April 15, 2015

From Gary... The opposite of "Hide and Seek"!!!



Look for God and HE WILL FIND YOU!  Seek to know God and BE KNOWN!! Love God and BE LOVED!!!  In the process, you will discover things about yourself that will amaze you!!! Identity, purpose, Joy and fulfillment are all yours for the asking; and perhaps some hardship and trials as well. But amid all the difficulties, God will be there, comforting, helping.  These things remind me of one of the most treasured passages in the New Testament...

Acts, Chapter 9 (WEB)

 1 But Saul, still breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest,  2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.  3 As he traveled, he got close to Damascus, and suddenly a light from the sky shone around him.  4 He fell on the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 

  5  He said, “Who are you, Lord?” 

The Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.   6  But rise up, and enter into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

  7  The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the sound, but seeing no one.  8 Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened, he saw no one. They led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.  9 He was without sight for three days, and neither ate nor drank. 

  10  Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias!” 

He said, “Behold, it’s me, Lord.” 

  11  The Lord said to him, “Arise, and go to the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judah for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus. For behold, he is praying,   12  and in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in, and laying his hands on him, that he might receive his sight.” 

  13  But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he did to your saints at Jerusalem.  14 Here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.”

  15  But the Lord said to him, “Go your way, for he is my chosen vessel to bear my name before the nations and kings, and the children of Israel.   16  For I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name’s sake.” 



Paul was a sincere Jew, who attempted to destroy the church. God found him, changed him and along with him, countless people as well.  

Today, look within yourself and then outward. God will find you and use you!!! Tears are optional!!!


Jeremiah, Chapter 29 (WEB)

11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says Yahweh, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you hope and a future.  12 You shall call on me, and you shall go and pray to me, and I will listen to you.  13 You shall seek me, and find me, when you shall search for me with all your heart.

