Is America Doomed? [Part I] by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=170

Is America Doomed? [Part I]

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

[EDITORS’ NOTE: This article is the first installment in a three-part series based on the author’s seminar and soon-to-be-released book—“The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America’s Christian Heritage.” Part II will follow next month.]
The dark, sinister clouds of political correctness have been steadily gathering over America for some 50 years now. The result? A drastic recasting of American culture from what it was (for the first 185 years) to what it is now. In the words of one of the current presidential candidates:

Whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we’re formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we’ve got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community (Brody, 2007, emp. added).

Nevertheless, the Founders and architects of the American Republic insisted that Christianity must be thoroughly embedded in the citizenry in order for their grand experiment to be perpetuated (see Miller, 2006a). But America has strayed far afield from that initial intention in the last half-century. If something drastic is not done, the future of the Republic is in question.

What Can Be Done?

If Christians do not rise up and act, the downward spiral will continue, eventually resulting in inevitable catastrophe. So what may be done? What would God have Christians to do? “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3). Consider the following succinct listing of seven recommended actions that could turn the nation around if enacted by a sizable number of Americans:
I. Self-examination and rededication of one’s own life to serious devotion to God, Christ, and the moral principles on which the Republic was founded.
II. Diligent dedication of one’s own family to God and Christ. Consider homeschooling to shield children from the subversion of political correctness that has enshrouded public schools. Return to modeling the home according to the Bible’s directives, including:

And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up (Deuteronomy 6:6-7).
Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged (Colossians 3:18-21, NIV).
He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly. Chasten your son while there is hope, and do not set your heart on his destruction. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of correction will drive it far from him. Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from hell. The rod and rebuke give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul (Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15,17).

III. Pray fervently, consistently, and continually that God will help us. Hold public prayer meetings. That’s what the Founders did. In fact, during the seven years of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress issued no fewer than nine public proclamations to the American people, calling upon the whole nation to set aside entire days in which no labor would be performed so that the citizens could devote themselves to praying to God (Miller, 2006b). [NOTE: See the Resources section of this issue for two examples.]
The Founders were merely echoing the Bible’s own teaching regarding the necessity of petitioning God for national assistance and protection:

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily (Luke 18:7-8, emp. added).
However, keep in mind that a sufficient number of Americans may have so rejected God that He intends to punish America. The Founders were poignantly aware of this very possibility, as expressed by them in a proclamation they released to the American public on March 20, 1779: “Whereas, in just punishment of our manifold transgressions, it hath pleased the Supreme Disposer of all events to visit these United States with a destructive calamitous war” (Journals of..., 1909, 13:343-344).
The time has come to face the fact that America may have plummeted too far in its departure from God’s will to be recalled. Young King Josiah came to a similar realization when, having discovered the Book of the Law which had been lost amid temple debris, its precepts largely neglected by the nation, in panic he announced: “[G]reat is the wrath of the Lord that is aroused against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us” (2 Kings 22:13). Though God was pleased with Josiah’s humility and tender heart, disaster was inevitable:

Thus says the Lord: “Behold, I will bring calamity on this place and on its inhabitants...because they have forsaken Me.... Therefore My wrath shall be aroused against this place and shall not be quenched” (2 Kings 22:16-17).

If this be the precise predicament of America, we ought humbly to embrace the attitude of the psalmist when he said:

O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongs—O God, to whom vengeance belongs, shine forth! Rise up, O Judge of the earth; render punishment to the proud. Lord, how long will the wicked, how long will the wicked triumph? ... Understand, you senseless among the people; and you fools, when will you be wise? He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see? He who instructs the nations, shall He not correct, He who teaches man knowledge? The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile (Psalm 94:1-3,8-11, emp. added).

The nations have sunk down in the pit which they made; in the net which they hid, their own foot is caught. The Lord is known by the judgment He executes; the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.... Arise, O Lord, do not let man prevail; let the nations be judged in Your sight. Put them in fear, O Lord, that the nations may know themselves to be but men (Psalm 9:15-20, emp. added).

When we plead with God in behalf of the nation, our every petition must be tempered with the same resignation Jesus manifested in the Garden: “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Matthew 26:39, emp. added; cf. James 4:15).
IV. Learn the Bible—deeply and thoroughly. Delve into God’s Word. Show respect for His thinking by pouring over its contents. Encourage family and friends to do the same. The Founders viewed the Bible as absolutely indispensable and integral to the survival of the Republic, citing it in their political utterances far more often than any other source (see Lutz, 1988, pp. 140-141). Indeed, consider the eloquent testimony to this fact, as expressed by a few of the Founders. For example, Constitution signer and Secretary of War, James McHenry, insisted:

The Holy Scriptures...can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses (as quoted in Steiner, 1921, p. 14, emp. added).

Patrick Henry believed that the Bible “is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed” (as quoted in Wirt, 1818, p. 402). John Jay wrote to Peter Jay on April 8, 1784: “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next” (1980, 2:709). Noah Webster asserted: “The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society; the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men” (1833, p. v). He further claimed: “All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible” (1832, p. 339). Constitution signer, Gouverneur Morris, observed: “The reflection and experience of many years have led me to consider the holy writings not only as the most authentic and instructive in themselves, but as the clue to all other history. They tell us what man is, and they alone tell us why he is what he is” (1821, p. 30). Declaration signer, Dr. Benjamin Rush, declared that the Bible “should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness” (1798, p. 100). In a letter to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813, John Adams stated that “the Bible is the best Book in the world” (1856, 10:85).
Indeed, Americans need a strong dose of the absolutely critical essentiality of the Bible to both national and private life, as stated by the Bible writers themselves:

I will never forget Your precepts, for by them You have given me life. Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day. You, through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies; for they are ever with me. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep Your precepts. How sweet are Your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path (Psalm 119:93,97-98,100,103-105, emp. added).
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12, emp. added).
If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.... He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.... Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth (John 8:31-32; 12:48; 17:17, emp. added).

