract I'm sure it's theoretically possible for us not to sin. But as soon as we take into account several texts, the drift of the biblical Story and the existential reality I think we're (well, I am) compelled to say that we will sin. [There’s a fundamental difference between saying that we must sin and that we will sin. Where the element of choice exists (however weakened we might think it to be) there is no absolute must. We will not be able to determine the limits placed on our capacity to choose but we recognise there are some and He who knows everything knows how to judge in matters too great for us.]

In Matthew 18:7 Christ speaks of the inevitability of situations that "cause people to sin". (Compare 1 Corinthians 11:19.) It's inevitable, he says, that people (will sin in) causing others to sin. As surely as there will always be poor among us there will always be sinners.

But in saying sin is inevitable he doesn't excuse people. "Woe to him/her by whom they come." He didn't think inevitability destroyed responsibility. The inevitability (in part) rises out of our self-shaping. Our environment and other elements work against us and we succumb and that in turn shapes us so that before the picture is fully drawn we're habituated.

Christ would say, "This is how it will be"; not "This is how it must be." Our life-situation is made up of many factors—many of them chosen and probably many more of them not chosen. When speaking of actual humans we can't isolate any of these factors. We isolate elements when thinking things through (for good reasons and so we can get clarity and understanding, etc) but in real life—life as it's lived by actual humans abstractions don't work.

It isn't unreasonable to say that a human can say no to a single temptation and from there to say, "If one, then ten, if ten then a thousand. If for a day then a week and if for a week a year, a lifetime." A human did that. Jesus Christ. But we need to bear in mind Pascal’s observation that it’s a mistake to say we can always do what we can sometimes do.

So to excuse our sin merely on the basis that we're "human" is the wrong way to put it. A human can say no to sin as well as yes. We certainly want the praise for the good we do (I mean nothing sinister in that) and we should be honest enough to take the blame for the evil we do. (Both these situations need developed—no one is good alone or sinful alone.)

But if sin is inevitable, is God righteous to hold us responsible for it? When we think of God's attitude toward us and toward our sin we usually think of our sin in terms of moral law and God as the moral Governor. We say that moral law demands flawlessness and if someone should say that we aren't capable of that then the issue of God's justice is raised. Does he demand what we (as actual humans) can’t possibly give? Might as well hold us responsible for not creating worlds as hold us responsible for not being sinless (if we aren't capable of it). But I don't think that's how the biblical Message presents our situation or the gospel case.

There was only one Adam and Eve; no one has ever been in the same situation—the world after sin entered in not the world into which they were placed. God does not hold people responsible for their sin in the same way he held Adam and Eve responsible for their sin. (That thought needs developed.)

God's eternal purpose and his coming to redeem us in and as Jesus Christ makes it clear that our sin does not damn us without the possibility of redemption in Christ. That is, if God had construed human sin to be utterly unforgivable then he would not and could not have offered us forgiveness via Christ. He held it (in line with his own holy love) both forgiveable and in need of forgiving.

I don't believe he deals with people on the basis of, "You aren't sinless therefore you are damned." I believe he says, "You are sinful and in need of redemption" and in holy generosity and grace he provides redemption and those who would wish life with him gain it through God’s grace unveiled in Jesus Christ.

But sin is not legal—it is relational. It is relational infidelity. The issue is not: "Have we fallen short of sinlessness in the eyes of the moral law?" The issue is: "Have we grieved the Holy Father by our sin? The scriptures don't teach about sin as an abstraction—they don't line humans up with a moral code that in the abstract demands nothing less than flawlessness if they are to be approved. They relate us as actual humans to a personal God who made us in his image and who in holy grace and generosity offers forgiveness and acceptance to those who have sinned against him.

It's true that this only changes the question from "can humans be sinless?" so that it becomes, "Can humans live without grieving the Holy Father?" The answer (in my view) remains: "It's inevitable that we will grieve the Holy Father." But it's an important change of perspective. In sheerly legal terms there is no forgiveness; but there can be forgiveness in a personal relationship if (as in this case) the Holy Father chooses—and he does choose.

He insists that our sin is in need of forgiveness—it isn't a light matter, something to be excused as "not our fault". The cross (among other things) makes it clear that God takes human sin as an inexpressibly serious matter because he views humans as worth bothering about. This leads me to say that our damnation lies not in our missing a quota of righteousness (required by moral law). Our problem is not that we don't give to some moral law what we can't give but that we won't give to God what we can give.

