From Gary... In the twinkling of an eye

This is just a photo of a drop of water, but to me it means more than that. It captures something that occurs so quickly that we would never see it otherwise and that is amazing.  Now, I am unsure whether or not this picture has been manipulated, but, if not, then this is even more astonishing (because of the colors)!!!  Consider the following...

1 Corinthians, Chapter 15

 51  Behold, I tell you a mystery. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,  52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed.  53 For this perishable body must become imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable body will have become imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then what is written will happen: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 

  55 “Death, where is your sting?

Hades, where is your victory?”

  56  The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.  57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.  58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the Lord’s work, because you know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. 

I met a neighbor this morning while I was walking my dogs and when he stopped his vehicle to say hello. I was pleasantly surprised!!! Surprised, not so much by the event, as by his condition. You see, he has severe breathing problems and I ALWAYS see him with his oxygen backpack, but he didn't have it with him.  I greeted him with my customary "Every day above ground is a good day" and he returned with something like "We are only promised the last breath we have taken".  This made an impression on me, as I knew right away that his statement held special significance.

Considering how fast things can change for we who are human beings, I encourage you to relish every moment you have on this earth; it may be your last. But, just as quickly as the picture, you, who belong to the LORD JESUS CHRIST, may in fact be changed and be with the LORD!!!  How, this happens- I do not know.  Perhaps someone will invent a camera capable of revealing this?  And I would love a copy of THAT PICTURE!!!  

Need a little more encouragement; read the whole of 1 Corinthians, chapter 15!!!!

PS. I forgot to mention the quick photography above forms a crown- so does that which occurs in the "twinkling of an eye"!!!!

From Gary... Bible Reading April 21

Bible Reading  

April 21

The World English Bible

Apr. 21

Numbers 33, 34

Num 33:1 These are the journeys of the children of Israel, when they went forth out of the land of Egypt by their armies under the hand of Moses and Aaron.

Num 33:2 Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Yahweh: and these are their journeys according to their goings out.

Num 33:3 They traveled from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the next day after the Passover the children of Israel went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians,

Num 33:4 while the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn, whom Yahweh had struck among them: on their gods also Yahweh executed judgments.

Num 33:5 The children of Israel traveled from Rameses, and encamped in Succoth.

Num 33:6 They traveled from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, which is in the edge of the wilderness.

Num 33:7 They traveled from Etham, and turned back to Pihahiroth, which is before Baal Zephon: and they encamped before Migdol.

Num 33:8 They traveled from before Hahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness: and they went three days' journey in the wilderness of Etham, and encamped in Marah.

Num 33:9 They traveled from Marah, and came to Elim: and in Elim were twelve springs of water, and seventy palm trees; and they encamped there.

Num 33:10 They traveled from Elim, and encamped by the Red Sea.

Num 33:11 They traveled from the Red Sea, and encamped in the wilderness of Sin.

Num 33:12 They traveled from the wilderness of Sin, and encamped in Dophkah.

Num 33:13 They traveled from Dophkah, and encamped in Alush.

Num 33:14 They traveled from Alush, and encamped in Rephidim, where there was no water for the people to drink.

Num 33:15 They traveled from Rephidim, and encamped in the wilderness of Sinai.

Num 33:16 They traveled from the wilderness of Sinai, and encamped in Kibroth Hattaavah.

Num 33:17 They traveled from Kibroth Hattaavah, and encamped in Hazeroth.

Num 33:18 They traveled from Hazeroth, and encamped in Rithmah.

Num 33:19 They traveled from Rithmah, and encamped in Rimmon Perez.

Num 33:20 They traveled from Rimmon Perez, and encamped in Libnah.

Num 33:21 They traveled from Libnah, and encamped in Rissah.

Num 33:22 They traveled from Rissah, and encamped in Kehelathah.

Num 33:23 They traveled from Kehelathah, and encamped in Mount Shepher.

Num 33:24 They traveled from Mount Shepher, and encamped in Haradah.

Num 33:25 They traveled from Haradah, and encamped in Makheloth.

Num 33:26 They traveled from Makheloth, and encamped in Tahath.

Num 33:27 They traveled from Tahath, and encamped in Terah.

Num 33:28 They traveled from Terah, and encamped in Mithkah.

Num 33:29 They traveled from Mithkah, and encamped in Hashmonah.

Num 33:30 They traveled from Hashmonah, and encamped in Moseroth.

Num 33:31 They traveled from Moseroth, and encamped in Bene Jaakan.

Num 33:32 They traveled from Bene Jaakan, and encamped in Hor Haggidgad.

Num 33:33 They traveled from Hor Haggidgad, and encamped in Jotbathah.

Num 33:34 They traveled from Jotbathah, and encamped in Abronah.

Num 33:35 They traveled from Abronah, and encamped in Ezion Geber.