The future of the Republic is inextricably linked with and inherently dependent on the extent to which Americans are willing to return to an intimate acquaintance with the Bible.
V. Petition politicians, school board members, and the media regarding spiritual (not political) issues, focusing simply and solely on morality—not money. As one steps back and evaluates the moral and spiritual condition of America, it is self-evident that our nation has strayed far from its moorings. America is now unquestionably characterized by rampant divorce, widespread sexual impurity, gambling, drunkenness, thievery, and the list goes on. Prisons are full to overflowing with more being built as swiftly as possible, in conjunction with early release programs. Crime statistics are at an all-time high in virtually every category. Yet, while sin (i.e., violations of God’s will—1 John 3:4) has increased in the land, two sins stand out from all others in our day. Two sins, particularly repugnant in God’s sight, have swept over America. These two sins have been politicized—instead of being left in the moral and religious arena where they belong. These two premiere moral issues facing the country are abortion and homosexuality. A nation can survive for a period of time even when murder, theft, adultery, and the like are rampant. (After all, sin is sin. All sin is destructive and eventually will be addressed by a perfect God.) However, history shows that when some sins become pervasive in a given civilization, its demise is imminent. The killing of children and sexual perversion are just such sins. Ultimately, America’s drifting from its spiritual moorings is climaxing in imminent moral implosion and inevitable retribution from God, based on these two critical moral matters. Please consider them briefly.

Abortion

Who could have imagined (the Founders most certainly could not have done so) that America would ever give legal sanction to a woman to kill her unborn baby? Yet, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court did just that by ruling that “the word ‘person’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn” (Roe v. Wade). Who could have imagined one day that more than 48 million babies would be butchered in the United States of America? And that figure does not include the millions more being sacrificed in the name of “embryonic stem-cell research,” as well as the millions more lost from selective reduction due to the use of fertility drugs. The killing of the innocent (Exodus 23:7), and the shedding of innocent blood—a thing that God hates (Proverbs 6)—are widespread in the land. If the voice of Abel’s blood cried out to God from the soil on which his brother had shed it (Genesis 4:10), the blood of millions of babies shrieking and screaming to God must be deafening.
If you care what God thinks, I urge you to read Exodus 21:22-25, Ecclesiastes 11:5, Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 49:1, Jeremiah 1:4-5, Zechariah 12:1, and Galatians 1:15. Read the three phases of human life in Hosea 9:11—conception, pregnancy, and birth. Read where God used the same word (brephos) to refer to John in his mother’s womb, and to refer to the baby Jesus lying in the manger (Luke 1:39-45; 2:12,16). God also used “son” to refer to John in utero (Luke 1:36). Read what is essentially an ancient description of the heinous practice of partial-birth abortion in Exodus 1:15-22. Read about God’s outrage at the Israelites for sacrificing their children to pagan deities—a reprehensible act that never entered God’s mind to enjoin (Jeremiah 19:5; 32:35). The Bible clearly teaches that God possesses personal regard for human life from the moment of conception. Our own medical science verifies the same thing. Samuel Armas was a 21-week, unborn baby when doctors at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee performed spina bifida surgery on him while he was still in his mother’s womb. During the surgery, his little hand flopped out of the incision opening and rested on the doctor’s fingers. Eyewitness photo journalist Michael Clancey insists that Samuel’s fingers gripped the doctor’s finger (see Clancey, 2001). In any case, Samuel was born 15 weeks later. Nothing about his exit from his mother’s body, suddenly transformed him from a nonhuman into a human. He was a human throughout his pre-birth circumstance (see Lyons, 2007; Imbody, 2003; Solenni, 2003).
A terrible and tragic inconsistency and incongruity exists in America. Merely taking possession of an egg containing the pre-born American bald eagle—let alone if one were to destroy that little pre-birth environment and thus destroy the baby eagle that is developing within—results in a stiff fine and even prison time. Yet one can take a human child in its pre-born environment and not only murder that child, but also receive government blessing to do so! Eagle eggs, i.e., pre-born eagles, are of greater value to American civilization than pre-born humans (see Miller, 2004)! What has happened to our society? This state of affairs cannot be harmonized in a consistent, rational fashion. The ethics and moral sensibilities that underlie this circumstance are absolutely bizarre (Miller, “Abortion and...,” 2003).

The combined population of the above red states is equivalent to the number of reported abortions in America since 1973.

The number of known abortions in America since 1973 is nearing 50 million—approximately 50 times more than all Americans lost in all of our wars. That figure is staggering, if not incomprehensible, to the human mind. That figure constitutes essentially one-sixth of the present U.S. population. If we awoke in the morning to face the terrifying news that terrorists had detonated nuclear devices in major urban areas, that resulted in the death of 50 million Americans, we would be shocked, panic-stricken, and heartsick. Or, imagine a deadly virus released by unconscionable terrorists that wiped out the populations of the above red states. Yet, Americans have tolerated the wholesale slaughter of that many of its children—entire generations of young people who will never see the light of day. I wonder if one of those would have found the cure for cancer. What untold potential and productivity has been snuffed out by a calloused, cruel, self-centered people! At least the pagans of antiquity killed their children for religious purposes, thinking they were pleasing a higher authority. We do it mostly for convenience—to evade the consequences of the sexual anarchy that runs rampant across our civilization.
The ethical disharmony and moral confusion that reign in our society have escalated the activity of criminals who commit a variety of heinous crimes—from murdering and maiming fellow citizens on a daily basis, to raping women and molesting children. Yet, a sizeable portion of society is against capital punishment. Many people feel that these wicked adults, who have engaged in destructive conduct, should not be executed (a viewpoint that flies directly in the face of what the Founders believed and what the Bible teaches [Romans 13:1-6; 1 Peter 2:13-14], since God wants evildoers in society to be punished—even to the point of capital punishment). So we rarely execute guilty, hardened criminals. But we daily execute innocent human babies! How can one possibly accept this terrible disparity, the horrible scourge of abortion? The latest polls verify our deteriorating morality. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll conducted in June of 2008, reveals that 53% of adult Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while a May 2008 Gallup poll found that 82% believe that abortion should be legal under any or certain circumstances, with only 17% maintaining that abortion should be illegal under all circumstances (see “Abortion and Birth Control”). The nation has embraced moral insanity. Abortion is a glaring manifestation of the expulsion of God from American culture. Mark it down: THE GOD OF THE BIBLE WILL NOT ALLOW THIS MONSTROUS ATROCITY TO GO UNCHALLENGED AND UNPUNISHED.