God offers us life with himself and the justification for that offer is found in himself; as he has shown in and as Jesus Christ. If God were not as Jesus Christ has shown him to be there would be no need for redemption nor would there be an offer of redemption. On the one hand sin wouldn't matter (because God is not the Holy Father) and on the other forgiveness would not be offered (because God is not the Holy Father).

My view, then, is that God is righteous in holding us responsible for our sins though it is inevitable that we will sin. Because, in my view we aren't held responsible for not being sinless; we are held responsible for not giving to God what we can give. We need to construe sin as a life’s direction and not merely as specific acts of evil. As responsible adults standing before God we sin because we’re sinners.

In construing all this (in my view) we are to think of it in light of the work of Christ and God's self-revelatrion in him and not apart from it. To begin reflecting on it all apart from the gospel is to abstract it from its biblical roots.

I think if we went to God and said, "It wasn't possible for me to live sinlessly through my long life," I think he would agree. If we went on to say, "Therefore it is unrighteous of you to condemn us for not being sinless," I think he would say, "But I don't condemn you for not giving me what you couldn't. I condemn you because you refused to give me what you could."

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

From Eric Lyons, M.Min. ... The Essentiality of Evidence in Christianity

The Essentiality of Evidence in Christianity

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Though “the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God” is mind-boggling, and though “His judgments and His ways” are “unsearchable” and “past finding out” (Romans 11:33; Deuteronomy 29:29), and even though finite man will never fully be able to wrap his mind around a holy, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient Creator, nevertheless, God has consistently dealt with mankind in rational ways providing the evidence needed for a reasonable faith. Consider, for example, how God has always ensured that enough evidence was available for honest, truth-seekers to know that He exists (cf. Proverbs 8:17; Matthew 7:7-8). Paul wrote: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20, emp. added). Since the time of Adam and Eve, mankind has been able to clearly see how “the things that are made” testify on behalf of a powerful, invisible Creator. As the psalmist proclaimed: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth. And their words to the end of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). The reason why “the fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1, emp. added), is because God has always given man adequate evidence for His existence. Sadly, the foolish person dismisses the evidence.
When the prophet Samuel addressed the nation of Israel at Saul’s coronation, he did not merely deliver an emotionally based speech. He commanded them, saying, “[S]tand still, that I may reason with you before the Lord” (1 Samuel 12:7, emp. added). Similarly, Isaiah wrote: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ says the Lord, ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow’” (Isaiah 1:18, emp. added). Consider also the stark contrast between Elijah and the prophets of Baal. In hopes of getting the attention of the bogus god Baal, these emotionally charged, pretend prophets “leaped about the altar,” “cried aloud,” and “cut themselves, as was their custom, with knives and lances, until the blood gushed out on them” (1 Kings 18:26,28)—all for naught. Elijah, on the other hand, had a rational faith that was grounded in the Word of God. He said to God, “I have done all these things at Your Word” (1 Kings 18:36, emp. added). His personal faith, as well as the message of faith that He preached, were rooted and grounded in the Heavenly revealed, rational Word of Almighty God. Biblical faith, after all, “comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).
This same kind of rational, evidence-based faith and preaching can be found in the New Testament. Consider the actions and teachings of Jesus. He could have merely announced to the world that He was the Messiah. He could have only told people that He was the Son of God. He could have expected everyone simply to believe His claims that He was Heaven-sent, and never given His contemporaries any proof for His deity. However, even though there were occasions when Jesus chose not to offer additional proof of His deity (because of the hard-heartedness of many of His hearers; e.g., Mark 8:11-12), Jesus understood the essentiality of evidence. During His earthly ministry, He repeatedly gave ample proof of His deity. He noted how John the Baptizer bore witness on His behalf (John 5:33). He said, “[T]he Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me” (John 5:36, emp. added; cf. John 1:32-33; Matthew 3:16-17). He spoke of how “the Scriptures…testify of Me” (John 5:39, emp. added), and specifically noted how “Moses…wrote about Me” (John 5:46, emp. added). He also noted how His miraculous works bore witness to His deity (John 5:36). Jesus performed many miracles that demonstrated His power over nature, disease, demons, and death. He understood that His own verbal testimony alone would not convince anyone in a court of law (John 5:31; cf. Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15). Thus, at the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem He told the unbelieving Jews, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him” (John 10:37-38, emp. added). Sadly, His foolish, stubborn enemies repeatedly rejected the irrefutable evidence that Jesus presented on His behalf.
Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus presented for His divinity was His miraculous resurrection. He could have risen from the dead and never appeared to anyone on Earth. He could have departed from the tomb and allowed speculation to run wild. Christianity could have begun on the back of uncertainty and mysticism. Instead, Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God…by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4). He appeared alive to Mary Magdalene, to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, to the apostles, to James, and to over 500 disciples at once, most of whom were still living and could be questioned several years later when Paul, who also witnessed the risen Savior, wrote 1 Corinthians (15:5-8). Jesus “presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3, emp. added), because He is the Head of a reasonable religion. The excitement, energy, and courage that early disciples manifested was grounded in the rock-solid proofs of Jesus’ resurrection (among other things, e.g., fulfilled prophecies). The emotional, energetic, evangelistic faith of 21^st-century Christians must likewise be rooted firm and deep in evidence.
Jesus was not the only New Testament figure who demonstrated the necessity of a knowledge-based faith. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John packed their gospel accounts with confirmation of Jesus being the Christ. Consider just the beginnings of these four books. Matthew began his account of the Gospel by genealogically proving that Jesus was the promised seed of Abraham and David (Matthew 1:1-17). He then noted how Jesus was born of a virgin, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 (Matthew 1:18-25). Mark began “the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1) by quoting Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. Mark proved prophetically that John the Baptizer was “the voice of the one crying in the wilderness,” and Jesus was “the LORD” (1:3). Luke also opened his account of the Good News with an appeal to evidence, knowledge, and understanding.