Num 33:36 They traveled from Ezion Geber, and encamped in the wilderness of Zin (the same is Kadesh).

Num 33:37 They traveled from Kadesh, and encamped in Mount Hor, in the edge of the land of Edom.

Num 33:38 Aaron the priest went up into Mount Hor at the commandment of Yahweh, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first day of the month.

Num 33:39 Aaron was one hundred twenty-three years old when he died in Mount Hor.

Num 33:40 The Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the South in the land of Canaan, heard of the coming of the children of Israel.

Num 33:41 They traveled from Mount Hor, and encamped in Zalmonah.

Num 33:42 They traveled from Zalmonah, and encamped in Punon.

Num 33:43 They traveled from Punon, and encamped in Oboth.

Num 33:44 They traveled from Oboth, and encamped in Iye Abarim, in the border of Moab.

Num 33:45 They traveled from Iyim, and encamped in Dibon Gad.

Num 33:46 They traveled from Dibon Gad, and encamped in Almon Diblathaim.

Num 33:47 They traveled from Almon Diblathaim, and encamped in the mountains of Abarim, before Nebo.

Num 33:48 They traveled from the mountains of Abarim, and encamped in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.

Num 33:49 They encamped by the Jordan, from Beth Jeshimoth even to Abel Shittim in the plains of Moab.

Num 33:50 Yahweh spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying,

Num 33:51 Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan,

Num 33:52 then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places:

Num 33:53 and you shall take possession of the land, and dwell therein; for I have given given the land to you to possess it.

Num 33:54 You shall inherit the land by lot according to your families; to the more you shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer you shall give the less inheritance: wherever the lot falls to any man, that shall be his. You shall inherit according to the tribes of your fathers.

Num 33:55 But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those you let remain of them will be as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will harass you in the land in which you dwell.

Num 33:56 It shall happen that as I thought to do to them, so will I do to you.

Num 34:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,

Num 34:2 Command the children of Israel, and tell them, When you come into the land of Canaan (this is the land that shall fall to you for an inheritance, even the land of Canaan according to its borders),

Num 34:3 then your south quarter shall be from the wilderness of Zin along by the side of Edom, and your south border shall be from the end of the Salt Sea eastward;

Num 34:4 and your border shall turn about southward of the ascent of Akrabbim, and pass along to Zin; and the goings out of it shall be southward of Kadesh Barnea; and it shall go forth to Hazar Addar, and pass along to Azmon;

Num 34:5 and the border shall turn about from Azmon to the brook of Egypt, and the goings out of it shall be at the sea.

Num 34:6 For the western border, you shall have the great sea and the border of it: this shall be your west border.

Num 34:7 This shall be your north border: from the great sea you shall mark out for you Mount Hor;

Num 34:8 from Mount Hor you shall mark out to the entrance of Hamath; and the goings out of the border shall be at Zedad;

Num 34:9 and the border shall go forth to Ziphron, and the goings out of it shall be at Hazar Enan: this shall be your north border.

Num 34:10 You shall mark out your east border from Hazar Enan to Shepham;

Num 34:11 and the border shall go down from Shepham to Riblah, on the east side of Ain; and the border shall go down, and shall reach to the side of the sea of Chinnereth eastward;

Num 34:12 and the border shall go down to the Jordan, and the goings out of it shall be at the Salt Sea. This shall be your land according to its borders around it.

Num 34:13 Moses commanded the children of Israel, saying, This is the land which you shall inherit by lot, which Yahweh has commanded to give to the nine tribes, and to the half-tribe;

Num 34:14 for the tribe of the children of Reuben according to their fathers' houses, and the tribe of the children of Gad according to their fathers' houses, have received, and the half-tribe of Manasseh have received, their inheritance:

Num 34:15 the two tribes and the half-tribe have received their inheritance beyond the Jordan at Jericho eastward, toward the sunrise.

Num 34:16 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,

Num 34:17 These are the names of the men who shall divide the land to you for inheritance: Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun.

Num 34:18 You shall take one prince of every tribe, to divide the land for inheritance.

Num 34:19 These are the names of the men: Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh.

Num 34:20 Of the tribe of the children of Simeon, Shemuel the son of Ammihud.

Num 34:21 Of the tribe of Benjamin, Elidad the son of Chislon.

Num 34:22 Of the tribe of the children of Dan a prince, Bukki the son of Jogli.

Num 34:23 Of the children of Joseph: of the tribe of the children of Manasseh a prince, Hanniel the son of Ephod.

Num 34:24 Of the tribe of the children of Ephraim a prince, Kemuel the son of Shiphtan.

Num 34:25 Of the tribe of the children of Zebulun a prince, Elizaphan the son of Parnach.

Num 34:26 Of the tribe of the children of Issachar a prince, Paltiel the son of Azzan.

