February 25, 2016

From Gary... That missing article


There is TRUTH! It is NOT relative because if everyone's truth is correct, then there is NO TRUTH! Everything becomes opinion and morality is impossible. Society then degenerates into anarchy and humans become little more than intelligent "beasts". 

The picture above is wrong: The pill should be labeled THE TRUTH. And absolute TRUTH resides only in the realm of the almighty and has been delivered to us only through the Bible. The world offers flesh, lust and pride, but GOD gives grace and TRUTH....

1 John, Chapter 2 (WEB)
 15  Don’t love the world, neither the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the Father’s love isn’t in him.  16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, isn’t the Father’s, but is the world’s.  17 The world is passing away with its lusts, but he who does God’s will remains forever. 

John, Chapter 1 (WEB)
14 The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.  15 John testified about him. He cried out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was before me.’”  16 From his fullness we all received grace upon grace.  17 For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ

So why don't people accept THE TRUTH? Sin, in one form or another is the answer. Don't think I am right about this? Consider...

2 John (WEB)
  4  I rejoice greatly that I have found some of your children walking in truth, even as we have been commanded by the Father.  5 Now I beg you, dear lady, not as though I wrote to you a new commandment, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.  6 This is love, that we should walk according to his commandments. This is the commandment, even as you heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.  7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don’t confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist.  8 Watch yourselves, that we don’t lose the things which we have accomplished, but that we receive a full reward.  9 Whoever transgresses and doesn’t remain in the teaching of Christ, doesn’t have God. He who remains in the teaching, the same has both the Father and the Son.

So, we have a choice, accept God's truth or something we decide is true. One choice leads to heaven- one does NOT! Make your choice and I will make mine. Swallowing time.

From Gary... Bible Reading February 25


Bible Reading  

February 25

The World English Bible

Feb. 25
Exodus 6

Exo 6:1 Yahweh said to Moses, "Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh, for by a strong hand he shall let them go, and by a strong hand he shall drive them out of his land."
Exo 6:2 God spoke to Moses, and said to him, "I am Yahweh;
Exo 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them.
Exo 6:4 I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their travels, in which they lived as aliens.
Exo 6:5 Moreover I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage, and I have remembered my covenant.
Exo 6:6 Therefore tell the children of Israel, 'I am Yahweh, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments:
Exo 6:7 and I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and you shall know that I am Yahweh your God, who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
Exo 6:8 I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it to you for a heritage: I am Yahweh.' "
Exo 6:9 Moses spoke so to the children of Israel, but they didn't listen to Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.
Exo 6:10 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
Exo 6:11 "Go in, speak to Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land."
Exo 6:12 Moses spoke before Yahweh, saying, "Behold, the children of Israel haven't listened to me. How then shall Pharaoh listen to me, who am of uncircumcised lips?"
Exo 6:13 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and gave them a command to the children of Israel, and to Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.
Exo 6:14 These are the heads of their fathers' houses. The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel: Hanoch, and Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi; these are the families of Reuben.
Exo 6:15 The sons of Simeon: Jemuel, and Jamin, and Ohad, and Jachin, and Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanite woman; these are the families of Simeon.
Exo 6:16 These are the names of the sons of Levi according to their generations: Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari; and the years of the life of Levi were one hundred thirty-seven years.
Exo 6:17 The sons of Gershon: Libni and Shimei, according to their families.
Exo 6:18 The sons of Kohath: Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel; and the years of the life of Kohath were one hundred thirty-three years.
Exo 6:19 The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites according to their generations.
Exo 6:20 Amram took Jochebed his father's sister to himself as wife; and she bore him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were a hundred and thirty-seven years.
Exo 6:21 The sons of Izhar: Korah, and Nepheg, and Zichri.
Exo 6:22 The sons of Uzziel: Mishael, and Elzaphan, and Sithri.
Exo 6:23 Aaron took Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, the sister of Nahshon, as his wife; and she bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
Exo 6:24 The sons of Korah: Assir, and Elkanah, and Abiasaph; these are the families of the Korahites.
Exo 6:25 Eleazar Aaron's son took one of the daughters of Putiel as his wife; and she bore him Phinehas. These are the heads of the fathers' houses of the Levites according to their families.
Exo 6:26 These are that Aaron and Moses, to whom Yahweh said, "Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt according to their armies."
Exo 6:27 These are those who spoke to Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel from Egypt. These are that Moses and Aaron.
Exo 6:28 It happened on the day when Yahweh spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt,
Exo 6:29 that Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, "I am Yahweh. Speak to Pharaoh king of Egypt all that I speak to you."
Exo 6:30 Moses said before Yahweh, "Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh listen to me?"