From Gary... Bible Reading April 15


Bible Reading  

April 15

The World English Bible


Apr. 15
Numbers 21, 22

Num 21:1 The Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the South, heard tell that Israel came by the way of Atharim; and he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive.
Num 21:2 Israel vowed a vow to Yahweh, and said, If you will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.
Num 21:3 Yahweh listened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and the name of the place was called Hormah.
Num 21:4 They traveled from Mount Hor by the way to the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way.
Num 21:5 The people spoke against God, and against Moses, Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, and there is no water; and our soul loathes this light bread.
Num 21:6 Yahweh sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
Num 21:7 The people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, because we have spoken against Yahweh, and against you; pray to Yahweh, that he take away the serpents from us. Moses prayed for the people.
Num 21:8 Yahweh said to Moses, Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard: and it shall happen, that everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.
Num 21:9 Moses made a serpent of brass, and set it on the standard: and it happened, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he looked to the serpent of brass, he lived.
Num 21:10 The children of Israel traveled, and encamped in Oboth.
Num 21:11 They traveled from Oboth, and encamped at Iyeabarim, in the wilderness which is before Moab, toward the sunrise.
Num 21:12 From there they traveled, and encamped in the valley of Zered.
Num 21:13 From there they traveled, and encamped on the other side of the Arnon, which is in the wilderness, that comes out of the border of the Amorites: for the Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites.
Num 21:14 Therefore it is said in the book of the Wars of Yahweh, "Vaheb in Suphah, the valleys of the Arnon,
Num 21:15 the slope of the valleys that incline toward the dwelling of Ar, leans on the border of Moab."
Num 21:16 From there they traveled to Beer: that is the well of which Yahweh said to Moses, Gather the people together, and I will give them water.
Num 21:17 Then sang Israel this song: "Spring up, well; sing to it:
Num 21:18 the well, which the princes dug, which the nobles of the people dug, with the scepter, and with their poles." From the wilderness they traveled to Mattanah;
Num 21:19 and from Mattanah to Nahaliel; and from Nahaliel to Bamoth;
Num 21:20 and from Bamoth to the valley that is in the field of Moab, to the top of Pisgah, which looks down on the desert.
Num 21:21 Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, saying,
Num 21:22 Let me pass through your land: we will not turn aside into field, or into vineyard; we will not drink of the water of the wells: we will go by the king's highway, until we have passed your border.
Num 21:23 Sihon would not allow Israel to pass through his border: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel into the wilderness, and came to Jahaz; and he fought against Israel.
Num 21:24 Israel struck him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, even to the children of Ammon; for the border of the children of Ammon was strong.
Num 21:25 Israel took all these cities: and Israel lived in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all its towns.
Num 21:26 For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even to the Arnon.
Num 21:27 Therefore those who speak in proverbs say, "Come to Heshbon. Let the city of Sihon be built and established;
Num 21:28 for a fire has gone out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon. It has devoured Ar of Moab, The lords of the high places of the Arnon.
Num 21:29 Woe to you, Moab! You are undone, people of Chemosh! He has given his sons as fugitives, and his daughters into captivity, to Sihon king of the Amorites.
Num 21:30 We have shot at them. Heshbon has perished even to Dibon. We have laid waste even to Nophah, Which reaches to Medeba."
Num 21:31 Thus Israel lived in the land of the Amorites.
Num 21:32 Moses sent to spy out Jazer; and they took its towns, and drove out the Amorites who were there.
Num 21:33 They turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei.
Num 21:34 Yahweh said to Moses, Don't fear him: for I have delivered him into your hand, and all his people, and his land; and you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon.
Num 21:35 So they struck him, and his sons and all his people, until there was none left him remaining: and they possessed his land.
Num 22:1 The children of Israel traveled, and encamped in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan at Jericho.
Num 22:2 Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites.
Num 22:3 Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were many: and Moab was distressed because of the children of Israel.
Num 22:4 Moab said to the elders of Midian, Now will this multitude lick up all that is around us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field. Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time.
Num 22:5 He sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the River, to the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the surface of the earth, and they abide over against me.
Num 22:6 Please come now therefore curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may strike them, and that I may drive them out of the land; for I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed.
Num 22:7 The elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the rewards of divination in their hand; and they came to Balaam, and spoke to him the words of Balak.
Num 22:8 He said to them, Lodge here this night, and I will bring you word again, as Yahweh shall speak to me: and the princes of Moab abode with Balaam.
Num 22:9 God came to Balaam, and said, What men are these with you?
Num 22:10 Balaam said to God, Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, has sent to me, saying,
Num 22:11 Behold, the people that is come out of Egypt, it covers the surface of the earth: now, come curse me them; peradventure I shall be able to fight against them, and shall drive them out.
Num 22:12 God said to Balaam, You shall not go with them; you shall not curse the people; for they are blessed.
Num 22:13 Balaam rose up in the morning, and said to the princes of Balak, Go to your land; for Yahweh refuses to permit me to go with you.
Num 22:14 The princes of Moab rose up, and they went to Balak, and said, Balaam refuses to come with us.
Num 22:15 Balak sent yet again princes, more, and more honorable than they.
Num 22:16 They came to Balaam, and said to him, Thus says Balak the son of Zippor, Please let nothing hinder you from coming to me:
Num 22:17 for I will promote you to very great honor, and whatever you say to me I will do. Please come therefore, and curse this people for me.
Num 22:18 Balaam answered the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I can't go beyond the word of Yahweh my God, to do less or more.
Num 22:19 Now therefore, please wait also here this night, that I may know what Yahweh will speak to me more.
Num 22:20 God came to Balaam at night, and said to him, If the men have come to call you, rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak to you, that you shall do.
Num 22:21 Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his donkey, and went with the princes of Moab.
Num 22:22 God's anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of Yahweh placed himself in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him.
Num 22:23 The donkey saw the angel of Yahweh standing in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand; and the donkey turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam struck the donkey, to turn her into the way.
Num 22:24 Then the angel of Yahweh stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side.
Num 22:25 The donkey saw the angel of Yahweh, and she thrust herself to the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he struck her again.
Num 22:26 The angel of Yahweh went further, and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left.
Num 22:27 The donkey saw the angel of Yahweh, and she lay down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he struck the donkey with his staff.
Num 22:28 Yahweh opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?
Num 22:29 Balaam said to the donkey, Because you have mocked me, I would there were a sword in my hand, for now I had killed you.
Num 22:30 The donkey said to Balaam, Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? was I ever wont to do so to you? and he said, No.
Num 22:31 Then Yahweh opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of Yahweh standing in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand; and he bowed his head, and fell on his face.
Num 22:32 The angel of Yahweh said to him, Why have you struck your donkey these three times? behold, I am come forth for an adversary, because your way is perverse before me:
Num 22:33 and the donkey saw me, and turned aside before me these three times: unless she had turned aside from me, surely now I had even slain you, and saved her alive.
Num 22:34 Balaam said to the angel of Yahweh, I have sinned; for I didn't know that you stood in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease you, I will get me back again.
Num 22:35 The angel of Yahweh said to Balaam, Go with the men; but only the word that I shall speak to you, that you shall speak. So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.
Num 22:36 When Balak heard that Balaam was come, he went out to meet him to the City of Moab, which is on the border of the Arnon, which is in the utmost part of the border.
Num 22:37 Balak said to Balaam, Didn't I earnestly send to you to call you? why didn't you come to me? am I not able indeed to promote you to honor?
Num 22:38 Balaam said to Balak, Behold, I have come to you: have I now any power at all to speak anything? the word that God puts in my mouth, that shall I speak.
Num 22:39 Balaam went with Balak, and they came to Kiriath Huzoth.
Num 22:40 Balak sacrificed cattle and sheep, and sent to Balaam, and to the princes who were with him.
Num 22:41 It happened in the morning, that Balak took Balaam, and brought him up into the high places of Baal; and he saw from there the utmost part of the people.