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed (1:1-4).

Then there is John’s gospel account, which, from beginning to end, is packed with proof that Jesus is the miracle-working Son of God (1:3: 2:1-11; 20:30-31; 21:25). In fact, the stated purpose of his record of the various miracles of Christ (and there were many others John did not mention) was so that “you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (20:30-31). If biblical faith is merely “a firm belief in something for which there is no proof,” which is one definition Merriam-Webster (on-line) gives for the word “faith” (2011), then why did John and the synoptic writers spend so much time offering proof for Who Jesus is? Answer: Because the truthful, reasonable facts of God, His Word, and His Son are the foundation of real faith (John 8:31-32; 17:17; Romans 10:17).
When the apostle Paul stood before Festus and King Agrippa, he spoke of those things “which the prophets and Moses said would come—that the Christ would suffer that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:23-24). However, as Paul “made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, ‘Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!’” (26:24). How did Paul respond? Did he answer with a mere emotional appeal? Did he welcome the idea of an unreasonable, unverifiable Gospel? Not at all. Paul humbly, but confidently, replied: “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25).

CONCLUSION

Sadly, most accountable people in the world will never accept the mountain of evidence for Christianity and become Christians (Matthew 7:13-14). But, those of us who choose to put our faith in God, Jesus, and His Word, can do so because “the truth” can be known (John 8:32), rightly obeyed (Romans 6:17; 10:12-13), and logically defended (1 Peter 3:15).

From Mark Copeland... The Follow-Up Of The Samaritans (Acts 8:14-25)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

               The Follow-Up Of The Samaritans (8:14-25)

INTRODUCTION

1. The conversion of the Samaritans was simple and straightforward...
   a. Philip preached Christ and the people heeded him - Ac 8:5-6
   b. They responded by believing and being baptized - Ac 8:12-13

2. Unique with the Samaritans' conversion is the follow-up that
   occurred...
   a. It has been described as one of the most extraordinary passages
      in Acts
   b. Used to teach various doctrines related to confirmation,
      sanctification, and spiritual gifts

[We must be careful not to draw conclusions contrary to the rest of the
Scriptures.  With that goal in mind, let's first review...]

I. THE FOLLOW-UP BY PETER AND JOHN

   A. THEY IMPART THE SPIRIT...
      1. Hearing of the Samaritans' conversion, the apostles sent Peter
         and John - Ac 8:14
      2. Peter and John imparted the Spirit to the Samaritans - Ac 8:15-17
         a. While the Samaritans had been baptized, they had not
            "received the Spirit"
         b. The Spirit had not yet "fallen upon" any of them - cf. Ac 10:44-46; 11:15-17
         c. Through prayer and laying on of the apostles' hands, they
            "received the Spirit"

   B. SIMON TRIES TO BUY THE GIFT...
      1. He sought to buy the ability to impart the Spirit - Ac 8:18-19
      2. Peter rebuked him strongly, called upon him to repent and pray
         - Ac 8:20-23
      3. Simon asks Peter to pray for him - Ac 8:24

[Peter and John preached the gospel in many villages in Samaria on their
return to Jerusalem (Ac 8:25).  Now let's go back and look at some
questions frequently raised...]