Homosexuality

As if killing the unborn were not enough to condemn a civilization to eternal punishment, America is experiencing another horror of seismic proportions. Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Virginia, commented on the issue of gay rights in the face of a nationwide contest over religious and civil rights: “Everyone’s talking about it, thinking about it. There are a lot of different ideas about where we are going to end up, but everyone thinks it is the battle of our times” (as quoted in Gallagher, 11[33], 2006; cf. Haynes, 2006). A sobering realization. Think of it: the battle of our times. Of those living today in America who were alive 50 years ago, few could have imagined, let alone predicted, that homosexuality would encroach on our culture as it has. In fact, it would have been unthinkable. The rapidity with which homosexual activists continue successfully to bully the nation to normalize what once was universally considered abnormal is astonishing. And toleration has not satisfied them. Allowing their views to be taught in public schools has not appeased them. No, they insist that societal endorsement extend to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.
A pernicious plague of sexual insanity is creeping insidiously through American civilization. Far more deadly than the external threat of terrorism, or even the inevitable dilution of traditional American values caused by the infiltration of illegal immigrants and the influx of those who do not share the Christian worldview, this domino effect will ultimately end in the moral implosion of America. Indeed, America is being held captive by moral terrorists. The social engineers of “political correctness” have been working overtime for decades to restructure public morality. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association deleted homosexuality from its official nomenclature of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and the American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975 (see “Gay and Lesbian...,” 2002; Herek, 2002). Large corporations and businesses across the country have been subjecting their employees to mass propaganda under the guise of “sensitivity training.”
Among those who are attempting to coerce the country into altering its longstanding code of Christian moral values are activist judges. Their tortured interpretation of constitutional law demonstrates that they have no respect for God, existing laws, America’s history, or the will of the people. Instead, they apparently see themselves as qualified social architects to redefine marriage and morality by usurping their constitutional role and legislating from the bench. They have placed themselves at odds with the history of Western civilization. With no regard for American legal history and the body of constitutional law that has remained largely intact from the beginning of the nation until the mid-20th century, they essentially have brushed aside over 150 years of American judicial history with a flippant wave of the hand. They are literally restructuring the American moral landscape with an unflinching vengeance that is undaunted by the widespread national outrage to the contrary. Those who characterized governmental control and Christian morality in the 1960s as equivalent to Orwell’s “Big Brother” are now living a self-fulfilled prophecy—they are “Big Brother.”
These judicial junkies are aided by politicians from the left coast to the east coast, who have taken it upon themselves to issue marriage licenses for homosexual partners. Additionally, the public school system is being transformed into an incubator for nurturing the next generation of Americans, breaking down any resistance toward the impropriety of homosexuality that they might otherwise have had. These developments were inevitable in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s historically and constitutionally unprecedented elimination of state sodomy laws (Lawrence..., 2003). The high court’s decision was a reversal of its 1986 decision that upheld State sodomy laws and reinforced the historic stance that homosexuality is not a constitutional right (see Bowers...). What’s more, no bona fide scientific evidence exists to demonstrate any genetic cause of homosexuality—even as no genuine genetic linkage will ever be forthcoming to legitimize pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, or incest (Harrub and Miller, 2004, 24[8]:73-79). Indeed, homosexuality is nothing more than a behavioral choice.

The Founders on Homosexuality

The Founding Fathers of these United States would be incredulous, incensed, and outraged. They understood that acceptance of homosexuality would undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization. Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was a capital crime under British common law. Sir William Blackstone, British attorney, jurist, law professor, and political philosopher, authored his monumental Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765-1769. These commentaries became the premiere legal source admired and used by America’s Founding Fathers. In “Book the Fourth, Chapter the Fifteenth,” “Of Offences Against the Persons of Individuals,” Blackstone stated:

IV. WHAT has been here observed..., which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast.... But it is an offence of so dark a nature...that the accusation should be clearly made out....
I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in its very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; peccatum illud horribile, inter chriftianos non nominandum [“that horrible sin not to be named among Christians”—DM]. A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: ubi fcelus eft id, quod non proficit fcire, jubemus infurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquifitis poenis fubdantur infames, qui funt, vel qui futuri funt, rei [“When that crime is found, which is not profitable to know, we order the law to bring forth, to provide justice by force of arms with an avenging sword, that the infamous men be subjected to the due punishment, those who are found, or those who future will be found, in the deed”—DM]. Which leads me to add a work concerning its punishment.

THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the fame, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made single felony by the statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6. and felony without benefit of clergy by statute 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that, if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et confentientes pari poena plectantur [“advocates and conspirators should be punished with like punishment”—DM] (1769, 4.15.215-216, emp. added).

Here was the law of England—common law—under which Americans lived prior to achieving independence. That law did not change after gaining independence. To say the least, such thinking is hardly “politically correct” by today’s standards.
How many Americans realize that while serving as the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, the Father of our country was apprised of a homosexual in the army? The response of General Washington was immediate and decisive. He issued “General Orders” from Army Headquarters at Valley Forge on Saturday, March 14, 1778:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose (“George...,” underline in orig., emp. added).

Click images to enlarge

Images courtesy of Library of Congress, Manuscript Division

Observe that the Father of our country viewed “sodomy” (the 18th-century word for homosexual relations) “with Abhorrence and Detestation.”
Homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original 13 colonies, and eventually every one of the 50 states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws...,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans know that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1781, Query 14; cf. 1903, 1:226-227).
Where did the Founding Fathers and early American citizenry derive their views on homosexuality? The historically unequivocal answer is—the Bible. “Traditional” (i.e., biblical) marriage in this country has always been between a man and a woman. In the words of Jesus: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5, emp. added). He was merely quoting the statement made by God regarding His creation of the first man and woman (Genesis 1:27; 2:24). God created Adam and Eve—not Adam and Steve, or Eve and Ellen. And throughout the rest of biblical history, God’s attitude toward same-sex relations remained the same (Miller, et al., 2003).
In the greater scheme of human history, as civilizations have proceeded down the usual pathway of moral deterioration and eventual demise, the acceptance of same-sex relations has typically triggered the final stages of impending social implosion. America is being brought to the very brink of moral destruction. God’s warning to the Israelites regarding their own ability to sustain their national existence in the Promised Land is equally apropos for America:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.... Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations...lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you (Leviticus 18:22-28, emp. added).

Mark this down, too: THE GOD OF THE BIBLE WILL NOT ALLOW THE ABOMINATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY TO GO UNCHALLENGED AND UNPUNISHED. Unless something is done to stop the moral degeneration, America would do well to prepare for the inevitable, divine expulsion.