Apr. 14, 15
Luke 9

Luk 9:1 He called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases.
Luk 9:2 He sent them forth to preach the Kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
Luk 9:3 He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey-neither staffs, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats apiece.
Luk 9:4 Into whatever house you enter, stay there, and depart from there.
Luk 9:5 As many as don't receive you, when you depart from that city, shake off even the dust from your feet for a testimony against them."
Luk 9:6 They departed, and went throughout the villages, preaching the Good News, and healing everywhere.
Luk 9:7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him; and he was very perplexed, because it was said by some that John had risen from the dead,
Luk 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the old prophets had risen again.
Luk 9:9 Herod said, "John I beheaded, but who is this, about whom I hear such things?" He sought to see him.
Luk 9:10 The apostles, when they had returned, told him what things they had done. He took them, and withdrew apart to a deserted place of a city called Bethsaida.
Luk 9:11 But the multitudes, perceiving it, followed him. He welcomed them, and spoke to them of the Kingdom of God, and he cured those who needed healing.
Luk 9:12 The day began to wear away; and the twelve came, and said to him, "Send the multitude away, that they may go into the surrounding villages and farms, and lodge, and get food, for we are here in a deserted place."
Luk 9:13 But he said to them, "You give them something to eat." They said, "We have no more than five loaves and two fish, unless we should go and buy food for all these people."
Luk 9:14 For they were about five thousand men. He said to his disciples, "Make them sit down in groups of about fifty each."
Luk 9:15 They did so, and made them all sit down.
Luk 9:16 He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to the sky, he blessed them, and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the multitude.
Luk 9:17 They ate, and were all filled. They gathered up twelve baskets of broken pieces that were left over.
Luk 9:18 It happened, as he was praying alone, that the disciples were with him, and he asked them, "Who do the multitudes say that I am?"
Luk 9:19 They answered, " 'John the Baptizer,' but others say, 'Elijah,' and others, that one of the old prophets is risen again."
Luk 9:20 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered, "The Christ of God."
Luk 9:21 But he warned them, and commanded them to tell this to no one,
Luk 9:22 saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up."
Luk 9:23 He said to all, "If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.
Luk 9:24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever will lose his life for my sake, the same will save it.
Luk 9:25 For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits his own self?
Luk 9:26 For whoever will be ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed, when he comes in his glory, and the glory of the Father, and of the holy angels.
Luk 9:27 But I tell you the truth: There are some of those who stand here, who will in no way taste of death, until they see the Kingdom of God."
Luk 9:28 It happened about eight days after these sayings, that he took with him Peter, John, and James, and went up onto the mountain to pray.
Luk 9:29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became white and dazzling.
Luk 9:30 Behold, two men were talking with him, who were Moses and Elijah,
Luk 9:31 who appeared in glory, and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.
Luk 9:32 Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, but when they were fully awake, they saw his glory, and the two men who stood with him.
Luk 9:33 It happened, as they were parting from him, that Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let's make three tents: one for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah," not knowing what he said.
Luk 9:34 While he said these things, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered into the cloud.
Luk 9:35 A voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him!"
Luk 9:36 When the voice came, Jesus was found alone. They were silent, and told no one in those days any of the things which they had seen.
Luk 9:37 It happened on the next day, when they had come down from the mountain, that a great multitude met him.
Luk 9:38 Behold, a man from the crowd called out, saying, "Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he is my only child.
Luk 9:39 Behold, a spirit takes him, he suddenly cries out, and it convulses him so that he foams, and it hardly departs from him, bruising him severely.
Luk 9:40 I begged your disciples to cast it out, and they couldn't."
Luk 9:41 Jesus answered, "Faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you and bear with you? Bring your son here."
Luk 9:42 While he was still coming, the demon threw him down and convulsed him violently. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the boy, and gave him back to his father.
Luk 9:43 They were all astonished at the majesty of God. But while all were marveling at all the things which Jesus did, he said to his disciples,
Luk 9:44 "Let these words sink into your ears, for the Son of Man will be delivered up into the hands of men."
Luk 9:45 But they didn't understand this saying. It was concealed from them, that they should not perceive it, and they were afraid to ask him about this saying.
Luk 9:46 There arose an argument among them about which of them was the greatest.
Luk 9:47 Jesus, perceiving the reasoning of their hearts, took a little child, and set him by his side,
Luk 9:48 and said to them, "Whoever receives this little child in my name receives me. Whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For whoever is least among you all, this one will be great."
Luk 9:49 John answered, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he doesn't follow with us."
Luk 9:50 Jesus said to him, "Don't forbid him, for he who is not against us is for us."
Luk 9:51 It came to pass, when the days were near that he should be taken up, he intently set his face to go to Jerusalem,
Luk 9:52 and sent messengers before his face. They went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, so as to prepare for him.
Luk 9:53 They didn't receive him, because he was traveling with his face set towards Jerusalem.
Luk 9:54 When his disciples, James and John, saw this, they said, "Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from the sky, and destroy them, just as Elijah did?"
Luk 9:55 But he turned and rebuked them, "You don't know of what kind of spirit you are.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of Man didn't come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." They went to another village.
Luk 9:57 As they went on the way, a certain man said to him, "I want to follow you wherever you go, Lord."
Luk 9:58 Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
Luk 9:59 He said to another, "Follow me!" But he said, "Lord, allow me first to go and bury my father."
Luk 9:60 But Jesus said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead, but you go and announce the Kingdom of God."
Luk 9:61 Another also said, "I want to follow you, Lord, but first allow me to bid farewell to those who are at my house."
Luk 9:62 But Jesus said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God." 

From Mark Copeland... "THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT" How To Establish Authority



                        "THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT"

                       How To Establish Authority

INTRODUCTION

1. In the past two lessons in this series, I have stressed that 
   for us to be "The Church Jesus Built" we must have the proper 
   standard of authority...
   a. That standard is the Will of Christ...
      1) As revealed in the apostles' doctrine, that is, the  
         teaching of Christ's apostles
      2) As inspired by the Holy Spirit, and preserved for us in 
         the pages of the New Testament
   b. Other standards are not suitable guides to lead us in the way                                               of salvation
      1) Not the Old Testament, majority rule, parents, preachers,
         creeds and traditions of men
      2) Nor our conscience, human wisdom, or feelings

2. Before we leave the subject of authority, there are questions worthy
   of our consideration...
   a. What is our obligation regarding authority?
   b. Exactly how does one use the New Testament to establish authority?
   c. Are there limitations placed upon how far we may go in matters of religion?
   d. Will having the same standard of authority guarantee unity among
      followers of Christ?

[In this lesson and the next, I wish to share some thoughts along these
lines, beginning with...]

I. OUR OBLIGATION REGARDING AUTHORITY

   A. EVERYONE HAS AN OBLIGATION...
      1. Jesus did not speak without having authority - Jn 12:49-50
      2. Even the Spirit did not speak on His own authority - Jn 16:13
      3. Those who despise authority are ill-spoken of in the Scriptures
         - 2 Pe 2:10; Jude 1:8

   B. WHAT IS OUR OBLIGATION...
      1. To do all things in the name (by the authority) of Jesus Christ
         - Col 3:17
         a. To provide authority for all that we believe and do in religion
         b. A duty enjoyed upon all who presume to speak for God - cf. 1Pe 4:10
      2. Note well: the burden of proof is on the affirmative, not the negative
         a. We do not have to prove some practice is wrong (e.g., instrumental music)
         b. Those who affirm some practice scriptural have the burden to
            provide authority for it
      3. Our duty then would be to examine the evidence to see if it
         supports what is affirmed
         a. Does the evidence adequately not support what is affirmed?
         b. If not, the practice is without authority and thereby unscriptural!

