Good News About The First Amendment by Kevin Cain, J.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2548

Good News About The First Amendment

by	Kevin Cain, J.D.

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P. auxiliary staff writer, Kevin Cain, who holds degrees from Freed-Hardeman University (B.S., M.Min.) and the Doctor of Jurisprudence from South Texas College of Law. His current practice focuses on litigation at the trial and appellate levels in both State and Federal Courts. A product of the distinguished Advocacy Program at South Texas College of Law, where he won multiple national and state championships and many speaking and brief-writing awards, Kevin is a former Briefing Attorney of The First Court of Appeals and serves as an Adjunct Professor at South Texas College of Law.]

Years ago, Anne Murray sang the words, “We sure could use a little good news today.” Have you ever watched the evening news and had this thought? Is there any good news out there? Sadly, human nature tends to focus on the negative. We slow down to see a police officer issuing a speeding ticket. We stop and stare at a serious car accident. As they say in the news industry, “If it bleeds, it leads.” We stare at despair. Yet, we know there is good news all around us. The problem is that we rarely hear about that good news.

From the legal arena, we often hear about lawsuit abuse, frivolous lawsuits, outrageous verdicts, criminals going free, and courts infringing on religious liberties. Surely there is some good news coming out of our judicial system that we simply are not hearing about. There is, and it comes to us from the Texas Supreme Court.

On June 27, 2008, the Texas Supreme Court held in Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubertthat a party cannot sue for emotional (non-physical) damages arising from a religious practice. In that case, 17-year-old Laura Schubert spent the weekend “participating in church-related activities” for the youth. On Friday evening, the atmosphere became “spiritually charged” when one of the teens announced that she saw a demon near the sanctuary. Another teen announced that she saw a “cloud of the presence of God fill the church.” These young people “testified” about these events on Sunday morning. After praying all afternoon without any substantive food, Laura collapsed. After the worship service, several church members physically constrained Laura and carried her to a classroom where she was not released until she said the name of Jesus. Laura stated during this episode that demons were trying to get to her (Pleasant Glade Assembly...,” 2008).

Laura continued in church-related activities on Monday and Tuesday without any such similar events. However, on Wednesday, she fell to the floor in a fetal position because she wanted to be left alone. Youth members were summoned and held her down in a spread-eagle position holding her arms and legs. The senior pastor played a tape of soothing Christian music while laying his hands on Laura’s head and praying. During this incident, Laura suffered carpet burns and bruises on her wrists and shoulders (Pleasant Glade Assembly...,” 2008).

Laura and her parents sued the church and its leaders alleging numerous causes of action [NOTE: a “cause of action” is a legally recognized claim, like negligence or breach of contract.] After pre-trial motions disposed of some of these claims, the case went to trial on the remaining claims of assault and false imprisonment. The jury found that Laura had been assaulted and falsely imprisoned, and awarded her $300,000 for pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, and medical expenses (for psychiatric treatment). While Laura did suffer physical injuries from this event (scrapes and bruises), the evidence at trial related only to subsequent emotional or psychological injuries (Pleasant Glade Assembly...,” 2008).

The court began its analysis by looking to the federal case of Paul v. Watchtower Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc. (1987) from the Ninth Circuit. Usually a reference to the Ninth Circuit is bad news, as this court is considered to be one of the more liberal federal appellate courts. For example, it was the Ninth Circuit that held that the pledge of allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, before the United States Supreme Court reversed the ruling (Newdow v..., 2002). However, in the Paul case, the Ninth Circuit was faced with the practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses in shunning or excommunicating their members. The court held in that case that “[i]ntangible or emotional harms cannot ordinarily serve as a basis for maintaining a tort cause of action against a church” (Newdow v..., 2002). The rationale for this rule is that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice of shunning was based exclusively on their interpretation of Scripture. In other words, courts should not weigh in on the validity of these practices when doing so would require the court to engage in its own interpretation of Scripture.

The Texas Supreme Court noted that the adjudication of the claims in the present case would require an unconstitutional inquiry into the truth or falsity of religious beliefs (Pleasant Glade...”). However, the court emphasized that this rule would not allow church members to commit unlawful acts with impunity “under the cloak of religion”: “Freedom to believe may be absolute, but freedom of conduct is not” (Pleasant Glade...”). Physical harm, as such, resulting from a religious practice is not insulated from judicial review by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It is possible that extreme conduct in the name of religion, causing only mental anguish, may not be protected under the First Amendment, but the Texas Supreme Court was quick to point out that “this is not such a case” (Pleasant Glade...”).

So, what do we learn from the Pleasant Glade case? First, keep in mind the legal context of this case. As a state case, it is not binding precedent on any state other than Texas. While this case could be persuasive authority in state and federal courts in other jurisdictions, it is binding only in Texas. Nevertheless, this case represents a trend (see other instances in the Schubert opinion) that favors religious liberties.

Second, freedom of religion is not without limits. The court expressly recognized that a cause of action or lawsuit can be maintained for physical injuries that result from a religious doctrine and the practice that results from such teaching. For example, the Bible teaches that we are to baptize others (Matthew 28:19). However, if I, through violent force, baptize some unwilling person, I can be sued for any physical injuries that may result. But I cannot be sued for upsetting someone by teaching that their soul is lost because they are not baptized.