Num 34:27 Of the tribe of the children of Asher a prince, Ahihud the son of Shelomi.

Num 34:28 Of the tribe of the children of Naphtali a prince, Pedahel the son of Ammihud.

Num 34:29 These are they whom Yahweh commanded to divide the inheritance to the children of Israel in the land of Canaan.

 Apr. 20, 21

Luke 12

Luk 12:1 Meanwhile, when a multitude of many thousands had gathered together, so much so that they trampled on each other, he began to tell his disciples first of all, "Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

Luk 12:2 But there is nothing covered up, that will not be revealed, nor hidden, that will not be known.

Luk 12:3 Therefore whatever you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light. What you have spoken in the ear in the inner chambers will be proclaimed on the housetops.

Luk 12:4 "I tell you, my friends, don't be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.

Luk 12:5 But I will warn you whom you should fear. Fear him, who after he has killed, has power to cast into Gehenna. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

Luk 12:6 "Aren't five sparrows sold for two assaria coins? Not one of them is forgotten by God.

Luk 12:7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Therefore don't be afraid. You are of more value than many sparrows.

Luk 12:8 "I tell you, everyone who confesses me before men, him will the Son of Man also confess before the angels of God;

Luk 12:9 but he who denies me in the presence of men will be denied in the presence of the angels of God.

Luk 12:10 Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

Luk 12:11 When they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, don't be anxious how or what you will answer, or what you will say;

Luk 12:12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that same hour what you must say."

Luk 12:13 One of the multitude said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me."

Luk 12:14 But he said to him, "Man, who made me a judge or an arbitrator over you?"

Luk 12:15 He said to them, "Beware! Keep yourselves from covetousness, for a man's life doesn't consist of the abundance of the things which he possesses."

Luk 12:16 He spoke a parable to them, saying, "The ground of a certain rich man brought forth abundantly.

Luk 12:17 He reasoned within himself, saying, 'What will I do, because I don't have room to store my crops?'

Luk 12:18 He said, 'This is what I will do. I will pull down my barns, and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods.

Luk 12:19 I will tell my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years. Take your ease, eat, drink, be merry." '

Luk 12:20 "But God said to him, 'You foolish one, tonight your soul is required of you. The things which you have prepared-whose will they be?'

Luk 12:21 So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."

Luk 12:22 He said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, don't be anxious for your life, what you will eat, nor yet for your body, what you will wear.

Luk 12:23 Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing.

Luk 12:24 Consider the ravens: they don't sow, they don't reap, they have no warehouse or barn, and God feeds them. How much more valuable are you than birds!

Luk 12:25 Which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his height?

Luk 12:26 If then you aren't able to do even the least things, why are you anxious about the rest?

Luk 12:27 Consider the lilies, how they grow. They don't toil, neither do they spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

Luk 12:28 But if this is how God clothes the grass in the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith?

Luk 12:29 Don't seek what you will eat or what you will drink; neither be anxious.

Luk 12:30 For the nations of the world seek after all of these things, but your Father knows that you need these things.

Luk 12:31 But seek God's Kingdom, and all these things will be added to you.

Luk 12:32 Don't be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom.

Luk 12:33 Sell that which you have, and give gifts to the needy. Make for yourselves purses which don't grow old, a treasure in the heavens that doesn't fail, where no thief approaches, neither moth destroys.

Luk 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Luk 12:35 "Let your waist be girded and your lamps burning.

Luk 12:36 Be like men watching for their lord, when he returns from the marriage feast; that, when he comes and knocks, they may immediately open to him.

Luk 12:37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord will find watching when he comes. Most certainly I tell you, that he will dress himself, and make them recline, and will come and serve them.

Luk 12:38 They will be blessed if he comes in the second or third watch, and finds them so.

Luk 12:39 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what hour the thief was coming, he would have watched, and not allowed his house to be broken into.

Luk 12:40 Therefore be ready also, for the Son of Man is coming in an hour that you don't expect him."

Luk 12:41 Peter said to him, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everybody?"

Luk 12:42 The Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the right times?

Luk 12:43 Blessed is that servant whom his lord will find doing so when he comes.

Luk 12:44 Truly I tell you, that he will set him over all that he has.

Luk 12:45 But if that servant says in his heart, 'My lord delays his coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken,

Luk 12:46 then the lord of that servant will come in a day when he isn't expecting him, and in an hour that he doesn't know, and will cut him in two, and place his portion with the unfaithful.

Luk 12:47 That servant, who knew his lord's will, and didn't prepare, nor do what he wanted, will be beaten with many stripes,

Luk 12:48 but he who didn't know, and did things worthy of stripes, will be beaten with few stripes. To whoever much is given, of him will much be required; and to whom much was entrusted, of him more will be asked.