[continued]

REFERENCES

“Abortion and Birth Control” (2008), Polling Report, [On-line], URL: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm.
Adams, John (1850-1856), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company).
Barton, David (2002), Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders), 3rd edition.
Blackstone, William (1769), Commentaries on the Laws of England, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch15.htm.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=478&invol=186.
Brody, David (2007), “Obama to CBN News: We’re no Longer Just a Christian Nation, CBN News, July 30, [On-line], URL: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/204016.aspx.
Clancy, Michael (2001), “Story of the ‘Fetal Hand Grasp’ Photograph,” [On-line], URL: http://www.michaelclancy.com/story.html.
Gallagher, Maggie (2006), “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, 11[33], May 15, [On-line], URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191 kgwgh.asp.
“Gay and Lesbian Issues” (2002), American Psychiatric Association Public Information, [On-line], URL: http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose-1.cfm.
“George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders” (1778), The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799, from ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw110081)).
Harrub, Brad and Dave Miller (2004), “‘This is the Way God Made Me’—A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene,’” Reason & Revelation, 24[8]:73-79, August, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553.
Haynes, Charles C. (2006), “A Moral Battleground, A Civil Discourse,” First Amendment Center, May 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=16664.
Herek, Gregory (2002), “Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health,” [On-line], URL: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html.
Imbody, Jonathan (2003), “A Flash of Life,” Free Republic, October 31, [On-line], URL: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012548/posts.
Jay, John (1980), John Jay: The Winning of the Peace. Unpublished Papers 1780-1784, ed. Richard Morris (New York: Harper & Row).
Jefferson, Thomas (1781), Notes on the State of Virginia, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm.
Jefferson, Thomas (1903), Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Bergh (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association).
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage.
Lawrence, et al. v. Texas, No. 02-102 (2003), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-102.
Lutz, Donald (1988), The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press).
Lyons, Eric (2007), “Tiny Babies Abortionists Would Rather We Forget,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3280.
Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” Apologetics Press, [On-line]: URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1964.
Miller, Dave (2004), “Babies, Eagles, and the Right to Live,” Apologetics Press, [On-line]: URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/babyeagles.pdf.
Miller, Dave (2006a), “America, Christianity, and the Culture War (Part I),” Reason & Revelation, 26[6]41-47, June, [On-line]: URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2942.
Miller, Dave (2006b), “Are Americans Abandoning God?,” Apologetics Press, [On-line]: URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3156.
Miller, Dave, et al. (2003), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Reason & Revelation, 24[9]:81, December, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2577.
Morris, Gouverneur (1821), “An Inaugural Discourse Delivered Before the New York Historical Society by the Honorable Gouverneur Morris on September 4, 1816” in Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1821 (New York: E. Bliss & E. White).
Robinson, B.A. (2003), “Criminalizing Same-Sex Behavior,” [On-line], URL: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws1.htm.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol= 113.
Rush, Benjamin (1798), Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia, PA: Thomas & Samuel Bradford).
“Sodomy Laws in the United States” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm.
Solenni, Pia de (2003), “Miracles of Life,” National Review Online, September 30, [On-line], URL: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/solenni2003 09301002.asp.
Steiner, Bernard (1921), One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland: 1810-1920 (Baltimore, MD: Maryland Bible Society).
Webster, Noah (1832), History of the United States (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).
Webster, Noah (1833), The Holy Bible Containing the Old and NewTestaments, in the Common Version. With Amendments of the Language (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).
Wirt, William (1818), Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia, PA: James Webster).

“Avoid...Genealogies”? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2430&b=1%20Timothy

“Avoid...Genealogies”?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

As most Bible students know, Scripture, particularly the Old Testament, contains several genealogies. Genesis chapter five gives the genealogy of Adam to Noah. Genesis 10 lists many of the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Genesis 11 gives the genealogy of Shem to Abraham. Genealogies make up the first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles. What’s more, the New Testament opens with these words: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1, emp. added). In light of such extensive genealogies, some wonder why the apostle Paul instructed Timothy and Titus not to “give heed to...endless genealogies” (1 Timothy 1:4), but rather “avoid” them (Titus 3:9). One Bible critic has alleged that “if we follow this advice we would ignore most of the Bible” (Wells, 2008). Just how is it that we can trust a book that says to “avoid...genealogies,” when that same book contains several extensive genealogies? Is this a contradiction?
First, for one to interpret Paul’s commands to mean that it is sinful simply to read or discuss the biblical genealogies is indefensible. Paul obviously believed in the inspiration of the Old Testament. In fact, to the same individual who he instructed not to “give heed to...endless genealogies,” he wrote: “All Scripture,” including the many Old Testament genealogies, “is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16, emp. added). To conclude that an apostle who claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21) would command Christians to avoid the words of the Holy Spirit (cf. Samuel 23:2), even on the surface, is a forced interpretation.
Second, a closer look at Paul’s command to “avoid...genealogies” reveals that he was not alluding merely to the reading or study of biblical genealogies. Rather, in contrast to being peaceable, gentle, and humble (Titus 3:2), while at the same time engaging in good, profitable works (3:8), Paul wrote, “But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless” (3:9, emp. added). In Greek, as in English, “All four nouns” [disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings—EL] are without the article,” which “stresses the quality of these things” (Hiebert, 1981, 2:447). Just as the Ephesians were not to “give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification” (1 Timothy 1:3-4), Titus was to avoid “various ‘foolish’ or senseless inquiries,” including “speculations about the OT genealogies,” that “resulted in sharp dissensions and open quarrels” (Hiebert, 2:447, emp. added). According to Paul, such foolishness is “unprofitable and useless” (Titus 3:9).
Third, genealogies were necessary under the Old Law in order to distinguish tribes, disseminate land, discern duties (e.g., the responsibilities of Levites were very different than other Israelites), and, most important, to disclose from which nation, tribe, and family the prophesied Messiah would come. Yet, those genealogies were not “endless.” Though several chapters of the Old Testament are comprised of genealogies, they certainly do not make up “most of the Bible,” as critic Steve Wells alleged. The genealogies that Paul likely had in mind were those the Jews kept, that through the centuries became “numerous, complicated, and extended—so that they might without much exaggeration be called ‘endless’” (Barnes, 1997). To these “[t]he Jews attached great importance...and insisted on their being carefully preserved” (Barnes).
Finally, by the time Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, the Old Law had been replaced by a new law (Hebrews 8:7-13). There was no need for Jews to use genealogies to dispute over their identity as a nation, tribe, or family. In Christ “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved’” (Romans 10:11-13; cf. Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). For Christians to waste valuable time disputing over “foolish” matters, such as one’s ancestry, is “unprofitable and useless” (Titus 3:9). The only genealogy that ultimately matters to Christians is Christ’s. His genealogy serves as a proof of both the Bible’s inspiration and the deity of Christ (see Butt, 2006). The Messiah would come from the seed of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3), the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10), the family of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1), and the house of David (Jeremiah 23:5). Indeed, this is precisely what happened, as the New Testament writers, including the apostle Paul, reveal (Galatians 3:16; Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Butt, Kyle (2006), “The Predicted Messiah,” Reason & Revelation, January, 26[1]:1-7, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2812.
Hiebert, D. Edmond (1981), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Wells, Steve (2008), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/1.html.

Lord, Teach Us To Pray by Beth Johnson

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Johnson/Edna/Elizabeth/1939/teachustopray.html

Lord, Teach Us To Pray

"And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples" (Luke 11:1).