Likewise, the Bible teaches us to share the good news of God’s Word with the world (Matthew 28:19). Yet, if I chase someone down and tackle them so I can tell them about God’s grace and love, and injure them in the process, I can be sued for any physical injury that may result from my over-zealous evangelistic tactic. On the other hand, if I preach that one cannot be saved outside of Jesus and this offends Hindus, I cannot be sued for emotional distress. (Keep in mind that a person can be sued for anything, but a court should dismiss such a lawsuit as it violates the First Amendment. Clients frequently ask if they can be sued for doing something, and I always respond that you can be sued for anything. The question is will they prevail in their suit).

Third, religious error will usually get you into trouble in more ways than one. None of these unfortunate events would have resulted if the teens had not been artificially manipulated into an emotional, “spirit-filled” frenzy. Clearly, they had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (Romans 10:2). These events are also a direct result of a failure to properly understand the role and duration of miracles and the laying on of hands (see Miller, 2003, 23[3]:17-23). A misunderstanding of the Scripture can result not only in spiritual ruin, but legal ruin also.

Inversely, notice that our civil laws protect religion as it is prescribed in the Bible. Righteousness, as it is defined in the Bible (Psalm 119:172), does not require us to physically harm those around us. While physical warfare was a part of the Old Testament system, such is no longer the case today as we live under a better covenant. Jesus made this point clear when Peter drew a sword and attacked Malchus. Jesus said: “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52; cf. John 18:36). True Christian living that is consistent with God’s Word will keep us from intentionally physically injuring those around us. New Testament Christianity does not dictate that we kill God’s enemies, attack infidels, torture pagans into submission to Christ, or physically discipline unfaithful members of the body of Christ. God calls us to peace—peace with Him and our fellow man. This point could not have been made more clearly than when Jesus said, “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). By inspiration, Paul described the extraordinary way we should treat our enemies:

Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink” (Romans 12:17-20).

A person whose life reflects this mandate from Romans is certainly not lawsuit-proof (as no person is these days), but he is clearly not as likely to be convicted of wrong-doing.

This is consistent with the portrayal of early Christians, who, when accused of fabricated allegations of treason, responded that the Christian religion would, in fact, cause them to be better citizens (seeMattox, 1961, pp. 73,83). Likewise, conforming to God’s holy Word will most protected us from the laws of our civil government. Remember the words of Paul: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same” (Romans 13:3).

Finally, it is refreshing to see a court protecting our religious liberties, rather than tearing them down. But, what should we do if the unthinkable happens? What if courts held that the First Amendment did not protect us from lawsuits for preaching the truth on salvation, withdrawing fellowship from unrepentant Christians, or refusing to hire someone because of their “sexual orientation”? What should we do if, rather than protecting Christians, the law allows others to persecute us through legal channels for doing God’s will? What then?

We continue to do what is right, and we rejoice in persecution. The apostles were arrested by the high priest and Sadducees for preaching God’s Word (Acts 5:17-18). After being miraculously released from prison, the apostles immediately started preaching Jesus again (Acts 5:19-21). The apostles were arrested again and told not to preach in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:27-28). Peter and the apostles responded by proclaiming a fundamental principle of the Christian’s relationship with the government: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Initially, the Sanhedrin wanted to kill the apostles in response to this statement (Acts 5:33), but after some thoughtful reasoning, they beat the apostles and warned them to preach no more (Acts 5:34-40). After the apostles were beaten and warned, they left rejoicing, that’s right, rejoicing because they were considered worthy to suffer shame for the name of Jesus (Acts 5:41).

Consider the second verse of the national song “Faith of Our Fathers”: “Our fathers, chained in prison dark, were still in heart and conscience free; How sweet would be their children’s fate, if they, like them, could die for Thee!” How true, but we are more likely to face persecution in the form of a lawsuit than face death as a consequence of our devotion to God. We are more likely to be sued, than beaten, for proclaiming God’s Word and living it. Yet, whether we face peace or persecution, love or lawsuit, blessings or beatings, we must remain faithful to God, and continue to vote for men and women who are likely to protect our religious liberties (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

The good news is not that a court is protecting my religious liberties, although I am truly grateful for that. No, the real good news is that we, like the early Christians, are still in heart and conscience free to serve God. With or without the protection of the law, we must serve God. That is good news.

REFERENCES

Mattox, F.W. (1961), The Eternal Kingdom (Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing).

Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—EXTENDED VERSION,” Reason & Revelation, 23[3]:17-23, March, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569.

Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 313 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2002).

Paul v. Watchtower Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc., 819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987).

Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, S.W.3d, 2008 WL 2572009 (Tex. 2008), [On-line], URL: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/062708.asp.

Zechariah Who? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2078&b=Matthew

Zechariah Who?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The name Zechariah appears dozens of times in the Bible. There is Zechariah the minor prophet, Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, who was stoned to death at the command of King Joash (2 Chronicles 24:20), Zechariah the father of John the Baptizer, as well as some 25 others mentioned by that name in Scripture. Among Bible critics, one particular Zechariah stands out more than all others—the Zechariah recorded in Matthew 23:35, whom Jesus mentioned in His condemnation of the hypocritical Pharisees. Allegedly, Jesus (or Matthew) erred in referring to the Jews murdering “Zechariah, the son of Berechiah...between the temple and the altar” (emp. added). Skeptic Dennis McKinsey says this Zechariah “is actually the son of Jehoiada as is shown by 2 Chron. 24:20.... The name Barachias or Barachiah is not in the Old Testament” (2000, p. 30).