Luk 12:49 "I came to throw fire on the earth. I wish it were already kindled.

Luk 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!

Luk 12:51 Do you think that I have come to give peace in the earth? I tell you, no, but rather division.

Luk 12:52 For from now on, there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

Luk 12:53 They will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against her mother; mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

Luk 12:54 He said to the multitudes also, "When you see a cloud rising from the west, immediately you say, 'A shower is coming,' and so it happens.

Luk 12:55 When a south wind blows, you say, 'There will be a scorching heat,' and it happens.

Luk 12:56 You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky, but how is it that you don't interpret this time?

Luk 12:57 Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?

Luk 12:58 For when you are going with your adversary before the magistrate, try diligently on the way to be released from him, lest perhaps he drag you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison.

Luk 12:59 I tell you, you will by no means get out of there, until you have paid the very last penny." 

From Jim McGuiggan... James 5 and anointing with oil

James 5 and anointing with oil

 There's a series of trickly little questions connected with James 5:14-16. What’s the significance of anointing a sick man with oil? Should Christians practice it? Is the sick person certain to get better? Or is it all about "spiritual" sickness since it mentions sins and forgiveness?

I’m sure the first part of it is the simplest. They aren’t anointing the sick man with oil as a medicinal therapy. It’s an expression of their faith that God can heal the man. Men and women in the West prepare for the usual day by things like showering, shaving (usually the men do that), make up (usually the women do that), after-shave, perfume, clean shirt et cetera, et cetera, et cetera (as the King of Siam would say). It’s a nice routine and it suggests it’s going to be another normal day. Middle-Eastern people and in biblical texts went through a similar procedure. Part of that procedure was to anoint the head with oil.

If they were mourning or fasting or devoting themselves to some special ritual they would leave off the usual sprucing up and it would be easily seen. Christ protested against a hypocritical show of religiosity and urged his followers not to parade their devotion but to do the usual—anoint their heads etc (see Matthew 6:16-18). Then in Mark 6:13 when they were about to heal someone miraculously the apostolic group would anoint them with oil. They were getting them ready to take their usual place in society. Since they were about to heal them miraculously the oil had no medicinal purpose. It was an expression of faith that they would be healed.

When David was anxious for the life of his baby he remained unwashed and used no oil. But as soon as he heard the baby had died and there was little further point in fervent prayer that it might live he rose and anointed himself (2 Samuel 12:16-20 and see Daniel 10:2-3). All that to say that the modern equivalent, I suppose, would be to shave a man and set out his clothes at the ready.

Was it a guarantee that the man would be healed? I don’t think so. There were times (well, at least once) when the apostles failed to heal a man’s child from demonic affliction and Paul’s prayer for healing in 2 Corinthians 12 did not result in healing. You can multiply illustrations of this. A prayer of faith is not a prayer that knows the outcome of a specific petition. A prayer of faith is not an exercise of foreknowledge. It is no failure of faith if a healing does not occur. It is no failure of faith if a loved one dies though we prayer for her recovery. Faith often fervently asks for one thing but gladly, even if disappointed, settles for a "no". A prayer of faith is a prayer of trust and confession. It confesses that God can and will heal if indeed it suits his gracious purpose. 

I believe this sickness is some physical or emotional malady. It’s true it is connected with sin in this text. Sometimes sickness is connected with sin (see the hint of this in John 5:14 and see 1 Corinthians 11:30-31) but we shouldn’t draw such a conclusion without having good grounds for it. But the James text may not be linking sin with sickness as a cause of the sickness. James remembers well that his Lord healed people and made the visible healing signify the invisible forgiveness (see Matthew 9:1-8). So here James may well be offering the poor man the assurance that his soul was well with God as surely as his healed body.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

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

A Muslim Now In Congress? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1999

A Muslim Now In Congress?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The culture war being waged in America may be distilled into a single, fundamental conflict between Christianity (in the broad sense) and all other ideologies, religions, and philosophies. One particular intrusion making encroachments into America’s Christian values is the growing mainstream receptivity to non-Christian religion. Case in point: Minnesota’s 5th District Democrat Keith Ellison has become the first Muslim in American history to secure a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives (Freed, 2006).

Many Americans—those who have been influenced by the social and political liberalism of the last few years—consider this occurrence a laudable circumstance. They believe that such diversity is healthy and serves to strengthen the fabric of society. They have swallowed the politically correct propaganda touted for 50 years that pluralism is the superior ideology, and that all religions are equally valid, authentic, and true. But what would the Founders say? How receptive were they to the influx of non-Christian religions into the country and the government? What were their views, specifically, about Islam?