While Jesus was praying, Luke took notice that He prayed often. He records Jesus praying at his baptism (Luke 3:21); in the wilderness (Luke 5:16); before the appointment of the apostles, when He continued all night in prayer (Luke 6:12); praying alone (Luke 9:18); and praying before His transfiguration (Luke 9:28-29).

Do we automatically know how to pray just because we understand there is a command to do so? Is there a right and a wrong way to pray? Notice the prayer in 1 Kings 8:54 where Solomon assumed a certain physical position. Is this what the disciples were asking about? Are we always to be on our knees with our hands spread up to heaven? Should we beat our breasts like the sinner in Luke 18:13? Will that make our Heavenly Father hear our prayers?

In Matthew 6:9, we see that Jesus taught his disciples to pray a certain way, but that did not include a particular body position. He taught the words to speak to our Heavenly Father, words which addressed Him reverently and humbly. If we are going to ask the Lord to teach us to pray so that He will hear, we need to notice several instances in scripture where God heard prayers and why.

King David prayed often, and in Psalms 10:17 we see one reason why God might have listened to his prayer. He prepared his heart and humbled himself before God. Again in Psalms 19:14, David says, "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer." Are we concerned with our words when we pray?

Not only are we supposed to be concerned to pray with proper words to use in prayer, but we need to know there are certain things we should pray for.

The apostle James (James 4:2-3) said, "Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts."

We may assume from the account that Luke and the other disciples had been struck with the excellence and fervor of Jesus' prayers and, remembering that John the Baptist had taught his disciples to pray, they asked Jesus also to teach them. From their experience and testimony we learn:

1. That the abilities and fervor of Jesus (or Paul) should lead us to desire the same.

2. That the true method of praying can be learned only by our being properly taught. Consider that we cannot pray acceptably at all unless God is our teacher.

3. That it is proper for us to meditate beforehand what we are to ask of God, and to arrange our thoughts, so that we may not come casually into His presence.

We learn from the testimony of James that we must not ask God for things to satisfy our fleshly desires. We must ask for what God has promised He will give so that we may grow spiritually and be the best we can be.

Beth Johnson

 

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

Right where you are... by Gary Rose

Let's just face facts; we all can't be movie stars or models, some of us didn't get those "beautiful" genes. However, we can rejoice in what God has given us and be HAPPY!!! Happiness begins with our thinking, just like Paul says...

Philippians, Chapter 4 (World English Bible)

 ⁸ Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are honorable, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report: if there is any virtue and if there is any praise, think about these things.  ⁹ The things which you learned, received, heard, and saw in me: do these things, and the God of peace will be with you. 

  ¹⁰ But I rejoice in the Lord greatly, that now at length you have revived your thought for me; in which you did indeed take thought, but you lacked opportunity.  ¹¹ Not that I speak because of lack, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content in it.  ¹² I know how to be humbled, and I also know how to abound. In everything and in all things I have learned the secret both to be filled and to be hungry, both to abound and to be in need.  ¹³ I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me. 

God has made each and every one of us the way we are for a REASON. So, SMILE WHILE YOU STILL HAVE TEETH!!!!

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Weakness In The Seat Of Power (6:14-29) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

                Weakness In The Seat Of Power (6:14-29)

INTRODUCTION

1. The ministry of Jesus was bound to attract attention...
   a. By virtue of His miracles, even those done by His apostles - Mk6:12-13
   b. Eventually King Herod heard about Him - Mk 6:14

2. In our text, Mark shares with us information about King Herod...
   a. The king's initial reaction to what he heard - Mk 6:14-16
   b. The events that led up to the king's execution of John the Baptist
      - Mk 6:17-29

[In doing so, Mark shows us a sad picture of "Weakness In The Seat Of
Power".  It is a picture borne out by secular history as well.  Let's
first consider...]

I. HEROD AS A KING

   A. HIS POSITION AS TETRARCH...
      1. He is generally known as Herod Antipas
         a. His father:  Herod the Great, an Idumean; ruling when Jesus
            was born - Mt 2:1,3,19
         b. His mother:  Malthace, a Samaritan; the fourth of Herod's
            ten wives
         c. Educated in Rome (together with Archelaus and Philip
      2. Not to be confused with:
         a. Herod Agrippa I (nephew), who killed James - Ac 12:1-2
         b. Herod Agrippa II (grand-nephew), before whom Paul appeared
            - Ac 26:1
      3. When Herod the Great died (4 B.C.), his kingdom was divided
         into four parts - Lk 3:1
         a. Archelaus (full brother) - Judea, Idumea, Samaria (later
            ruled by Pontius Pilate)
         b. Antipas - Galilee, Perea
         c. Philip II (half brother) - Iturea, Trachonitus
         d. Lysanias - Abilene (Syria)
      -- Antipas' position as tetrarch was ratified by Caesar Augustus
         of Rome

   B. HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS TETRARCH...
      1. Governed Galilee and Perea for 42 years (4 B.C. - 39 A.D.)
      2. Built the cities of Sepphoris, Tiberias, and oversaw other
         projects
      3. Imprisoned and executed John the Baptist - Mk 6:14-29
      4. Sought to kill Jesus, who described Herod as "that fox" 

         - Lk 13:31-32
      5. Later mocked Jesus prior to His death, which led to friendship
         with Pilate - Lk 23:7-12
      -- Antipas had the potential and position to be a great man

[But those in positions of power often have personal failings.  Such was
certainly true of Herod Antipas...]

II. HEROD AS A MAN

   A. HE WAS SUPERSTITIOUS...
      1. He initially thought Jesus was John the Baptist - Mk 6:14
      2. Believing John to be raised from the dead - Mk 6:14,16
      -- Such was his attempt to explain the miracles he had heard

   B. HE WAS IMMORAL...
      1. First married to Phasaelis, daughter of King Aretas IV of
         Nabatea
      2. Divorced her to marry Herodias - Mk 6:17
         a. Who was his half-niece, married to his half-brother Philip
         b. They had fallen in love while in Rome together
         c. They agreed to divorce their spouses and marry one another
      3. This was an unlawful marriage (even though Antipas was not a
         Jew) - Mk 6:18
         a. Because it was simple adultery - Lev 20:10; cf. Ro 7:2-3
         b. Also because of the prohibition against marrying a brother's
            wife - Lev 20:21
      4. For which both Herodias and Herod wanted to kill John 

         - Mk 6:19; cf. Mt 14:5
      -- His willingness to divorce and remarry revealed his inner
         character