[The burden to provide authority is upon any and all who wish to engage
in some religious practice or preach some religious doctrine.  How does
one provide such authority?  Here are some basic principles to
remember...]

II. HOW AUTHORITY IS ESTABLISHED

   A. AUTHORITY CAN BE ESTABLISHED IN THREE WAYS...
      1. Direct command or precept - a direct statement of something
         that can or cannot be done
         a. E.g., "repent and be baptized" - Ac 2:38
         b. E.g., "love one another" - Jn 13:34
         c. E.g., "abstain from sexual immorality" - 1Th 4:3
      2. Approved example - an illustration that shows a practice was
         done with the approval of the Lord's apostles
         a. As an apostle, Paul taught by both precept and example
            1) He encouraged others to imitate him, and sent Timothy to
               remind people of "his ways in Christ, as I teach
               everywhere in every church" - 1Co 4:16-17
            2) The God of peace will be with those who do the sort of
               things both heard (precept) and seen (example) in an
               apostle like Paul - cf. Php 4:9
         b. So when we have an example that meets with apostolic
            approval, we know there is authority for the practice
            1) E.g., having a plurality of elders in one church 
               - Ac 14:23; 20:28; Php 1:1
            2) E.g., meeting on the first day of the week for the
               purpose of breaking bread (i.e., the Lord's supper, cf.
               1Co 10:16-17) - Ac 20:7
      3. Necessary implication, or 'forced conclusion' - something
         neither expressly stated nor specifically exemplified, yet it
         is necessarily implied by the clear import and meaning of the
         language used so that one can only draw a particular conclusion
         a. Jesus appealed to necessary implication when He reasoned
            that there must be a resurrection of the dead based upon the
            implication of God's statement to Moses - cf. Mt 22:29-33
         b. Peter and the brethren in Judea understood the necessary
            implication of the Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit, that
            it meant Gentiles were permitted to be baptized and enjoy
            the repentance that leads to life - cf. Ac 10:44-48; 11:15-18
         c. Therefore, if the evidence of the Scriptures warrant it, we
            may draw certain conclusions through necessary implication
            1) E.g., the issue of baptizing infants
               a) The prerequisites for baptism include faith and repentance 
                  - Mk 16:16; Ac 2:38; 8:37
               b) Infants are incapable of faith and repentance
               c) The necessary implication (or forced conclusion) is
                  that baptism is not required of infants
            2) E.g., the matter of using unleavened bread in partaking the Lord's Supper
               a) There is nothing expressly stated nor specifically
                  exemplified in reference to using unleavened bread as
                  we observe the Lord's Supper
               b) But when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper at the
                  Last Passover, we know He was using unleavened bread
                  - cf. Lk 22:7-19
               c) The necessary implication is that we should use
                  unleavened bread as we keep His command to observe the
                  Lord's Supper

   B. THERE IS BOTH GENERAL AND SPECIFIC AUTHORITY...
      1. Using a direct command as an example, sometimes it is general
         in its authority
         a. That is, "not limited in scope, area, or application"
            (American Heritage Dictionary)
         b. The command 'go' in Mt 28:19 is generic and authorizes all
            methods of transportation
      2. Sometimes a direct command is specific in its authority
         a. That is, "explicitly set forth; definite" (American Heritage Dictionary)
         b. When God commanded Noah to build the ark with gopher wood
            (Gen 6:14), the specific nature of the command ruled out
            using any other kind of wood
      3. A specific command may itself have a degree of general authority
         a. E.g., the command to sing specifically authorizes acapella music
         b. It is not generic enough to authorize instrumental music, a
            totally different class (or kind) of music
         c. But it is generic enough to authorize different aids or
            expedients (see below), such as song books, to carry out the
            command to sing

   C. EXPEDIENTS MAY BE USED TO CARRY OUT AUTHORIZED PRACTICES...
      1. Expedient means "appropriate to a purpose" (American Heritage Dictionary)
      2. Thus an "expedient" is an aid that is suitable for carrying out
         that which is authorized
      3. Sample expedients based upon what is authorized in the Scriptures...
         a. Assembling is authorized, so the meeting house is an
            expedient to carry out the command to assemble
         b. Teaching is authorized, so arrangement in classes is an
            expedient to carry out the command to instruct
         c. Giving is authorized, so baskets are an expedient for
            gathering the contribution
         d. Baptism is authorized, so the baptistery is an expedient to
            provide a place for immersion
         e. Singing is authorized, so hymn books are expedient to
            helping us sing

CONCLUSION

1. These principles on how to establish authority from the Scriptures
   may seem prosaic, but they are very useful in applying the apostles'
   doctrine (i.e., the Word of God)

2. When understood properly and applied correctly, they can be useful to
   maintain the unity and peace of a local congregation

Our next study will examine what limitations are placed upon how far we
may go in matters of religion, and whether having the same standard of
authority guarantees unity among followers of Christ...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

“You Cannot Legislate Morality!” by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1507

“You Cannot Legislate Morality!”