Interestingly enough, the Founders made multiple references to Islam (see Miller, 2005). We Americans often are so uninformed, even disinterested, in our history that we simply are oblivious to the views of the architects of the Republic—and the firmness with which they championed those views. One typical example would be the discussion that took place on the floor of the North Carolina State Convention that met to debate ratification of the U.S. Constitution. On Wednesday, July 30, 1788, Mr. Henry Abbot (a minister) initiated a discussion by articulating serious concerns entertained by some of the delegates. They were not convinced that the Constitution provided the same guarantees as the state constitution to practice Christianity according to their own interpretation of the Bible without interference from the federal government. They likewise were concerned that this guarantee of religious freedom to the exclusion of fixed religious test oaths might be distorted to allow false religions or even atheism to make encroachments:

Some are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, should the Constitution be received, they would be deprived of the privilege of worshipping God according to their consciences, which would be taking from them a benefit they enjoy under the present constitution. They wish to know if their religious and civil liberties be secured under this system, or whether the general government may not make laws infringing their religious liberties.... The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.... I would be glad [if] some gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections, in order to satisfy the religious part of the society (Elliot, 1836, 4:191-192, emp. added).

A response was offered by James Iredell, who, since the Revolution, had served the state of North Carolina both as a judge on the State Superior Court as well as State Attorney-General, and was soon to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by George Washington: “Mr. Chairman, nothing is more desirable than to remove the scruples of any gentleman on this interesting subject. Those concerning religion are entitled to particular respect” (Elliot, 4:192). He proceeded to explain at length that the establishment of one Christian sect above another has always led to persecution and war—as evidenced in Catholic countries as well as by the Church of England, from whence they had only recently extricated themselves. Consequently, the restriction placed on Congress in the federalConstitution would prevent the government from interfering with the free practice of the Christian religion. He then remarked:

But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagan and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be kept out of our counsels (Elliot, 4:494, emp. added).

Observe that Iredell conceded that in order for the Constitution to guarantee Christians the right to worship God according to their own conscience, non-Christians would inevitably be permitted the same constitutional protection. Indeed, the Founders would have never countenanced the persecution of atheists or those who espoused non-Christian religion. Are we to assume from this observation, however, that the Founders held non-Christian religions, like Islam, in high regard, or that they desired non-Christian religions to be encouraged, or that they sanctioned all religions as equally authentic and credible? Absolutely not! As Iredell further explained:

But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own. It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? It made much greater progress for itself, than when supported by the greatest authority upon earth (Elliot, 4:194, emp. added).

Iredell reasoned that by leaving the Constitution non-specific with regard to religion would prevent religious persecution. And further, tolerating non-Christian religions would not endanger the Founders’ assumption that Christianity would remain the worldview and moral framework that undergirds the nation. Why? Because he felt confident that Americans would never endanger their dearest rights by voting non-Christians (whether atheists or Muslims) into the government. Yet, tragically, we are doing just that. And did you notice Iredell’s allusion to “the divine Author of our religion”? What Author and what religion do you suppose he intended? He quoted that Author in his very next sentence: “Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?” Those words are the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18. The Author to Whom he referred was Christ, and Christ is the author of only one religion: Christianity.

Iredell next discoursed on the essentiality of an oath to be taken by those who wish to serve in political office. He insisted that this oath should contain two critical components: belief in a Supreme Being and belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. Neither of these two prerequisites to holding office were deemed a violation of the freedom of religion clause of the Constitution.

The next to speak was the Governor of North Carolina—Samuel Johnston. Eight years earlier he had served as a member of the Continental Congress. He, too, was astonished that some were concerned that the Constitution provided insufficient guarantee of the priority and free exercise of the Christian religion to the exclusion of competing religions:

I read the Constitution over and over, but could not see one cause of apprehension or jealousy on this subject. When I heard there were apprehensions that the pope of Romecould be the President of the United States, I was greatly astonished. It might as well be said that the king of England or France, or the Grand Turk [now obsolete term for Ottoman Empire Muslim leader—DM], could be chosen to that office. It would have been as good an argument. It appears to me that it would have been dangerous, if Congress could intermeddle with the subject of religion. True religion is derived from a much higher source than human laws. When any attempt is made, by any government, to restrain men’s consciences, no good consequence can possibly follow (Elliot, 4:198, emp. added).

Observe that the governor argued that the odds of a non-Protestant getting into office were so infinitesimal as not to merit any concern. Also, being the one true religion and having the backing of God Himself, Christianity can fend for itself without the “assistance” of human government. But then the governor offered a rather chilling prediction:

It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President, or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves (Elliot, 4:198-199, emp. added).

Does the Constitution allow Americans to elect to political office people who do not profess the Christian religion? Yes, it does. Would Americans ever actually do that? The Founders’ response: very unlikely and highly improbable. But if, indeed, it were ever to happen—it would be most unfortunate! Hear that, Minnesota?