Indeed, 2 Chronicles 24:20 does mention “Zechariah the son of Jehoiada” who was stoned “in the court of the house of the Lord” (24:21). But was Jesus referring to this particular Zechariah when He rebuked the hard-hearted Pharisees? It is possible that He was, and there still be no contradiction. In ancient times, people frequently had more than one name. Moses’ father-in-law was known both as Reuel and Jethro (Exodus 2:18; 3:1). Gideon acquired the name Jerubbaal after destroying an altar of Baal (Judges 6:32; 7:1; 8:29,35). In 2 Kings 15, King Jotham’s father is called both Azariah (vs. 7) and Uzziah (vs. 32). The names are different, but they refer to the same person (cf. 2 Chronicles 26:1-23; Isaiah 1:1). The apostle Peter is sometimes called Peter, Simon, Simon Peter, and Cephas (Matthew 14:28; 16:16; 17:25; John 1:42; 1 Corinthians 1:12).

People have worn multiple names for centuries. In modern times, most people could think of several individuals who are called by various names. Although most of the time my oldest son answers to his middle name, “Bo,” sometimes we call him by his first name, “Elijah.” At other times, we may summon him by his full name “Elijah Bo Lyons.” Is it not possible that Jehoiada also was known as Berechiah? Certainly! One wonders why Bible critics are so certain that Jesus made a mistake when even they themselves are accustomed to calling others by a variety of names.

It may also be that Jehoiada was Zechariah’s grandfather and Berechiah was his father. The term “son” is used in several senses in Scripture. Aside from using it to signify a son by actual birth, Bible writers used it to mean (1) son-in-law (1 Samuel 24:16; cf. 18:27), (2) grandson (Genesis 29:5), (3) descendant (Matthew 1:1), (4) son by creation, as in the case of Adam (Luke 3:38), (5) son by education (i.e., disciple—1 Samuel 3:6), etc. After reading Genesis 29:5, one might think that Laban was the son of Nahor, but Genesis 24 explains that he actually was Nahor’s grandson (24:24,29; cf. 22:20-24). Mephibosheth is called the “son of Saul” in 2 Samuel 19:24, when actually he was “the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul” (2 Samuel 9:6; 4:4). He literally was Saul’s grandson, though Scripture refers to him once simply as the “son of Saul.” These are only two examples where the Bible conveys to the reader that the term “son” was used to mean grandson. One can only wonder how many times the terms “son” or “daughter” are used this way throughout Scripture, and yet unlike the two aforementioned examples, were not explained as such. Indeed, Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, may be just one such example. Concerning this possibility, commentator R.C.H. Lenski noted:

This is possible when we remember the great age of Jehoiada, 130 years, and when we recall his great deeds, making it highly creditable to be called his son. So in Chronicles Zachariah would be named after his illustrious grandfather but in Matthew after his father, the name of the father having been preserved by Jewish tradition or in genealogical records. The Jews also frequently called a man a son of a mighty grandsire, especially while the latter was still living (1961, p. 920).

Although it is possible that Zechariah was the son of Berechiah and the grandson of Jehoiada, and though it may also be that Berechiah and Jehoiada were the same person, the fact is, Jesus may not even have been referring to “Zechariah the son of Jehoiada” (2 Chronicles 24:20) in Matthew 23:35. Truly, no one can prove that “Zechariah the son of Jehoiada” was the same Zechariah that Jesus mentioned in his reprimand of the Pharisees. A reasonable case can be made that the prophet to whom Jesus referred was actually Zechariah the minor prophet, who preached during the days of Ezra (Ezra 5:1), some 400 years after Zechariah, son of Jehoiada. In fact, contrary to McKinsey’s comment that “the name Barachias or Barachiah is not in the Old Testament” (2000, p. 30), Zechariah, the minor prophet, actually is called “the son of Berechiah (spelled Barachias in the Septuagint—EL), the son of Iddo” (Zechariah 1:1; cf. Ezra 5:1; 6:14). Although the Old Testament writers did not record his death, Jesus would have known how he died, and it also could have been known by Jewish tradition.

One must keep in mind that the Old Testament is not the only source for New Testament data concerning what took place from Creation until the coming of Christ. The New Testament writers were inspired by God (cf. 2 Peter 3:16; 1 Corinthians 14:37; John 16:13). How did Paul know that “Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses” (2 Timothy 3:8, emp. added) when the names of Pharaoh’s magicians are not given in the Old Testament? How did Jude know that Michael the archangel and the devil “disputed about the body of Moses” (Jude 9) when no Old Testament writer mentioned such an event? Paul and Jude either knew of these facts from tradition and recorded them by inspiration, or God miraculously revealed this information to them. Similarly, in Matthew 23:35 Jesus could have simply been referring to the death of one of the last Old Testament prophets, which was not recorded in the Old Testament, but known both by God and Jewish tradition.