Feb. 24, 25
Matthew 28

Mat 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.
Mat 28:2 Behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from the sky, and came and rolled away the stone from the door, and sat on it.
Mat 28:3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow.
Mat 28:4 For fear of him, the guards shook, and became like dead men.
Mat 28:5 The angel answered the women, "Don't be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus, who has been crucified.
Mat 28:6 He is not here, for he has risen, just like he said. Come, see the place where the Lord was lying.
Mat 28:7 Go quickly and tell his disciples, 'He has risen from the dead, and behold, he goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him.' Behold, I have told you."
Mat 28:8 They departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.
Mat 28:9 As they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" They came and took hold of his feet, and worshiped him.
Mat 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, "Don't be afraid. Go tell my brothers that they should go into Galilee, and there they will see me."
Mat 28:11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guards came into the city, and told the chief priests all the things that had happened.
Mat 28:12 When they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave a large amount of silver to the soldiers,
Mat 28:13 saying, "Say that his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
Mat 28:14 If this comes to the governor's ears, we will persuade him and make you free of worry."
Mat 28:15 So they took the money and did as they were told. This saying was spread abroad among the Jews, and continues until this day.
Mat 28:16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had sent them.
Mat 28:17 When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.
Mat 28:19 Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. 

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



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

Owe no one anything except to love one another
Romans 13:8
We owe each other love for ever. But what about the first part: “Owe no one anything.”
This passage presents a problem for many. Some do not understand what it means and for everyone the application is sometimes difficult.
What are Biblical principles of dealing with money?
“Owe no one anything.” Does this mean that we may never commit ourselves financially? At Rome “Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house” (Acts 28:30). Thus he obviously had agreed to pay rent. Financial commitments are part of life. As long as we pay on time, we owe no one anything.
But what if we pile up commitments that are beyond our means? After a while we will no longer be able to pay.
Actually we are all stewards of other people’s money. Most of our income each month belongs to someone else. Part belongs to the government, and the State is smart enough to deduct its portion from our wages before we get them! If we rent a house, a portion belongs to our landlord. If we have loans, a part belongs to the bank. Our family needs food and clothing, so a part belongs to the shopkeepers. We need energy, so a part belongs to the utility companies. There is only a small amount left that we can spend any way we want. If we are not good stewards, we can easily misappropriate someone else’s money, and no longer be able to give them their due portion.
I knew a woman who opened a shop and went bankrupt in a few months because she thought she could freely spend everything that came into the cash register!
Also in money matters, the temptations of Satan must be resisted. Problems can be “love of money” (1 Timothy 6:10); “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16); covetousness (Colossians 3:5); not paying your workers a fair wage (James 5:4); “the cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things” (Mark 4:19). Materialism can cause us to get in debt and be unable to pay what we owe.
“Owe no one anything.” What are some dangers?
We are warned in Scripture about the danger of putting up security for someone else. “A man devoid of understanding shakes hands in a pledge, and becomes surety for his friend” (Proverbs 17:18). Why is this dangerous? If your friend can easily pay, he will have security of his own! If you decide to provide security anyway, keep in mind that you may have to pay the whole debt yourself! Thus, you must be able to do so without jeopardizing your own financial condition.
The principle behind this warning is that we must avoid excessive debts. If we allow ourselves to become insolvent, there is a great danger that we will not be able to pay what we owe. Being solvent means that we can pay all we owe by selling things we own.
Does the command, “Owe no one anything,” mean that we may not borrow? Borrowing is not forbidden in Scripture, but it is viewed as something negative, which of course it is. A loan is negative money.
When the Lord promised to bless Israel if they remained faithful, He said: “For the LORD your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow” (Deuteronomy 15:6). The one who lends has power over the one who borrows: “The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7).
Yet, borrowing is sometimes needful. In the next two verses in Deuteronomy we read: “If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs” (Deuteronomy 15:7, 8). Thus, it is not wrong to borrow for things we really need, on condition that we will be able to pay it back.
It is wrong not to repay: “The wicked borrows and does not repay, but the righteous shows mercy and gives” (Psalm 37:21).
Thus, to obey the command, “Owe no one anything,” we must be careful not to borrow more than we can repay. When we have a loan, we do not owe until payment is due. If we repay the loan at the agreed time, we do not owe anything.
A loan should be covered in some way. If because of unexpected circumstances, for example, you are not able to make your car payments, you should be able to repay the loan by selling the car.
Insurance can also be part of the coverage. I know someone who had to pay off a loan for five years on a car that no longer existed because it caught fire while he was driving and was not insured. And, he was an insurance salesman!
The same applies to the purchase of a house with a mortgage. If you cannot make your house payments, you should be able to pay off the loan by selling the house.
It is not sufficient, however, that the principal is covered by a countervalue, the repayments must also be within our means.
Many get in trouble at this point. In our society it is easy to borrow more than we can repay. Since we can get something on credit, we may be tempted to buy a more expensive house or automobile than we can afford.
Why is it so easy to get credit? Because those who offer us credit want to make money off of us even if it is to our financial disadvantage.
In my pocket I have something that is extremely dangerous: a credit card. First, one must understand that a credit card is NOT MONEY. With it you only promise to pay money.
It is dangerous because it enables you to promise to pay more than you can afford. You can make purchases with money you do not have. You can go to the airport and get a ticket to fly halfway around the world and back, even if you do not have the money.
A credit card can be valuable for one month’s credit. If you pay your credit card bill completely every month, no interest is charged!
If you do not pay it off every month, the interest charged is exorbitant, and you can easily build up a debt that you are no longer able to repay. It can become a form of debt bondage. You owe your soul, not to the company store, but to the credit card company.
This is how it works: One month you use your card to buy more than you can afford. So, at the end of the month you are not able to pay the whole amount. Or if you do, you do not have enough money for the next month’s expenses. So now you are forced to use your credit card because your money is gone. And if you buy more on your card than you can afford again (it is so easy to do), your negative balance grows even larger. Your debt snowballs because each month you must pay high interest on your growing debt.
When you go shopping with a credit card there is no hard limit to what you can spend.
Credit card companies set a high maximum credit to lure the card user into deeper debt, which results in more profit for them. They also make it easy for you not to pay off your debt by setting a low minimum payment each month. After all, they collect high interest on what you do not pay!
Credit card debt is a major cause of personal bankruptcy.
A survey by the US Department of Justice in 2000 determined that in 74% of personal bankruptcy cases, credit card debt played a significant role, and that 42% of bankruptcies involved credit card debts of $10,000. to $50,000, 7% involved credit card debts of more than $50,000 and 3% involved credit card debts of more than $75,000. Those with high credit card debts usually had several credit cards they obtained through the aggressive marketing of credit card companies.
Someone who uses more credit than he can repay, is not obeying the command: “Owe no one anything.”
To obey God in this, our expenditures must be less than our income. It is that simple. If we spend even a little more than we earn each month, we will go deeper and deeper into debt. The first rule if you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging! The hole must be filled up!
If you have become a victim of credit mongers and you find yourself in a seemingly hopeless situation, ask for advice, possibly from someone in the church or from a free independent family finance counseling service. But beware of loan sharks who profile themselves as debt advisors! Someone who wants to loan you money is not the best source of advice.
Christians must pay their taxes: “For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due,customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:6, 7).
Christians are to give as we have been prospered (1 Corinthians 16:2) and as we have purposed in our hearts (2 Corinthians 9:7). This is possible only if we do some planning.
To obey the command to owe no one anything, we must also save for extraordinary expenditures. Even under normal circumstances, there are certain times of the year and certain occasions in life, when expenses are higher than otherwise. This requires saving, which means that our regular expenses must be less than our income. During lean years it is not possible to save. And most of us have experienced such times. But when things go better, it is wise to put something aside.
“There is desirable treasure, and oil in the dwelling of the wise, but a foolish man squanders it” (Proverbs 21:20). Remember the prodigal son? ‘Prodigal’ means wasteful. He wasted his whole inheritance. He repented and returned to his father, but his inheritance was gone.
So far, we have spoken mainly about frugality so we can obey the command, “Owe no one anything”. But frugality does not help if we have no income!
The world does not owe us a living. We must work to pay our own way. “But we urge you, brethren, that you increase more and more; that you also aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you, that you may walk properly toward those who are outside, and that you may lack nothing” (1 Thessalonians 4:10-12). We are to work, not only to provide for our own needs, but also that we “may have something to give him who has need” (Ephesians 4:28).
Paul also wrote: “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone's bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread” (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12).
A brother who is unemployed asked me about this passage recently. I pointed out to him that it does not say, “If anyone is out of work”, but “If anyone will not work.”
Circumstances can vary, but in the first instance it is the man’s responsibility to provide bread for his family “in toil” and “in the sweat” of his face (Genesis 3:17-19). Women are to be “homemakers” (Titus 2:5; See also 1 Timothy 5:14).
Jesus promised that God will provide for our needs if we “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33).
Let us pray and work for our daily bread that our needs might be provided and we might have extra to give to the Lord and to share with the needy. Let us be careful to “Owe no one anything except to love one another” (Romans 13:8). Amen.
Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