Governor Johnston then explained that, though each of the 13 states was heavily populated by professors of one or more of the various Protestant denominations, “there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established” (Elliot, 4:199)—further testimony to the fact that the single religion of the United States was almost entirely Christian (in the form of Protestant sects) to the exclusion of atheism and the world religions. But Mr. David Caldwell (also a minister) rose and reiterated the lingering concern that danger might arise:

In the first place, he said, there was an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us. At some future period, said he, this might endanger the character of the United States. Moreover, even those who do not regard religion, acknowledge thatthe Christian religion is best calculated, of all religions, to make good members of society, on account of its morality. I think, then, added he, that, in a political view, those gentlemen who formed this Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and heathens. All those who have any religion are against the emigration of those people from the eastern hemisphere (Elliot, 4:199, emp. added).

In other words, Jews, pagans, and people from the eastern hemisphere (which certainly includes Muslims) would constitute a threat to the religious and moral foundation on which America was founded. Mr. Spencer rose to reaffirm the same two reassurances asserted by Governor Johnston:

It is feared...that persons of bad principles, deists, atheists, &c., may come into this country; and there is nothing to restrain them from being eligible to offices. He asked if it was reasonable to suppose that the people would choose men without regarding their characters.... But in this case, as there is not a religious test required, it leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority (Elliot, 4:200, emp. added).

Again, yes, we are concerned about the nation remaining firmly Christian in its overall thrust, but we cannot force everyone to take a religious oath without creating conflict. Therefore, (1) we mustA Muslim Now In Congress?  by Dave Miller, Ph.D. rely on the good sense of the American people to refrain from appointing to political office any who do not possess Christian character, and (2) Christianity is able to maintain its own credibility and superiority without any help from human government.

Governor Johnston brought the discussion to a close with an amicable summary of the mutual sentiments of the delegates, as reported in the following words:

He admitted a possibility of Jews, pagans, &c., emigrating to the United States; yet, he said, they could not be in proportion to the emigration of Christians who should come from other countries; that, in all probability, the children even of such people would be Christians; and that this, with the rapid population of the United States, their zeal for religion, and love of liberty, would, he trusted, add to the progress of the Christian religion among us (Elliot, 4:200, emp. added).

The Founders were literally walking a tightrope. On the one hand, they did not want to be coercive in the matter of religion. They did not want to cram Christianity down anyone’s throat. They wanted America to be free of religious persecution. On the other hand, they understood that the truthfulness and superiority of the Christian religion was the essential platform on which America’s political institutions were poised. So they assuaged their fears by consoling themselves with the thought that the American people would forever have the good sense to retain Christianity as the central religion of the nation, and that they would refrain from placing in political office anyone who did not share those religious and moral convictions. These early Americans surely would be incredulous, alarmed, and disappointed if they were here to witness the addition of a Muslim to the U.S. House of Representatives—let alone his insistence that he take the oath of office on the Quran rather than the Bible (“Rep. Ellison...,” 2007).

REFERENCES

Elliot, Jonathan, ed. (1836), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington, D.C.: Jonathan Elliot), [On-line], URL:http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html.

Freed, Joshua (2006), “Congress Gets First Muslim Lawmaker,” AOL News, November 8, [On-line],URL: http://news.aol.com/elections/house/story/_a/congress-gets-first-muslim- lawmaker/20061107221809990001.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Islam and Early America,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2686.

“Rep. Ellison Is 1st Muslim in Congress, Uses Koran in Photo-Op” (2007), Associated Press, January 5, [On-line], URL:: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241679,00.html.

"Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith" by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4704

"Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith"

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

We openly grant that the accusation represented by the title of this article is true, at least for many individuals today. But not for all.

“BLIND FAITH”—MANY HAVE IT

What is “blind faith”? What is meant by the accusation? The idea behind “blind faith” is that a person chooses to believe in something or someone (namely, God) without any supporting evidence. The portrait painted in our minds is that of a person who puts on a blindfold and steps up to a ledge. He cannot see what is beyond the ledge. He has no idea how far down the drop is—whether or not he will plummet to his death, break his legs, or simply fall down. He has no idea if there is water, a trampoline, or rocks at the bottom. He simply decides to believe that he will not die if he jumps off—that he will be safe. He has no evidence, only pure, baseless “faith.” So, he takes a “leap of faith.” Question: who in their right mind would do such a thing? Whoever has such a faith truly is naïve, an extremely emotionally, rather than rationally, charged individual, and possibly is in need of counseling, or has an agenda for having such a belief system.