At the risk of belaboring the point that several reasonable explanations exist for Jesus’ statement recorded in Matthew 23:35 (and that skeptics are being intellectually dishonest when they assert that this passage is errant), two more logically possible explanations need to be noted. First, many assume that Jesus was referring to a martyr named Zechariah from Old Testament times. However, a closer look at Jesus’ comments may reveal otherwise. He rebuked the Pharisees, saying:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, “If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation (Matthew 23:29-36, emp. added).

Notice that Jesus spoke to His first century enemies, saying, “you murdered” Zechariah, son of Berechiah (Matthew 23:35, emp. added). A straightforward reading of this passage, without assuming that Zechariah was one of the more than two dozen Zechariahs of the Old Testament, leads one to the conclusion that the Pharisees themselves had murdered a righteous man named Zechariah. It may be, as Burton Coffman concluded,

...that Christ here referred to some secret murder perpetrated, not by the ancestors of those men, but by them.... Christ tried with that one last lightning stroke of truth to get through to them, but even that failed. That no such murder was recorded in either the Old Testament or the New Testament, and that there was no general knowledge of it in the days of Christ, and that no traditions were developed with reference to it—these things present no difficulty at all, but point squarely at the Pharisees and show their effectiveness in covering up their evil deeds and hiding them from popular view.... It is further evidence of their depravity that none of them ever confessed it, even after he who knew their thoughts revealed it publicly! Their guilty secret went to the grave with them, except for this ray of light from the lips of Christ who made it known on the occasion of their being sentenced to hell for their wickedness” (1974, p. 375, emp. in orig.).

Finally, considering the fact that God’s spokesman occasionally spoke of things yet to come as if they had already occurred (commonly known as “prophetic perfect”; cf. Isaiah 53; 21:1-10), it may be (however unlikely) that Jesus was speaking about the death of a future Zacharias. According to Josephus, about 35 years following Jesus’ death, two zealots slew Zacharias the son of Baruch in the middle of the temple simply for being rich, hating wickedness, and loving liberty (1987, 4:5:4).

Whatever the answer to the question, “To which Zechariah was Jesus referring?,” one thing is beyond any doubt: skeptics such as Dennis McKinsey do not have a shred of evidence that Matthew 23:35 is an uninspired, errant passage. Truly, the only proven contradiction regarding this matter lies, not in the Bible, but in McKinsey’s own book titled Biblical Errancy. On page 30, he insisted that the Zechariah of Matthew 23:35 “is actually the son of Jehoiada.” However, later in the book, he wrote (immediately following a quotation of Matthew 23:35): “The Zecharias mentioned was killed in Jerusalem in 69 C.E.; so that Matthew makes Jesus refer to an event that occurred forty years after his death. This is the same Zecharias Barouchus who, according to Josephus, was slain in the temple a short time before the destruction of Jerusalem” (p. 195). What evidence does McKinsey have for this last accusation? None whatsoever. Indeed, McKinsey—not the Bible writers—gives contradictory answers to the same question. Simply because we may not know for certain the identity of the Zechariah Jesus mentioned, does not mean we have the right to label Him and the Bible writers as erroneous.

REFERENCES

Coffman, James Burton (1974), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Josephus, Flavius (1987 reprint), The Wars of the Jews, in The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whitson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

Owe no one anything except to love one another Romans 13:8 by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/025-owenooneanything.html