   C. HE WAS EASILY MANIPULATED...
      1. He feared the multitude, who viewed John as a prophet - cf. Mt14:5
      2. He feared John, liked to listen to him, but did not repent - Mk6:20
      3. He was enticed by his stepdaughter (Salome, possibly 12-14
         years old) - Mk 6:21-23
      4. He was tricked by Herodias into executing John - Mk 6:24-25
      5. He was afraid of losing face in front of his guests - Mk 6:21,26
      6. Herodias' machinations would later lead to his exile
         a. She became jealous of her brother's (Agrippa I) success
         b. An attempt to turn Emperor Caligula against Agrippa
            backfired
         c. Caligula exiled Antipas to Gaul (possibly Lyon, France)
         d. Where Herodias chose to join Antipas
      -- He was concerned with self-image and self-indulgence

CONCLUSION

1. What a sad picture of "Weakness In The Seat Of Power"...
   a. A man in the position of power
   b. A man whose personal failings left him weak and easily manipulated

2. How might we learn from Herod's mistakes today...?
   a. We may be in positions of power
      1) As politicians, businessmen, professional occupations, etc.
      2) As husbands, parents, etc.
   b. Will we be weak or strong?
      1) Like Herod Antipas, easily tempted, easily manipulated?
      2) Or like John the Baptist, strong in one's moral convictions?

John may have lost his head (literally), but he won his soul.  Herod
lost both his head (figuratively) and his soul.  In the end, who would
you rather be?  Remember what Jesus said about John...

   "Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not
   risen one greater than John the Baptist..." - Mt 11:11

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Principles Of Evangelism (6:7-13) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

                   Principles Of Evangelism (6:7-13)

INTRODUCTION

1. In Mk 6:7-13, we have Mark's account of "The Limited Commission"...
   a. A charge given to the apostles during the earthly ministry of
      Jesus - cf. Mt 10:1-5
   b. So-called because He limited their work to the house of Israel
      - Mt 10:5-6
   c. In which the Lord gave them instructions for fulfilling their
      mission

2. From the instructions of Jesus, we can glean some "Principles Of
   Evangelism"...
   a. Principles that helped them later carry out "The Great Commission"
      - cf. Mk 16:15
   b. Principles that can help us be more successful in evangelism today

[From our text, I want to point out at least four principles that Jesus
applied in sending out His apostles.  They are principles that I believe
can prove successful today.  The first one is...]

I. THE PRINCIPLE OF SYNERGY

   A. THE APOSTLES WERE TO GO TWO-BY-TWO...
      1. Mark's account is the only one to mention this - Mk 6:7
      2. A practice continued on other occasions...
         a. When Jesus sent out the seventy - Lk 10:1
         b. When the Spirit sent out Paul and Barnabas - Ac 13:2
         c. When Paul and Barnabas went their separate ways - Ac 15:36-40
      3. This illustrates the principle of synergy
         a. Synergy:  "The working together of two things (muscles or
            drugs for example) to produce an effect greater than the sum
            of their individual effects"
         b. Two or more working together can do more than by working
            separately
         1) They encourage one another, and help each other - cf. Ecc
            4:9-10
         2) A plurality of witnesses lend credibility to their story
            - cf. Jn 8:17
      -- Indeed, two are better than one

   B. MAKING APPLICATION TODAY...
      1. The practice of two or more preachers working together should
         be encouraged
         a. Especially in foreign fields or difficult areas
         b. Through the principle of synergy they can be effective in
            one area more quickly, and then move on to the next
         c. This is better than preachers working alone, struggling for
            years by themselves
      2. In one's own personal evangelism...
         a. Seek out a companion in the congregation with similar
            interests
         b. Go together in visiting, teaching home studies, etc.
      -- Whenever possible, find a co-worker!

[Perhaps much of the slow growth in evangelism today is a failure to
appreciate the principle of synergy which was applied by the Lord and
the early church.  Another principle to consider is...]

II. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUPPORT

   A. THE APOSTLES WERE ALLOWED SUPPORT...
      1. They were to depend on others - Mk 6:8-10
      2. Supported by those who willing to provide for them - cf. Lk 10:7-8
      3. This illustrates the principle of supporting workers
         a. Defended by Paul in 1Co 9:4-14
         b. Applied to elders who rule well - 1Ti 5:17-18
         c. Encouraged by John many years later - 3Jn 5-8
      -- This is how the gospel spread throughout the first century
         world

   B. MAKING APPLICATION TODAY...
      1. Preachers may rightly receive support for their labors
         a. It allows them to concentrate their efforts in matters of
            the gospel
         b. This support should come from Christians, and not as a means
            to accumulate wealth
      2. Churches have an important role in such support
         a. Churches can provide support of preachers - 2Co 11:8-9
         b. Much foreign evangelism goes undone today, not because
            preachers are unwilling to go, but because churches have not
            been willing to send and support - cf. Ro 10:15
      3. In one's own efforts...
         a. There is nothing limiting an individual from helping to
            support preachers
         b. While one might help support a local congregation's effort
            to send and support, one can also help through direct
            support
      -- If we are unable to teach, at least we can support those who
         do!

[Turning now to the actual proclamation of the good news, we read of
the...]

III. THE PRINCIPLE OF SELECTION

   A. THE APOSTLES WERE TO BE SELECTIVE...
      1. Preaching to those willing to listen - Mk 6:10
      2. But they were to "shake off the dust under your feet" when
         leaving a city that would not receive them or hear their words
         - Mk 6:11
      3. This illustrates the principle of selection
         a. We're told not to "cast your pearls before swine" - cf. Mt 7:6
         b. People judge themselves unworthy of the gospel by their lack
            of interest
            1) Paul was willing to preach again if people were
               interested- Ac 13:42-44
            2) But when people rejected the gospel, he turned elsewhere
               - Ac 13:45-46
      -- People judge themselves unworthy of eternal life by their
         disinterest

   B. MAKING APPLICATION TODAY...
      1. We are to preach the gospel to every creature - Mk 16:15
         a. But once people display lack of interest, we are not
            obligated to keep trying
         b. Rather than "cast our pearls" before those who don't
            appreciate it, we should move on
      2. Admittedly, there is room for judgment...
         a. As to how long we try to reach someone before going on
         b. Some may not show much interest at first, but do later on
      -- At some point, we need to turn to souls who show more interest!

The next principle is most essential...]