Sadly many people have such a “faith.” Many people call themselves Christians, and claim to believe in the Bible, but clearly have not read it. They have a “blind faith” which, according to the Law of Rationality (Ruby, 1960, pp. 130-131), is irrational. Their belief in God is not based on the evidence, but is a blind leap into the dark without it. Philosphers call this phenomenon “fideism” (Popkin, 1967, 3:201-202). However, the biblical portrait of faith (Greek, pistis—translated equally as faith, belief, trust, or having confidence in; Arndt, et al., 1979, pp. 661-664) is not what some in Christendom have defined it to be nor what Hollywood has portrayed it to be. It is not “believing when common sense tells you not to,” as the 1947 movie, Miracle on 34^th Street suggested (Seaton). It is not a “leap of faith” like Dr. Jones’ actions in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Spielberg, 1989). The Bible does not advocate a “Feel, don’t think” mentality, like that encouraged by Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars(Lucas, 1999). Biblical faith is based on evidence (Hebrews 11:1). It is trust—comparable to the trust one has in a parent or friend—that is based on proof. We trust someone when he has proven himself to be trustworthy. When one listens to or reads revelation from God’s Word (i.e., what Bible believers call “special revelation”) and the information therein proves to be true, one develops faith in God (Romans 10:17). When one examines the evidence from the created order (i.e., what Bible believers call “general revelation”), and it points to the existence of a supernatural Being as Creator—rather than blind, random, accidental change over time—we learn to trust God based on that evidence.

In short: The biblical model of faith requires evidence. According to the biblical model, the truth of God can be known—not felt or accepted without proof—and it will set men free (John 8:32). Sincere truth seekers examine what they have been told and investigate its veracity by pondering the evidence, as did the “fair-minded” Bereans of Acts 17:11, before becoming Christians. In fact, God (through Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:21) tells the creationist that he is expected to prove or test something before believing it—only accepting what has been proven right or good. Do such passages give the impression that the Bible advocates a blind, evidence-less faith?

Sadly, evidence-based faith is not the faith of many within Christendom. But “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Many of us base our view squarely on the evidence—such as the evidence presented below. [NOTE: See Miller, 2003a for more on the topic of “blind faith” and the Bible. Also,Miller, 2003b.]

BUT WE DON’T

In order for a belief to not be “blind” or irrational, it needs supporting evidence. While the creationist does not claim to hold direct, observable evidence of God, since we cannot taste, touch, see, hear, or smell Him, the indirect evidence—a legitimate source of scientific evidence—is overwhelming. What supporting evidence do creationists put forth? A thorough treatment of this subject is outside the scope of this article, but hundreds of articles and books deal eloquently and credibly with the subject. [NOTE: See www.apologeticpress.org for a library of said material.]

In short, the creationist argues, among other things, that:

1. The available evidence contradicts the atheistic model (cf. Miller, 2012b; Miller, 2013c), which logically leaves theism—the Creation model;
2. The fundamental evidence that contradicts the naturalistic model, supports the contentions of the creation model, which never contradicts the scientific evidence;
3. The existence and teachings of the laws of science demand a non-material, uncaused Cause for the Universe;
4. There are numerous natural evidences in the Universe that exhibit the characteristics of intent, purpose, and complexity, which indicate a Mind behind them. Such attributes testify to the presence of intelligent design, which implies a Designer;
5. Objective morality exists, which implies a higher Law that transcends mankind, which in turn demands a supernatural Author;
6. A Book exists that contains certain characteristics that can only be explainable if it is what it says it is—the Word of the Creator.

These proofs, and many others, provide evidence that demands an explanation and cannot be satiated by naturalistic theories. Only supernatural Creation provides an answer in keeping with the evidence. The Creation model can hardly be deemed unscientific. Its legitimate followers cannot be brushed aside as “blind” believers. Such sweeping accusations are unfair and betray a prejudiced, stereotypical mindset, to say nothing of the fact that such accusations fall victim to the ad hominemlogical fallacy (“Fallacies,” 2012).

ACTUALLY, EVOLUTIONISTS DO

In truth, Creation is the reasonable choice—the one not beholden to evidence-less leaps of faith. It is not contingent on the baseless, mythical claim that aliens exist and initiated life on Earth (cf. Miller, 2013a); that abiogenesis—like magic from a fictional novel—is somehow possible (cf. Miller, 2012b); that non-humans give birth to humans, as they do in the tabloids (cf. Flew and Warren, 1977, pp. 25,45,65); or the fanciful idea that Universes spontaneously pop into existence (cf. Miller, 2013c). Indeed, atheistic evolution is simply well-packaged superstition. Creation is the option in keeping with reason and the evidence.