Owe no one anything except to love one another
Romans 13:8

We owe each other love for ever. But what about the first part: “Owe no one anything.”
This passage presents a problem for many. Some do not understand what it means and for everyone the application is sometimes difficult.
What are Biblical principles of dealing with money?
“Owe no one anything.” Does this mean that we may never commit ourselves financially? At Rome “Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house” (Acts 28:30). Thus he obviously had agreed to pay rent. Financial commitments are part of life. As long as we pay on time, we owe no one anything.
But what if we pile up commitments that are beyond our means? After a while we will no longer be able to pay.
Actually we are all stewards of other people’s money. Most of our income each month belongs to someone else. Part belongs to the government, and the State is smart enough to deduct its portion from our wages before we get them! If we rent a house, a portion belongs to our landlord. If we have loans, a part belongs to the bank. Our family needs food and clothing, so a part belongs to the shopkeepers. We need energy, so a part belongs to the utility companies. There is only a small amount left that we can spend any way we want. If we are not good stewards, we can easily misappropriate someone else’s money, and no longer be able to give them their due portion.
I knew a woman who opened a shop and went bankrupt in a few months because she thought she could freely spend everything that came into the cash register!
Also in money matters, the temptations of Satan must be resisted. Problems can be “love of money” (1 Timothy 6:10); “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16); covetousness (Colossians 3:5); not paying your workers a fair wage (James 5:4); “the cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things” (Mark 4:19). Materialism can cause us to get in debt and be unable to pay what we owe.
“Owe no one anything.” What are some dangers?
We are warned in Scripture about the danger of putting up security for someone else. “A man devoid of understanding shakes hands in a pledge, and becomes surety for his friend” (Proverbs 17:18). Why is this dangerous? If your friend can easily pay, he will have security of his own! If you decide to provide security anyway, keep in mind that you may have to pay the whole debt yourself! Thus, you must be able to do so without jeopardizing your own financial condition.
The principle behind this warning is that we must avoid excessive debts. If we allow ourselves to become insolvent, there is a great danger that we will not be able to pay what we owe. Being solvent means that we can pay all we owe by selling things we own.
Does the command, “Owe no one anything,” mean that we may not borrow? Borrowing is not forbidden in Scripture, but it is viewed as something negative, which of course it is. A loan is negative money.
When the Lord promised to bless Israel if they remained faithful, He said: “For the LORD your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow” (Deuteronomy 15:6). The one who lends has power over the one who borrows: “The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7). 
Yet, borrowing is sometimes needful. In the next two verses in Deuteronomy we read: “If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs” (Deuteronomy 15:7, 8). Thus, it is not wrong to borrow for things we really need, on condition that we will be able to pay it back.
It is wrong not to repay: “The wicked borrows and does not repay, but the righteous shows mercy and gives” (Psalm 37:21).
Thus, to obey the command, “Owe no one anything,” we must be careful not to borrow more than we can repay. When we have a loan, we do not owe until payment is due. If we repay the loan at the agreed time, we do not owe anything.
A loan should be covered in some way. If because of unexpected circumstances, for example, you are not able to make your car payments, you should be able to repay the loan by selling the car.
Insurance can also be part of the coverage. I know someone who had to pay off a loan for five years on a car that no longer existed because it caught fire while he was driving and was not insured. And, he was an insurance salesman!
The same applies to the purchase of a house with a mortgage. If you cannot make your house payments, you should be able to pay off the loan by selling the house.
It is not sufficient, however, that the principal is covered by a countervalue, the repayments must also be within our means.
Many get in trouble at this point. In our society it is easy to borrow more than we can repay. Since we can get something on credit, we may be tempted to buy a more expensive house or automobile than we can afford.
Why is it so easy to get credit? Because those who offer us credit want to make money off of us even if it is to our financial disadvantage.
In my pocket I have something that is extremely dangerous: a credit card. First, one must understand that a credit card is NOT MONEY. With it you only promise to pay money.
It is dangerous because it enables you to promise to pay more than you can afford. You can make purchases with money you do not have. You can go to the airport and get a ticket to fly halfway around the world and back, even if you do not have the money.
A credit card can be valuable for one month’s credit. If you pay your credit card bill completely every month, no interest is charged!
If you do not pay it off every month, the interest charged is exorbitant, and you can easily build up a debt that you are no longer able to repay. It can become a form of debt bondage. You owe your soul, not to the company store, but to the credit card company.
This is how it works: One month you use your card to buy more than you can afford. So, at the end of the month you are not able to pay the whole amount. Or if you do, you do not have enough money for the next month’s expenses. So now you areforced to use your credit card because your money is gone. And if you buy more on your card than you can afford again (it is so easy to do), your negative balance grows even larger. Your debt snowballs because each month you must pay high interest on your growing debt.
When you go shopping with a credit card there is no hard limit to what you can spend.
Credit card companies set a high maximum credit to lure the card user into deeper debt, which results in more profit for them. They also make it easy for you not to pay off your debt by setting a low minimum payment each month. After all, they collect high interest on what you do not pay!
Credit card debt is a major cause of personal bankruptcy.
A survey by the US Department of Justice in 2000 determined that in 74% of personal bankruptcy cases, credit card debt played a significant role, and that 42% of bankruptcies involved credit card debts of $10,000. to $50,000, 7% involved credit card debts of more than $50,000 and 3% involved credit card debts of more than $75,000. Those with high credit card debts usually had several credit cards they obtained through the aggressive marketing of credit card companies.
Someone who uses more credit than he can repay, is not obeying the command: “Owe no one anything.”
To obey God in this, our expenditures must be less than our income. It is that simple. If we spend even a little more than we earn each month, we will go deeper and deeper into debt. The first rule if you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging! The hole must be filled up!
If you have become a victim of credit mongers and you find yourself in a seemingly hopeless situation, ask for advice, possibly from someone in the church or from a free independent family finance counseling service. But beware of loan sharks who profile themselves as debt advisors! Someone who wants to loan you money is not the best source of advice.
Christians must pay their taxes: “For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:6, 7). 
Christians are to give as we have been prospered (1 Corinthians 16:2) and as we have purposed in our hearts (2 Corinthians 9:7). This is possible only if we do some planning.
To obey the command to owe no one anything, we must also save for extraordinary expenditures. Even under normal circumstances, there are certain times of the year and certain occasions in life, when expenses are higher than otherwise. This requires saving, which means that our regular expenses must be less than our income. During lean years it is not possible to save. And most of us have experienced such times. But when things go better, it is wise to put something aside.
“There is desirable treasure, and oil in the dwelling of the wise, but a foolish man squanders it” (Proverbs 21:20). Remember the prodigal son? ‘Prodigal’ means wasteful. He wasted his whole inheritance. He repented and returned to his father, but his inheritance was gone.
So far, we have spoken mainly about frugality so we can obey the command, “Owe no one anything”. But frugality does not help if we have no income!
The world does not owe us a living. We must work to pay our own way. “But we urge you, brethren, that you increase more and more; that you also aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you, that you may walk properly toward those who are outside, and that you may lack nothing” (1 Thessalonians 4:10-12). We are to work, not only to provide for our own needs, but also that we “may have something to give him who has need” (Ephesians 4:28).
Paul also wrote: “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone's bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread” (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12).
A brother who is unemployed asked me about this passage recently. I pointed out to him that it does not say, “If anyone is out of work”, but “If anyone will not work.”
Circumstances can vary, but in the first instance it is the man’s responsibility to provide bread for his family “in toil” and “in the sweat” of his face (Genesis 3:17-19). Women are to be “homemakers” (Titus 2:5; See also 1 Timothy 5:14).
Jesus promised that God will provide for our needs if we “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33). 
Let us pray and work for our daily bread that our needs might be provided and we might have extra to give to the Lord and to share with the needy. Let us be careful to “Owe no one anything except to love one another” (Romans 13:8). Amen.
Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