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The CEO of a major American corporation was forced to resign after admitting to a sexual affair with a female subordinate (Merle, 2005). The incident triggered the oft’-debated ethical question: “Should one’s personal behavior in moral matters have any bearing on one’s position in public life?” Conventional wisdom now says, “no.” You’ve heard the claims—over and over again ad nauseam: “What a person does on his own time is none of the company’s business.” “Public life and private life are separate issues.” “After all, you cannot legislate morality and personal behavior.” From the president of the United States and the CEO of a large corporation to the public school teacher, Americans in large numbers have swallowed the baseless and ludicrous assertion that personal conduct and moral choices have no bearing on one’s employment position and credibility. Character, integrity, and ethical behavior increasingly have been detached from job performance as people compartmentalize their lives into separate and distinct spheres.
But such ethical schizophrenia is irrational, nonsensical, and destructive to the fabric of society. When a person manifests immorality in one aspect of his life, he demonstrates a character flaw that has become a part of his being. This circumstance must inevitably and naturally permeate a person’s character. If he is willing to lie in his private life, logically his propensity for lying can know no boundaries. The person who becomes comfortable with lying in one area of his life will eventually feel comfortable lying in other areas as well. Once a person sacrifices her integrity by embracing one illicit behavior (e.g., lying), she instantaneously opens herself up to embracing additional illicit behaviors (e.g., stealing, cheating). If a man cannot be trusted with your wife, why would you trust him with your money or your business?
God’s Word is the only reliable guide for human behavior (Psalm 119). In the Bible, God has given rules for the regulation of human behavior. Only He is in a position to establish the parameters of proper behavior. Without law, humans would have no guidance and no framework for assessing their actions. They would be free to conduct themselves in any manner whatsoever. One person may choose to murder while another may choose not to murder. There would be no ultimate difference between those two choices—no objective basis upon which to assign any ethical or moral significance. The person who engages in immoral behavior would be open to being immoral in any and every area of his or her life. Only incidental circumstances would decide when and where the immorality manifested itself. If a CEO would sacrifice his sexual integrity, given the right circumstances, he would be willing to sacrifice his financial integrity as well.
Human civilization is, in fact, grounded and dependent on the fundamental principle that human behavior can and must be regulated. Laws, by definition, regulate human behavior! Why do we have traffic laws? Why do we require people to drive their automobiles on the correct side of the road, stop at red traffic lights, or yield to pedestrians in crosswalks? Weren’t we told that we could not legislate human behavior? Why do we have laws governing the food industry’s handling of food for human consumption? I thought we could not legislate human behavior? Why do we have laws that make murder, stealing, and perjury in court illegal—if human morality cannot be legislated? The fact of the matter is that human behavior can and must be governed. The very fabric and functioning of society depends on it!
Ultimately, morality must be based on the laws of God, with the understanding that one day all humans will stand before the Supreme Judge of the world Who will “render to each one according to his deeds” (Romans 2:6): “For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil (Ecclesiastes 12:14). “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:10-11).

REFERENCES

Merle, Renae (2005), “Boeing CEO Resigns Over Affair with Subordinate,” Washington Post, Tuesday, March 8, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13173-2005Mar7.html.

"I'm Not Guilty, I'm Just Sick" by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1344

"I'm Not Guilty, I'm Just Sick"

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

During the 1970s, one of the most popular comedians on television was Flip Wilson. In his repertoire of fictional characters, he often portrayed an outspoken housewife by the name of Geraldine. When Geraldine misspoke, let slip with an insult, or committed some other faux pas (as she often was known to do), her standard retort when challenged was to shout with a loud, shrill voice, “The Devil made me do it!”
As a comedian in possession of innate talent, great costumes, and stunning make-up, Flip Wilson was able to parlay Geraldine’s plight into an award-winning laugh routine. Nothing was ever Geraldine’s fault, because she always had someone on whom she could blame her predicament, regardless of how dire that predicament might have been. Her refrain, “The Devil made me do it,” absolved her of any guilt whatsoever—or so she wanted the audience to believe.
Truth be told, Flip Wilson had hardly invented “original” material for his comedic sketch. Since the dawn of creation, man has sought to lay the blame for his own wrong actions at someone else’s feet. Man has always needed a scapegoat to bear his burden of guilt, and his inexorable shame—the responsibility of which he had no intention of bearing himself. Eve, the very first human to bear guilt and shame, sought to excuse herself from her violation of God’s commandments by suggesting, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat” (Genesis 3:13). Or, to use Geraldine’s words, “The Devil made me do it!”
As his march through history progressed, however, man learned that he could fare somewhat better if he blamed something—or better yet, someone—that had a corporeal nature. It became passé to suggest that a mere invisible spirit being could cause so much trouble, or bear enough responsibility to in any way atone for that trouble. Thus, it became popular for man to blame his failings not on the Devil, but instead on his fellows.
Israel’s first king tried this ploy. The prophet Samuel had relayed to Saul God’s specific instructions regarding the destruction of the Amalekites and all that they possessed (1 Samuel 15:1-3). Eventually, Saul went to battle against the Amalekites, and was victorious. But instead of obeying God’s commands, he spared Agag, the Amalekite king, and portions of the livestock. When Samuel asked him why he had disobeyed God’s directives, Saul’s response was that “the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto Jehovah thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed” (1 Samuel 15:15, emp. added). Not only did Saul attempt to shift the blame for his error to others, but simultaneously he attempted to explain his disobedience by suggesting that he acted as he did for God-honoring reasons. So far as he was concerned, he could spare some of the livestock in order to sacrifice them in worship to Jehovah. In other words, the end justified the means.
Both profane and sacred history are replete with examples of men and women who sought to shift the blame for their own mistakes, misjudgments, or misdeeds to someone else. Anna Russell portrayed this sentiment in her “Psychiatric Folksong”:
At three I had a feeling of
Ambivalence toward my brothers
And so it follows naturally
That I poisoned all my lovers.
But now I’m happy; I have learned
The lesson this has taught,
That everything I do that’s wrong
Is someone else’s fault
(as quoted in Zacharias, 1994, p. 138).
Eventually, however, just as at one point in the distant past it no longer became desirable or permissible to suggest that “the Devil made me do it,” it appears that the time has now come when it is no longer popular merely to suggest that our fellows (“the people,” to use King Saul’s words) should bear the burden of our guilt and shame. Apparently “the people” have tired of playing the part of the scapegoat. Perhaps it was because there was simply too much blame, too much guilt, and too much shame to go around. Everyone already had their fair share, and someone else’s as well. A new repository of blame, guilt, and shame was needed. Thus was born the refrain, “I’m not guilty, I’m just sick!”