IV. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBJECT

   A. THE APOSTLES WERE GIVEN A SUBJECT...
      1. In "The Limited Commission", the subject was "repent" - Mk 6:12
      2. It also included the kingdom of heaven - cf. Mt 10:7
      3. In "The Great Commission", it was expanded to include the
         gospel of Christ - Mk 16:15
         a. So Philip the evangelist preached when he went to Samaria
            - Ac 8:12
         b. So Paul preached in synagogues and from house to house 

            - Ac 19:8; 20:18-21,25; 28:23,30-31
      4. This illustrates what our subject should be
         a. It should always be the Word of God, the Gospel - Ro 1:16
         b. As Paul instructed Timothy:  "Preach the word!" - 2Ti 4:1-5
      -- The apostles faithfully proclaimed their subject

   B. MAKING APPLICATION TODAY...
      1. Preachers need to avoid things...
         a. Which entertain, rather than provide sound doctrine
         b. Based more upon the ideas of men, rather than the Word of
            God
         c. Text based, expository preaching can help keep preachers in
            the Word
      2. Churches should consider what message they are presenting to
         the lost...
         a. Is it the gospel of health and wealth, or the gospel of
            Christ?
         b. Are we call for people to become just church members, or
            disciples of Jesus?
      3. In one's own evangelism...
         a. Do not get sidetracked on various issues
         b. While many subjects may have their place, they may be
            "second principles" rather than "first principles"
      -- The lost need to know the gospel of Christ and His kingdom,
         first and foremost!

CONCLUSION

1. The apostles fulfilled their limited commission with great
   confirmation - Mk 6:12-13

2. "The Principles Of Evangelism" gleaned from our Lord's include...
   a. The principle of synergy
   b. The principle of support
   c. The principle of selection
   d. The principle of subject

3. These principles were later employed by the early church...
   a. Which may help explain the rapid spread of the gospel in the first
      century
   b. Which can still be useful to the Lord's church today

Could it be that failure to implement any of these may be reasons why
the church is not growing like it did then...?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Psalm 137:9—Dashing Babies’ Heads Against a Stone by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=913

Psalm 137:9—Dashing Babies’ Heads Against a Stone

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

In my debate with atheist Dan Barker in 2009, Barker accused the God of the Bible of numerous egregious immoralities. One of these accusations centered on Psalm 137:9. Barker stated:

In Psalm 137:9, he [God] told us that we should be happy to take the innocent babies and dash them against the stones. That’s—even if that God did exist, I might not necessarily want to worship such a monster. I might ask him to confess his sins to me. What a guy—what if I were to treat my kids like this?¹

The accusation is that Psalm 137:9 is a prescriptive verse that says that whoever dashes the heads of the babies against a stone will be “happy.” According to the skeptical interpretation of this verse, it is to be understood in the same way as the Beatitudes are understood—as a blessing that will be the result of some stated actions. Allegedly, just as Jesus said “Blessed [or “happy” as some translations say] are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5), so Psalm 137:9 is saying that anyone who kills these babies will be blessed with such happiness. There are several problems with the skeptic’s charge against God in this Psalm.
First, we need to look at the context of the verse. By ripping a verse out of its context, a person could force the Bible to say practically anything he wanted to make it say. Instead of misinterpreting passages out of context, it is the job of every honest person to attempt to understand all texts, including and especially those in the Bible, in the context of how the author intended them to be understood. Here is the Psalm in its entirety.

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept when we remembered Zion. We hung our harps upon the willows in the midst of it. For there those who carried us away captive asked of us a song, and those who plundered us requested mirth, saying, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill! If I do not remember you, let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth—if I do not exalt Jerusalem above my chief joy. Remember, O Lord, against the sons of Edom the day of Jerusalem, who said, “Raze it, raze it, to its very foundation!” O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!