Jesus and friends by Gary Rose

Within the picture is a very nice poem. It's description of a "Special Friend" is one of the best I've ever heard and worth remembering. During the course of my life, I have had all sorts of friends; acquaintances that became genuine friends, "phony friends", fair weather  friends, good friends, best buds and of course BFF's.

Beyond all these are my Christian friends. Some are closer than others, but we all have one thing in common- The love of Jesus our LORD. We do everything we can to follow Jesus and genuinely love one another as well. Although, some of us seem to do these things better than others; we all try.

Jesus has said:

 John, Chapter 15 (WEB)

 ¹²  “This is my commandment, that you love one another, even as I have loved you.   ¹³  Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.   ¹⁴  You are my friends, if you do whatever I command you. (emphasis added, vss. 12-14)   ¹⁵  No longer do I call you servants, for the servant doesn’t know what his lord does. But I have called you friends, for everything that I heard from my Father, I have made known to you.   ¹⁶  You didn’t choose me, but I chose you and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain; that whatever you will ask of the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 

  ¹⁷  “I command these things to you, that you may love one another.   ¹⁸  If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you.   ¹⁹  If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, since I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.   ²⁰  Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his lord.’  If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.   ²¹  But they will do all these things to you for my name’s sake, because they don’t know him who sent me.   ²² If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.   ²³  He who hates me, hates my Father also.   ²⁴  If I hadn’t done among them the works which no one else did, they wouldn’t have had sin. But now they have seen and also hated both me and my Father.   ²⁵  But this happened so that the word may be fulfilled which was written in their law, ‘They hated me without a cause.’ 

Who are your friends? If, among them you can honestly say, Jesus and his friends- you will be blessed!!! The thing is... these special friendships will last for eternity. I wonder, what other friendships will last this long?

Just think about it, OK?

"THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS" Walking Together In Unity (4:1-16) by Mark Copeland

                     "THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS"

                   Walking Together In Unity (4:1-16)

INTRODUCTION

1. For three chapters, Paul has dealt with "doctrine" in which he has 
   described both:
   a. Our spiritual "possessions" in Christ (1)
   b. Our spiritual "position" in Christ (2,3)

2. In the remaining three chapters of this epistle, Paul will focus on
   "duty", i.e., responsibilities that are ours because of the blessings
    we enjoy as described in the previous chapters

3. Of the blessings described, one upon which Paul elaborated is the
   "unity" that we have in Christ by virtue of His work on the cross...
   a. He has reconciled both Jew and Gentile to God in "one body" -
      Ep 2:14-16
   b. Now, Gentiles can be fellow heirs, of the "same body" - Ep 3:6

4. It should not be surprising, then, that the first duty that Paul 
   exhorts us to fulfill is "to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond
   of peace" - Ep 4:3
   a. Christ "attained" this unity by His work on the cross
   b. Our task is to "maintain" it

[Beginning, then, with a charge to "walk worthy of the calling with 
which you were called" (Ep 4:1), Paul describes how to have a "worthy 
walk", and that is by displaying...]

I. THE "ATTITUDES" FOR MAINTAINING UNITY (1-3)

   A. LOWLINESS...
      1. This word means:
         a. The having a humble opinion of one's self
         b. A deep sense of one's (moral) littleness
         c. Modesty, humility, lowliness of mind
      2. This virtue is necessary in order in order to properly value 
         others around you - cf. Php 2:3-4
      3. Without this virtue, members in the body begin trying to be the
         "head" of the body, a role reserved only for Christ

   B. GENTLENESS...
      1. This word can be translated as gentleness, mildness, meekness
      2. It is not a quality of weakness, but of power under control
         a. Moses was a meek man (Num 12:3), but capable of great
            strength and boldness
         b. Jesus was "meek and lowly in heart" (Mt 11:29), but we see
            where He drove the money changers out of the temple
      3. Thus it is being gentle, even when there is the potential for 
         being harsh, but gentleness is more conducive for maintaining 
         unity

   C. LONG-SUFFERING...
      1. The idea here is one of patience, forbearance, longsuffering, 
         slowness in avenging wrongs
      2. When the body consists of members who are not perfect, and 
         often sin against each other, maintaining unity is not possible
         unless they are willing to endure each other's imperfections

   D. BEARING WITH ONE ANOTHER IN LOVE...
      1. Similar to longsuffering, "bearing" means to sustain, to bear,
         to endure
      2. What makes such "longsuffering" and "forbearance" possible is 
         another virtue:  "love"
      3. As Paul wrote in his chapter on love:  "love suffers long...is
         not provoked" - 1Co 13:4-5
      4. Indeed, the virtue of love is the "tie" that binds all these 
         virtues together - cf. Col 3:12-14

   E. ENDEAVOR...
      1. Displaying these virtues does not come naturally nor easy, nor 
         does maintaining unity
      2. Thus the need for much effort, as Paul uses a word which means 
         "to exert one's self, endeavor, give diligence"

[Only by giving diligence to display ALL these virtues, can we hope to 
"keep (maintain) the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" 

(Ep 4:3).