“NOT GUILTY, JUST SICK”

At almost exactly the same time Flip Wilson was making famous Geraldine’s plaintive cry, “the Devil made me do it!,” serious thinkers among us were beginning to notice that something in the human moral code had gone seriously awry. One by one, slowly but surely, they called our attention to the fact that a singular word, and the concept of personal responsibility that it represented, seemingly had vanished from our vocabulary. That one word—conspicuously missing from the descriptions given above of people who had committed “mistakes,” “misjudgments,” or “misdeeds”—was sin. In the process of finding someone else to blame, we simultaneously divested ourselves of the ability to admit that we had actually sinned.
One of the first voices to try to restore a recognition of the concept of sin, and the acknowledgment of personal responsibility it required, was renowned psychiatrist, Karl Menninger. In 1973, Dr. Menninger authored his now-famous work, Whatever Became of Sin?, in which he wrote:
Human beings have become more numerous, but scarcely more moral. They are busy, coming and going, getting and begetting, fighting and defending, creating and destroying.... They now communicate with one another in a thousand ways, swift and slow; they transport themselves rapidly on land, sea, and through the air.... It became the epoch of technology, rampant and triumphant. We boasted of our inventions, innovations, and gadgets. Rugged individualism, acquisition, thrift, boldness, and shrewdness were acclaimed as the great national virtues. Although hard work was admired, luxury and ease were inordinately esteemed. And as we appropriated and accumulated, we bragged and braved.... Suddenly, we awoke from our pleasant dreams with a fearful realization that something was wrong....
In all of the laments and reproaches made by our seers and prophets, one misses any mention of “sin,” a word which used to be a veritable watchword of prophets. It was a word once in everyone’s mind, but now rarely if ever heard. Does that mean that no sin is involved in all our troubles—sin with an “I” in the middle? Is no one any longer guilty of anything?... Wrong things are being done, we know; tares are being sown in the wheat fields at night. But is no one responsible, no one answerable for these acts? Anxiety and depression we all acknowledge, and even vague guilt feelings; but has no one committed any sins? Where, indeed, did sin go? What became of it? (1973, pp. 4,5,13, emp. in orig.).
Dr. Menninger began his book with the thesis that “the disappearance of the word ‘sin’ involves a shift in the allocation of responsibility of evil” (1973, p. 17). Following Webster’s definition, he observed that “Sin is transgression of the law of God; disobedience of the divine will; moral failure. Sin is failure to realize in conduct and character the moral ideal, at least as fully as possible under existing circumstances; failure to do as one ought toward one’s fellow man” (1973, pp. 18-19). He then lamented:
It is surely nothing new that men want to get away from acknowledging their sins or even thinking about them. Is this not the religious history of mankind? Perhaps we are only more glib nowadays and equipped with more euphemisms.... Disease and treatment have been the watchwords of the day and little is said about selfishness or guilt or the “morality gap.” And certainly no one talks about sin! (1973, pp. 24,228).
The assessment of the problem made by Menninger in 1973 not only was correct, but also foreboding. We were running out of both devils and fellows upon whom we could heap the blame for our wrongs. The wrongs had become too many, and the scapegoats too few. It was time for “a shift in the allocation of responsibility of evil,” to use the doctor’s words. What was needed was a way to completely escape the blame, without having to heap it on someone else. Such a procedure would make unnecessary the unpleasant task of finger-pointing, while at the same time absolving the guilty of any personal responsibility. And so, we decided to blame our shortcomings not on an incorporeal spirit, or even on those around us. Rather, we simply declared ourselves “sick,” and as Dr. Menninger correctly observed, “disease” then became the watchword of the day.
Rare were those who could not find a “sickness” that guaranteed them absolution, in whole or in part. Richard Berendzen, the president of American University, was caught making obscene phone calls. He claimed that he had been a victim of child abuse, and checked himself into a hospital for “treatment” (another word, as Dr. Menninger noted, that has become a “watchword” of our day). Robert Alton Harris, a convicted murderer of two sixteen-year-old boys, explained to the court that he was not the culprit, but the victim, due to the fact that he was programmed in utero—as a result of fetal alcohol syndrome—to be violent. Dan White, a San Francisco supervisor (a position akin to a city councilman), killed the city’s mayor and another supervisor. After being apprehended, he claimed that he was not responsible for his actions since his steady diet of, and addiction to, junk food made him a victim whose judgment had been clouded, thereby causing him to turn violent in ways he could not control (interestingly, this became known in legal circles as the “Twinkie” defense). Lyle and Erik Menendez, planned the premeditated shotgun murders of their parents in their own living room, admitted to the crime, and then claimed the mantle of victim, suggesting that they had acted out of fear for their own lives as a result of continual abuse doled out by their unloving parents (see related article: “Wrong Must be Explained”).
As the list of alleged “sicknesses” continued to grow, it began to take on a life of its own, covering not just illegal acts such as murder and child abuse, but practically every other facet of human existence. People, we discovered, were “sick” because they had been discriminated against for practically everything—from being overweight to being too old. Or they were “sick” because of something their parents did even before they were born. Or they were “sick” because their environment made them so. In his brilliantly-written book, A Nation of Victims, Charles J. Sykes, a former reporter for theMilwaukee Journal and editor of Milwaukee Magazine, addressed this concept:
As it becomes increasingly clear that misbehavior can be redefined as disease, growing numbers of the newly diseased have flocked to groups like Gamblers Anonymous, Pill Addicts Anonymous, S-Anon (“relatives and friends of sex addicts”), Nicotine Anonymous, Youth Emotions Anonymous, Unwed Parents Anonymous, Emotional Health Anonymous, Debtors Anonymous, Workaholics Anonymous, Dual Disorders Anonymous, Batterers Anonymous, Victims Anonymous, and Families of Sex Offenders Anonymous....