The author of this Psalm is a captive in Babylon. The Babylonians (who caused so much destruction in Israel, killed so many of the Israelites, and held the author and other survivors captive) were demanding that the Israelites perform for them and sing songs about the beauty of Zion. The author was indignant that his captors would make such a demand in light of the horrible things that the Babylonians had done to the Israelites, and the fact that the Babylonians still held them captive. The author then proceeds to explain that the Babylonians were not going to be in their elevated position as victors for long. Instead, these captors who were demanding mirth and songs from the Israelite captives were going to suffer a similar fate to the one that they dealt out. According to the author, there would be those coming who would, in essence, do to the Babylonians what the Babylonians did to Israel, except the Babylonian punishment would be on an even greater scale. The nation that would destroy the Babylonians would repay the Babylonians for the evil they had done and would go so far as to dash the heads of the Babylonian babies against the stones.
We get a glimpse of how this process works in Isaiah 10. Isaiah explains that God would use the nation of Assyria to punish the Israelites. He says, “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger and the staff in whose hand is My indignation. I will send him against an ungodly nation, and against the people of My wrath…. Yet he does not mean so, nor does his heart think so, but it is in his heart to destroy, and cut off not a few nations” (10:5-7). Even though God used Assyria as a tool to punish Israel, Assyria did not view its mission in light of God’s justice, and Assyria cruelly and arrogantly abused its power. What, then, did God promise to do to wicked Assyria? The text explains: “Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Lord has performed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, that He will say, ‘I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his haughty looks’” (10:12). Assyria’s wickedness would also be punished.
This same scenario is seen in the Babylonian victory over Israel. In Jeremiah 12, the prophet asked God, “Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are those happy who deal so treacherously?” (12:1). Jeremiah is perplexed about how God can use a wicked nation such as Babylon to punish the Israelites for wickedness, when it seems that the Babylonians are just as wicked or more sinful than the Israelites. God then explains: “Many rulers have destroyed My vineyard [the nation of Judah—KB]…they have made it desolate…. The plunderers have come on all the desolate heights in the wilderness” (12:10-13). What does the Lord say would happen to those “plunderers” who destroyed Judah? “Thus says the Lord: ‘Against all My evil neighbors who touch the inheritance which I have caused My people Israel to inherit—behold, I will pluck them out of their land and pluck out the house of Judah” (12:14). Thus, God would take vengeance on the nations such as Babylon and Assyria because of their sinful arrogance and cruelty against Israel.
In Jeremiah chapters 50-51 we see a detailed description of what would happen to wicked Babylon. The prophecy begins by stating: “The word that the Lord spoke against Babylon and against the land of the Chaldeans” (50:1). The Israelites would repent of their sins (50:4-5) and beg the Lord to return them to Israel in a renewed covenant with God. God would then punish Babylon, as the prophet stated, “‘For behold, I will raise and cause to come up against Babylon an assembly of great nations from the north country, and they shall array themselves against her; from there she shall be captured. Their arrows shall be like those of an expert warrior; none shall return in vain. And Chaldea shall become plunder; all who plunder her shall be satisfied,’ says the Lord” (50:8-10). Jeremiah 51 continues to describe the destruction of Babylon at the hands of the Medes and Persians. The prophet explains, “The sound of a cry comes from Babylon, and great destruction from the land of the Chaldeans, because the Lord is plundering Babylon and silencing her loud voice…. For the Lord is the God of recompense, He will surely repay” (51:56). And again, “Repay her according to her work; according to all she has done, do to her; for she has been proud against the Lord, against the Holy One of Israel” (50:29).
Looking at Psalm 137 in context, then, we see the psalmist foreshadowing the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and Persians. Since that is the case, we can now understand some things about the statement made in 137:9. The first thing we can see is that it is not a command given by God for anyone today to dash babies’ heads against stones. It certainly is not saying that Christians should dash babies heads against stones to be happy. It can be interpreted as a descriptive statement made about the army that would destroy Babylon and cannot be assumed to be a prescriptive statement that gives a command from God.
Let us consider the difference, then, between a prescriptive statement and a descriptive one. A prescriptive statement prescribes what God says should be done in order to obtain a certain result. For instance, Ephesians 6:2 says, “‘Honor your father and mother,’ which is the first commandment with promise: ‘that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.’” Notice that “honor your father and mother” is a commandment from God of what should be done, and the result would be “that it may be well with you.” A descriptive verse or idea, however, is one that describes a situation—not that God has commanded or ordained—but one that simply relates what is the case if something happens. For instance, in 1 Kings 21, we read about King Ahab attempting to buy a vineyard from Naboth. Naboth refused to sell the king the vineyard, and 1 Kings 21:4 says, “So Ahab went into his house sullen and displeased.” This text is describing what Ahab felt, not what he should have felt or what was the necessary result of the situation. In truth, if he were doing what God wanted, he should have commended Naboth for not selling his family land, and he should have been pleased with Naboth’s obedience to God. Instead, the Bible describes his sullenness, but does not condone it in any way.
When we apply this idea of descriptive talk to Psalm 137:9, we can understand that there is no way the skeptic can prove that dashing babies’ heads against a stone was a commandment that God gave anyone, not even the Medes and Persians. The text is easily understood as one that simply describes what was going to take place. Furthermore, the text cannot be shown to be stating that those who do such things “should” be happy because of these actions. As further evidence of this distinction between descriptive and prescriptive writing, consider the fact that, even though God allowed the Babylonians to destroy Judah (and the Assyrians to destroy northern Israel), those two wicked nations had performed their deeds in a cruel, arrogant way that God did not approve or condone. Their wicked treatment of Israel brought about punishment from God. We can see that God allowed Babylon to destroy Judah, but then punished the nation for the evil way the Babylonians went about it. In the same way, it would be wrong to assume that the Lord condoned the future actions of the Medes and Persians when they would dash the heads of the Babylonian babies against the stones.
Second, if it would be wrong to assume that God condoned the actions of the Medes and Persians, why does the text state, “Happy shall he be who repays you as you have served us! Happy shall he be who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock” (Psalm 137:9)? Another primary reason this text is often misused is due to a misunderstanding of the way the word “happy” is used. It is assumed that happiness is an ultimate good that all people are trying to attain. In this context, however, that is not how the word is used. Instead, it is used in a way that describes a fleeting feeling that has no lasting effects and is of no ultimate spiritual value. A parallel passage that sheds light on this word is found in Jeremiah 12:1, which we noticed earlier. Notice how Jeremiah used the word “happy.” He asked God “Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are those happy who deal so treacherously?” Jeremiah recognizes that the “happy” people in this passage are wicked, treacherous, and unrighteous. He is wondering how such wicked people can be “happy.” God then explains to the prophet that what he views as happiness is not ultimately a spiritual good, but only a temporary situation. In fact, God explains to Jeremiah that He will punish all those wicked treacherous people, but offer them a chance to repent. If they repent, “then they shall be established in the midst of my people” (12:16), thus offering them an opportunity at legitimate spiritual well-being. If they refused to repent, however, God declared, “I will utterly pluck up and destroy the nation” (12:17).
When we look at the way the Babylonian destruction of Israel is described, we see similar statements to Psalm 137:9. In Jeremiah 50, the prophet tells the Babylonians they would be destroyed, “Because you were glad, because you rejoiced, you destroyers of My heritage” (50:11). They were not glad in a righteous sense, or one that had to do with any ultimate spiritual good, but in a sinful, fleeting sense. Again, their “rejoicing” was not brought about because they followed a commandment from God, but the very opposite. They cruelly and arrogantly destroyed God’s people. This made them “glad” and they “rejoiced” in a way that had nothing to do with commendation from God, or with doing what God has said do in the way He said do it. In such a context, the Bible is not saying that wickedness leads to any type of ultimate good. On the contrary, such statements describe a fleeting feeling of emotional pleasure that can be felt by any person, whether righteous or wicked, but which is not based on the rightness or wrongness of an action.
To illustrate, consider the bank robber who is “happy” that he was able to get away from the policeman without getting caught. Or think of the murderer who was “happy” he successfully buried his victim’s body without being discovered. Or think of the college student who was “happy” it was Friday so he could get drunk with his friends. These scenarios show us that, even today, we often use the word “happy” in the same way that the Bible writers did. The New Testament gives us another clear use of such language in James 4:9. There the writer tells the sinful rich people to “Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to sorrow and your joy to gloom.” The word “joy” is used in other places to describe real, spiritual contentment and happiness (James 1:2). It is used in James 4:9, however, to describe a fleeting feeling that the sinful rich experienced as a result of the misuse of their money. James demanded that they reverse their wrong emotional state to a more accurate one of sorrow and gloom due to their sinful condition.

Conclusion

In Psalm 137:9, it cannot be assumed that the inspired writer was saying that God commanded anyone to dash the heads of children against a stone. The idea that the text merely describes what the Medes and the Persians would do in the future fits the context perfectly. The way the word “happy” is used throughout the Bible allows for the author to be using it in Psalm 137:9 in a way that can describe a fleeting feeling that can be the result of evil actions. This feeling has nothing to do with a blessing or commendation from God. The way the skeptic pulls this passage from its context and misinterprets it says more about the skeptic’s dishonesty when dealing with the biblical text than it does about God’s morality.²

Endnotes

¹ Butt, Kyle (2010), A Christian’s Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism: An Expanded Study of the Butt/Barker Debate, Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/user_file/A%20Christians%20Guide%20to%20Modern%20Atheism-w.pdf.

² For further discusion on the skeptic’s accusation that God kills innocent children, see pages 203-214 of the above mentioned book. For a discussion of psalms that contain statements about God’s vengeance, see Dave Miller (2013), “The Imprecatory Psalms,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=4707&topic=82.