But just as important as having the right "attitudes", is understanding
and holding to...]

II. THE "BASIS" OF UNITY (4-6)

   A. ONE BODY...
      1. This refers to the body of Christ, the church - Ep 1:22-23
      2. Of course, Paul speaks here of the church in the "universal" 
         sense
         a. The "body" of saved believers throughout the world
         b. Of which Christ is the "head", and "savior of the body" - 
            Ep 5:23
      3. While there may be many "local" churches (congregations), there
         is only ONE "universal" church, with ONE "head" - Jesus Christ!

   B. ONE SPIRIT...
      1. This would be the Holy Spirit
      2. Who has already been described in this epistle...
         a. As "the Holy Spirit of promise" - Ep 1:13
         b. As "the guarantee of our inheritance" - Ep 1:14
         c. By Whom both Jew and Gentile have access to the Father - 
            Ep 2:18
         d. In Whom God habitats those who are being built a "holy 
            temple" - Ep 2:21-22
         e. By Whom the "mystery of Christ" was revealed to the apostles
            and prophets - Ep 3:5
         f. Through Whom God strengthens with might the inner man - 
            Ep 3:16
         g. As the One whose "unity" is to be maintained in the bond of 
            peace - Ep 4:3

   C. ONE HOPE OF YOUR CALLING...
      1. For Paul, this pertains primarily to "the resurrection of the 
         dead" - Ac 23:6; 24:15; Ro 8:23-24; cf. 1Co 15:19-23; 

                 Php 3:10-11,20-21
      2. Which necessarily includes such concepts of "salvation" 

         (1 Th 5:8) and "eternal life" (Tit 1:2; 3:7)

   D. ONE LORD...
      1. This refers to Jesus, of course - 1Co 8:5-6
      2. Whom God has made "both Lord and Christ" - Ac 2:36

   E. ONE FAITH...
      1. This the body of truth, "the faith", which Jude says was "once
         for all delivered to the saints" - Jude 3
      2. It is that "pattern of sound words" of that Paul taught Timothy
         (2Ti 1:13), and which he was to commit to faithful men (2
         Tit 2:2)
      3. We find this "pattern of sound words" in the pages of the New 
         Testament, which contains that which all Christians must 
         believe

   F. ONE BAPTISM...
      1. This is the baptism...
         a. Commanded by Jesus - Mt 28:18-20; Mk 16:15-16
         b. Preached and commanded by His apostles - Ac 2:38; 10:48
         c. By which those who submit to are added to the Lord's body, 
            the church - Ac 2:42,47
      2. I.e., the baptism in which a penitent believer is immersed in 
         water for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit
         - Ac 2:38; 10:47-48

   G. ONE GOD AND FATHER...
      1. The Father, Who together with the Son and Holy Spirit, makes up
         the "Godhead"
      2. Note that Paul emphasizes both:
         a. His personality ("Father of all")
         b. His transcendence and omnipresence ("who is above all, and 
            through all, and in you all")

[These "seven ones" constitute "the unity of the Spirit" that as 
Christians we must be so diligent to keep "in the bond of peace".  Not 
one of these is "non-essential"!  E.g., just as crucial as maintaining 
who the "One Lord" is, so we must be steadfast in holding to the "One 
Baptism"!

To assist us in our efforts to "keep the unity of the Spirit", Christ 
has given to His church certain "gifts".  Let's now consider ...]

III. THE "GIFTS" FOR UNITY (7-16)

   A. THE SOURCE OF THESE GIFTS... (7-10)
      1. They come from the bounty of Christ's grace (7)
      2. As prophesied, they were given after Christ ascended to heaven
         (8-10)