In place of evil, therapeutic society has substituted “illness”; in place of consequence, it urges therapy and understanding; in place of responsibility, it argues for a personality driven by impulses....
Celebrities vie with one another in confessing graphic stories of abuse they suffered as children, while television talk shows feature a parade of victims ranging from overweight incest victims to handicapped sex addicts.
Dysfunction is, in every respect, a growth industry.... From the addicts of the South Bronx to the self-styled emotional road-kills of Manhattan’s Upper East Side, the mantra of the victims is the same: I am not responsible; it’s not my fault (1992, pp. 9,13,12, 11, emp. in orig.).
Everyone—not just murderers and rapists—now could claim to be a victim. We are “sick,” we are not responsible, and we are not to blame. So suggests the current, politically correct common perception.
As Sykes continued his examination of this thesis, he suggested:
American life is increasingly characterized by the plaintive insistence, I am a victim.... The National Anthem has become The Whine.... Now enshrined in law and jurisprudence, victimism is reshaping the fabric of society, including employment policies, criminal justice, education, urban politics, and, in an increasingly Orwellian emphasis on “sensitivity” in language. A community of interdependent citizens has been displaced by a society of resentful, competing, and self-interested individuals who have dressed their private annoyances in the garb of victimism. Victimism obviously worked... (1992, pp. 11,15,80, emp. in orig.).
Indeed, victimism does work—for at least two reasons. First, if people can be portrayed convincingly as being the victim of a disease, illness, or addiction, it can, suggests Stanton Peele in his book, The Diseasing of America, “legitimize, reinforce, and excuse the behaviors in question—convincing people, contrary to all evidence, that their behavior is not their own. Meanwhile, the number of addicts and those who believe they cannot control themselves grows steadily” (1989, p. 28). Second, generally speaking it is human nature to look kindly on those who cannot prevent or correct their own pitiful condition. As Sykes has suggested: “Americans, of course, have a long tradition of sympathy for the downtrodden; compassion for the less fortunate has always been a mark of a nation’s underlying decency and morality” (1992, p. 12).
As a result of these factors, and others, we find ourselves in an era where practically every human action can be accounted for by the plea, “I’m not guilty, I’m just sick.” Unfortunately, on occasion, the scientific/medical community has exacerbated the situation (although not always intentionally) by lending credibility to the idea that an alleged victim is not responsible for his/her actions due to factors—sometimes physical, sometimes mental—over which he/she ultimately had no control.
On the physical side, it is becoming increasingly common to hear the suggestion that alcoholism is an inherited condition that produces results completely beyond the control of the person it affects. This has significant personal, as well as societal, implications. Few would ever suggest, for example, that a person should bear responsibility, or blame, for the fact that he was born with an extra number twenty-one chromosome, thereby producing Down’s Syndrome. Such an occurrence is not that person’s “fault.” Nor should personal responsibility be assigned to the alcoholic, it is now being suggested, due to the fact that there may be, and most likely is, an underlying genetic cause.
The battle in the scientific community over whether alcoholism should be categorized as a “disease” has been long and loud. Some researchers advocate the view that certain individuals possess a “genetic predisposition” to alcoholism; others deny any such genetic predisposition. As Sykes has noted:
At best, the scientific search for a definitive physical or biological cause of uncontrollable drinking has been inconclusive. Although some experts insist that alcoholism is indeed genetically based, others, equally adamant, either deny the biological link or insist that it has been greatly exaggerated. Nevertheless, the definition of alcoholism as a disease, trumpeted by a growing network of helping professionals, alcoholic-treatment institutions, and related lobbies, has won widespread acceptance.... If someone who drinks excessively is sick, then the notion of moral responsibility becomes highly problematic. Perhaps for that reason, alcoholism-as-disease has proven an attractive model in the new self-help culture (1992, pp. 136,147).
The same line of reasoning applies to other physical or mental illnesses. In addition to the examples mentioned earlier that purport to absolve a person of individual responsibility (e.g., fetal alcohol syndrome, the “Twinkie” defense, etc.), it has now become popular to explain a person’s problems through the use of “repressed memories.” The idea behind repressed memory syndrome is that a person acts as he does due to events that transpired long ago, the memories of which have been “hidden” or “repressed” in his mind. Through the use of psychological therapy, a counselor “releases” these formerly-repressed memories, thus providing the answer to present-day actions or situations, and possibly providing the basis for a cure or solution.
However, genuine cases of repressed memories causing psychological problems may be fewer than fashionable opinion suggests. Elizabeth Loftus, an outspoken critic of the misuse of repressed memory therapy, has suggested that “the pressure to find memories can be very great” (1995, 19:25). Loftus also observed:
A recent survey of doctoral-level psychologists indicates that as many as a quarter may harbor beliefs and engage in practices that are questionable. That these kinds of activities can and do sometimes lead to false memories seems now to be beyond dispute. That these kinds of activities can create false victims, as well as hurt true ones, also seems now to be beyond dispute (1995, 19:24).
While Loftus, and others like her, do not desire to “throw the baby out with the bath water” by suggesting that there are no such things as genuine repressed memories, they urge caution at every turn so that neither the therapist nor the patient is tempted to “invent” memories merely for the sake of “feeling better.” As Loftus has noted about various kinds of claims based on repressed memories, “...not all claims are true” (1995, 19:28; see also Bower, 1993a, 1993b).