II. THE FOLLOW-UP EXAMINED MORE CLOSELY

   A. FREQUENT QUESTIONS...   
      1. Why is it said the Samaritans received baptism by Philip, but
         not the Spirit?
      2. What does it mean "that they might receive the Holy Spirit"?
      3. What did the apostles have that Philip did not?
      4. Was this some sort of confirmation?  Second stage of
         sanctification?  

   B. PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS...
      1. Whatever Luke meant to "receive the Holy Spirit"...
         a. It required the apostles' laying on of hands
            1) Philip could not impart it, making it necessary for the
               apostles to come
            2) Simon could see that it was through the apostles' laying
               on of hands the Spirit was given - Ac 8:18
         b. It was something visible or audible
            1) It caught Simon's attention, who sought to buy the
               ability to impart it
            2) It was clearly something miraculous, perhaps speaking in
               tongues - cf. Ac 19:1-7
            3) It involved the Spirit "falling upon them," as with
               Cornelius - cf. Ac 10:44-46
      2. Was it actually the Spirit Himself, or something the Spirit 
         gives?
         a. All Christians receive the Spirit upon obedience to the
            Gospel - Ac 2:38; 5:32; 1Co 12:13; Ep 1:13-14; Ga 4:6; 
            Ro 8:9-11
         b. But in NT times many (not all) Christians received miraculous
            gifts - 1Co 12-14
      3. Since the Samaritans had believed and been baptized (Ac 8:12,16)...
         a. They probably received the Spirit as any baptized believer
            normally would
         b. They apparently had not received the Spirit regarding
            miraculous gifts (see below)

   C. PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION...
      1. The expression "receive the Holy Spirit" is a metonymy =
         "receive spiritual gifts"
         a. Metonymy - A figure of speech in which one word or phrase is
            substituted for another with which it is closely associated
            1) E.g., "Washington" for the United States government;
               "Crown" for royalty
            2) E.g., "The pen is mightier than the sword" ("pen" stands
               in for "the written word"; "sword" stands in for "military
               aggression and force")
         b. What the Samaritans had not received were miraculous
            spiritual gifts that the Spirit often bestowed in the early 
            church - cf. 1Co 12:1-11
      2. The apostles of Christ had the ability to impart spiritual
         gifts
         a. Paul imparted the "Holy Spirit" in this way - cf. Ac 19:1-7
         b. Paul hoped to impart such a gift to the Romans - Ro 1:11
         c. He imparted such a gift to Timothy - 2Ti 1:6
      3. The ability to impart spiritual gifts was limited to the
         apostles
         a. Which is why Philip could perform miracles, but not pass
            the ability on to others
            1) The apostles had laid hands on him earlier - Ac 6:5-6
            2) Philip, like Steven, could then do miracles - Ac 6:7;
               8:6-7
         b. Which is why it was necessary for Peter and John to come to
            Samaria
            1) If spiritual gifts came simply by praying, why send for
               Peter and John?
            2) It took an apostle for the spiritual gifts to be imparted!
      4. It was this ability to impart spiritual gifts that Simon wanted
         to buy
         a. He was not content to simply receive a spiritual gift
         b. He wanted that apostolic ability to impart spiritual gifts!
            - Ac 8:19

CONCLUSION

1. The ministry of Philip among the Samaritans had...
   a. Been confirmed by the miracles which Philip did in their midst 
      - Ac 8:6-7
   b. Resulted in true conversions when they believed and were baptized
      - Ac 8:12-13

2. Peter and John's mission to Samaria appears straightforward...
   a. To impart miraculous spiritual gifts by the apostolic laying on
      of hands
   b. Which served to establish the new converts in their faith - cf.
      Ro 1:11

Today, conversion occurs wherever people believe and are baptized (Mk
16:16; Ac 2:38; 22:16).  They are established in the faith when they
observe the apostles' doctrine (Mt 28:20; Ac 2:42) which was revealed and
confirmed by the miraculous gifts of the Spirit in the first century (cf.
He 2:1-4)...