   B. THE NATURE OF THESE GIFTS... (11)
      1. Is Paul referring to "spiritual gifts" (cf. 1Co 12:1-11), or
         "functions"?
         a. If "spiritual gifts", then we should read verse 11 to say 
            "gave some to..."
         b. If "functions", then verse 11 should read "gave some to 
            be..."
         c. The use of "doreas" and "domata" instead of "charismata" in 
            verses 7-8 suggests Paul has in mind "functions", and not
            "spiritual gifts"
      2. Understanding it as "functions", we see that Christ gave some
         to be...
         a. APOSTLES
            1) Those who were to be eye-witnesses of the resurrection 
               - Ac 1:15-22
            2) Their role in the church was foundational, necessary to 
               the establishment of the church - Ep 2:20
            3) As such, their work or function was temporary
         b. PROPHETS
            1) These were inspired men and women used in the process of 
               revelation - Ep 3:5; cf. Ac 2:17; 11:28; 21:9
            2) As with the apostles, their role was foundational, 
               necessary to the establishment of the church - Ep 2:20
            3) Just as apostles were not replaced, so the prophets' role
               was temporary - cf. 1Co 13:8
         c. EVANGELISTS
            1) Literally, "bearers of good news"
            2) These are individuals like Philip (Ac 21:8), who 
               proclaimed the gospel of Christ both publicly and 
               privately - cf. Ac 8:5-13,26-40
            3) Timothy was charged to "do the work of an evangelist" 
               - 2Ti 4:5
            4) Unlike apostles and prophets, their work does not involve
               "laying the foundation", but rather building upon that 
               which is already laid, which they do every time they lead
               someone to Christ
            5) Therefore, their work or function continues to the 
               present
         c. PASTORS AND TEACHERS
            1) It may be that Paul intended these terms to describe one
               function (because "some" is not repeated)
               a) The role of "pastor" (shepherd) certainly requires
                  "feeding" or teaching
               b) While there is indication elsewhere that there was a
                  special function of "teachers" in the local church -
                  Ac 13:1; 1Co 12:28-29; 2Ti 1:11; Jm 3:1
            2) The term "pastor" is found only here in the Scriptures,
               but from Ac 20:17,28 and 1Pe 5:1-2 it becomes clear
               that "pastors, shepherds, elders, presbyters, bishops,
               overseers" are simply different terms describing the
               spiritual leaders of local congregations
            3) The nature of the work of "pastors and teachers" (i.e.,
               overseeing and feeding the flock of God) naturally
               follows the work of the evangelists
            4) And like the function of evangelist, continues to the
               present
         d. What about DEACONS?
            1) Clearly Paul does not intend this passage in Ephesians to
               be an exhaustive list of functions in the Lord's church,
               for he does not mention deacons - cf. Php 1:1; 1Ti 3:8
            2) But the list is adequate to illustrate the point:  Christ
               has given "gifts" to His church!

   C. THE PURPOSE OF THESE GIFTS... (12-16)
      1. To prepare members of the body for service ("equip the saints 
         for work of ministry")
      2. To build up the members of the body ("edify the body of 
         Christ"), so they...
         a. Can grow to maturity (13)
            1) Possessing the unity of the faith
            2) Having the knowledge of the Son of God
            3) Measuring up to the stature expected of those in Christ
         b. Will not be children (14)
            1) Tossed to and fro by every doctrine that comes along
            2) Easily deceived by cunning and false teachers
         c. But instead will be "growing upward" as the body of Christ 
            (15-16)
            1) Growing up in all things into the Head, Christ
            2) From which the whole body can grow, provided every part 
               does it share
            3) Made possible also as we "speak the truth in love" and 
               "edify itself in love"

CONCLUSION

1. If we can just...
   a. Display the "attitudes" necessary for unity
   b. Hold fast to the "basis" upon which our unity rests
   c. Utilize the "gifts" Christ has given to assure we all come to the 
      unity of the faith
   ...then Christ's work on the cross will not be in vain! 

      - cf. Ep 2:16

2. Not only that, but then we will also truly conduct ourselves in a 
   manner "worthy of the calling with which you were called" - Ep 4:1
   a. We were called to be "fellow citizens with the saints and members
      of the household of God" - Ep 2:19
   b. We were called to be "a holy temple in the Lord", "a habitation of
      God in the Spirit" - Ep 2:21-22
   c. We were called to "make known the manifold wisdom of God" 

       - Ep 3:10

Are you doing all you can as a member of the body of Christ to "walk
together in unity", and by so doing walk in manner worthy of our
calling?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

 

Fact—The New Testament is the Most Historically Accurate Book Ever Written by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=524

Fact—The New Testament is the Most Historically Accurate Book Ever Written

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Dismissing the miracles documented in the New Testament is a favorite pastime of many skeptics, and even some liberal-thinking religious leaders. However, this “dismissal” game gets extremely complicated because the miracles are so closely blended with historical facts that separating the two soon becomes like trying to separate two different colors of Play-Doh.^® Take, for instance, the plight of Sir William Ramsay. His extensive education had engrained within him the keenest sense of scholarship. Along with that sense of scholarship came a built-in prejudice about the supposed inaccuracy of the Bible (especially the book of Acts). Ramsay noted: “…[A]bout 1880 to 1890 the book of the Acts was regarded as the weakest part of the New Testament. No one that had any regard for his reputation as a scholar cared to say a word in its defence [sic]. The most conservative of theological scholars, as a rule, thought the wisest plan of defence [sic] for the New Testament as a whole was to say as little as possible about the Acts” (1915, p. 38).

As could be expect of a person trained by such “scholars,” Ramsay held the same view—for a while. He held the view only for a brief time, however, because he did what few people of his time dared to do. He decided to explore the actual Bible lands with an open Bible—with the intention of proving the inaccuracy of Luke’s history as found in the book of Acts. However, much to his surprise, the book of Acts passed every test that any historical narrative could be asked to pass. After his investigation of the Bible lands, he was forced to conclude:

The more I have studied the narrative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here [in the Book of Acts—KB]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice (1915, p. 89).

The renowned archaeologist Nelson Glueck put it like this:

It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which conform in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible (1959, p. 31).

Considering the fact that the land of Palestine in the days of the New Testament writers tossed and turned on a sea of political, economical, and social unrest, I would say that its historical accuracy is pretty amazing. Travel to the Holy Lands and see for yourself if you doubt New Testament accuracy. Carry with you an honest, open mind and a New Testament, and I assure you that you will respect the New Testament writers as accurate historians by the end of your journey.

REFERENCES

Glueck, Nelson (1959), Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Cudahy).

Ramsay, William (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975 reprint).