While some who call themselves “Christians,” do, indeed, have an unscriptural, blind faith, in truth, the same can be said of the evolutionary community—and more so. Why? (1) Because unlike evolution, the evidence does not contradict Creation but supports it, even though some have accepted Creation without that evidence; (2) because not all creationists hold to a blind faith. Some examine the evidence and draw the reasonable conclusion that a Creator exists. However, all naturalists musthave a blind, evidence-less faith, since atheistic evolution is based on certain baseless, unprovable assumptions, including abiogenesis, naturalism, spontaneous generation or the eternality of matter, etc. (cf. Miller, 2013b and Kerkut, 1960 for other key, baseless evolutionary assumptions). Belief in those assumptions is purely blind. They (1) are not supported by the evidence, which classifies evolution as irrational; (2) actually contradict the evidence; and (3) even show the naturalist to be engaged in self-contradiction, which he blindly ignores when confronted with the evidence of his contradictions (cf. Miller, 2012a). It seems clear that it is the evolutionist—not the creationist—who holds to a blind faith.

Consider the following timeless quotes from various prominent evolutionists concerning the character of the naturalist’s faith:

• Robert Jastrow, evolutionary astronomer and founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA: “At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists  [i.e., naturalists—JM] are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is alsoan act of faith. The act of faith consists inassuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief” (1977, pp. 62-63, emp. added).
• John Sullivan, once a popular evolutionary science writer: “The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith” (1933, p. 95, emp. added).
• Richard Lewontin, evolutionary geneticist of Harvard University: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs..., in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”(1997, p. 31, 2^nd and 4^th emp. in orig.).
• G.A. Kerkut, British evolutionary physiologist: Spontaneous generation is “a matter of faith on the part of the biologist…. The evidence for what did happen is not available” (1960, p. 150, emp. added).
• Loren Eiseley, evolutionary anthropologist of the University of Pennsylvania: “With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having tocreate a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past” (1957, pp. 201-202, emp. added).
• Robert Hazen, evolutionary geologist who received his doctoral degree in Earth Science from Harvard University, a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Laboratory, and a professor of Earth Science at George Mason University: “I make anassumption that life emerged from basic raw materials through a sequence of events that was completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. Even with this scientific approach, there is a possibility that we’ll never know—in fact, that we can’t ever know. It is possible that life emerged by an almost infinitely improbable sequence of difficult chemical reactions. If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicated in a program of lab experiments. If the origin of life was an infinitely improbable accident, then there’s absolutely nothing you or I or anyone else could do to figure out how it happened. I must tell you, that’s a depressing thought to someone like me who has devoted a decade to understanding the origin of life” (2005, emp. added).
• Fred Hoyle, distinguished atheistic British astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at University College, Cardiff, Wales: “It is doubtful that anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth’s surface to produce large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the ‘primeval soup theory’ of the origin of life, scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are just as inaccessible to the empirical approach” (1978, p. 26, emp. added).

If these quotes from eminent evolutionists do not prove that naturalistic evolution is a religious faith, and a blind one at that, what would? It’s no wonder that the late Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, said about evolution, “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory” (1981, emp. added). These quotes simply do not characterize true Christianity or the true Creation model—but they do characterize evolution.

Thus, it seems that the rank and file evolutionist’s self-incriminating, venomous accusations towards the creationist are well-represented by the Shakespearean quote, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (III.2). Be wary of the one who makes accusations the loudest and attempts to deflect attention from his own inadequacies.

Bottom line: The true model of origins will be based on the evidence. It will be the rational model. It will not contradict the evidence at every turn. So atheistic evolution is not the true model of origins.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.

Eiseley, Loren (1957), The Immense Journey (New York: Random House).

“Fallacies” (2012), The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill,http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/fallacies.

Flew, Antony G.N. and Thomas B. Warren (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God(Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1978), Lifecloud (New York: Harper & Row).

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).

Lewontin, Richard (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9.

Lucas, George, dir. (1999), Star Wars Episode I—The Phantom Menace, Lucasfilm.

Miller, Dave (2003a), “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=444.

Miller, Dave (2003b), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation--EXTENDED VERSION,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1399.

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Reason & Revelation, 32[5]:53, May, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1029&article=1763.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Miller, Jeff (2013a), “Directed Panspermia and Little, Green (Non-Existent) Men from Outer Space,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4620.

Miller, Jeff (2013b), “Don’t Assume Too Much: Not All Assumptions in Science Are Bad,” Reason & Revelation, 33[6]: 62-64,69-70, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1122&article=2153.

Miller, Jeff (2013c), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: the Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2786.

Patterson, Colin (1981), Written transcript made from audio tape of lecture presented at the American Museum of Natural History, November.

Popkin, Richard (1967), “Fideism” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: McMillan).

Ruby, Lionel (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott).

Seaton, George (1947), Miracle on 34^th Street, Twentieth Century Fox.

Shakespeare, William (2011), Hamlet, The Literature Network, http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/hamlet/10/.

Spielberg, Steven, dir. (1989), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Paramount Pictures.

Sullivan, J.W.N. (1933), Limitations of Science (New York: Viking Press).