THE BIBLICAL RESPONSE

The increasing use of the excuse, “I’m not guilty, I’m just sick,” to absolve one of moral responsibility for his own actions should be of concern to every Christian, as should the idea that people cannot be held accountable due to the fact that they are a “victim” of their upbringing, their environment, or their genetic predispositions. The idea that the blame must always be placed somewhere else, Sykes has remarked,
...is a formula for social gridlock: the irresistible search for someone or something to blame colliding with the unmovable unwillingness to accept responsibility.... If everyone is a victim, then no one is. But it is increasingly obvious that victimization has become the too plausible, too pat explanation for all that ails us. Tragically, its evocation has the effect of distracting attention from actual causes and from legitimate policy response to those problems. The science of victimization is the quackery of our times (1992, pp. 15,18).
Sykes has suggested, therefore, that it is time for a “moratorium on blame” because “blame has become the all-purpose excuse to do nothing. It is time to drop the crutch” (1992, p. 253). But how might that be accomplished. And what should be our response to the concept of “not guilty, just sick”?
First, Christians must accept the idea of personal moral responsibility (Romans 14:12), despite the trends in society to the contrary. In this regard, Winford Claiborne has asked: “When are we going to awaken to the truth that we are products of our own choices and must pay the consequences?... What has happened to human responsibility in America?” (1995, p. 100). Sykes suggested the same cure when he wrote: “Recognizing our own responsibility and the need to stop blaming others is the first step toward dismantling the culture of victimization” (1992, p. 253).
Second, we cannot, with impunity, overlook the fact that each accountable person was created by God with freedom of choice. The adage that we are “free moral agents” is true; the Scriptures are clear on that point. When Jesus addressed the Pharisees in John 5:39-40, He told them: “Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.” The Pharisees could have come to Christ in humble obedience, but they freely chose not to. When Joshua addressed the Israelites shortly before his death, he urged them to “choose you this day whom you will serve...” (Joshua 24:15). The Israelites, possessing freedom of choice, were now being instructed on the use of that freedom of choice. That we are creatures made in God’s image, and possessing freedom of choice in our actions, is affirmed throughout Holy Writ.
Third, since we were created with the ability to make our own choices, each accountable person has a responsibility to choose wisely and correctly. And most people know that from simple common sense, as Sykes has noted:
At some level of our being, we all know that something is required of us, however much we may try to shake it off. Instinctively and rationally, we know our responsibilities; we know that we are not sick when we are merely weak; we know that others are not to blame when we have erred; we know that the world does not exist to make us happy (1992, p. 255).
Choices have consequences, which is why it is so important that our choices be circumscribed by the Word of God. It is useless to continually blame the Devil, our fellows, our genes, or the environment of our youth for the problems that we cause ourselves through our own bad choices. For example, even if it were true that there exists some kind of biological causative factor for predisposition to alcohol, no one forces the alcoholic to take the first drink, or to continue to drink. While the choice not to drink might be difficult, and even require medical assistance, that choice is available, nevertheless. Furthermore, treatment and counseling are available to assist the alcoholic with his problem.
Regardless of whether “genetic predispositions” toward certain conditions do exist, and regardless of whether evil things happened to us in our “forgotten” past, the fact nevertheless remains that not a day passes that we do not have to make personal choices. Sometimes those choices are quite easy; sometimes they are terribly difficult. And more often than not, it is the choices we make that affect our lives the most. No one has to live in sin. In fact, the apostle Paul, after enumerating several sinful conditions, wrote of the Christians in Corinth in the first century: “And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 6:11; emp. added). It may be difficult, but it is not impossible, to transform our lives into the image of Christ. Genetic predispositions (if they do, in fact, exist), or environmental conditions, may make our choices more difficult, but they do not rob us of the ability to make the correct choice.

CONCLUSION

Professor Hobart Mowrer taught at both Harvard and Yale, and was a one-time president of the American Psychological Association. In an article in the official organ of that society, the American Psychologist, Dr. Mowrer lamented the demise of the concepts of sin and personal responsibility when he wrote:
For several decades we psychologists looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and acclaimed our liberation from it as epoch making. But at length we have discovered that to be free in this sense, that is, to have the excuse of being sick rather than sinful, is to court the danger of also becoming lost. This danger is, I believe, betokened by the widespread interest in existentialism, which we are presently witnessing. In becoming amoral, ethically neutral and free, we have cut the very roots of our being, lost our deepest sense of selfhood and identity, and with neurotics, themselves, we find ourselves asking, “Who am I, what is my deepest destiny, what does living mean?” (as quoted in Zacharias, 1994, p. 138).
Humans have always sought a way to shift the blame for their sinful actions. They have shifted the blame onto Satan, they have shifted the blame to those around them, and now it is popular to find a medical or environmental scapegoat, thus relieving the sinner of any personal responsibility. These attitudes, however, ignore Christ’s admonishment that “the Son of man shall come in glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds” (Matthew 16:27; emp. added).

REFERENCES

Bower, Bruce (1993a), “Sudden Recall,” Science News, 144[12]:184-186, September 18.
Bower, Bruce (1993b), “The Survivor Syndrome,” Science News, 144[13]:202-204, September 25.
Claiborne, Winford (1995), “Charles J. Sykes’ A Nation of Victims: A Book Review,” Family, Church, and Society Restoration and Renewal, ed. David L. Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University).
Loftus, Elizabeth (1995), “Remembering Dangerously,” Skeptical Inquirer, 19[2]:20-29, March/April.
Menninger, Karl (1973), Whatever Became of Sin? (New York: Hawthorn Books).
Peele, Stanton (1989), The Diseasing of America (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books).
Sykes, Charles J. (1992), A Nation of Victims: The Decay of the American Character (New York: St. Martin’s Press).
Zacharias, Ravi (1994), Can Man Live Without God (Dallas, TX: Word).