From Jim McGuiggan... Keep your mouth shut!

Keep your mouth shut!

Efficiency expert spoke at a large corporation to younger executives. When he was done he said, almost in passing, "Be sure you use this information well and don’t try it around the home." One of the men later asked him why he said that and the expert told him this. "I did a study of my wife’s routine while fixing breakfast. She made a lot of trips to the refrigerator and the stove, the table and cabinets—most often carrying only one item at a time. So I said to her, ‘Honey, why don’t you try carrying several things at once. That’d make more efficient use of your time.’ " The expert finished putting the rest of his papers in his brief case, as if he had finished, don’t you know. The curious man finally asked him, "And did it save time?" The expert told him, sort of sheepishly, "Actually...it did! It used to take her twenty minutes to get my breakfast. Now I get it myself in seven."
I hear a lot about "constructive" criticism and I believe in it. But I notice it works better when people assure you they want it, assure you, with a blood oath—say, by opening one of their veins right there in front of you and bleeding long enough for you to say in a matter-of-fact tone, "Okay, I think you mean it." It’s even more assuring when they open an artery. But even then, when you’ve waited long enough that it requires a major transfusion of blood (like seven or eight units—make that a couple of pints), offer your criticism with the right tone. As if every word that escaped your lips was dragging a hefty piece of your liver with it and you were reluctant to turn it loose. Furrow your brows and look as if you were excavating a deep mine shaft to try to come up with something negative. And add caveats by the barrel full. Use phrases like, "But on the other hand..." Or, "Many experienced and wise people would take issue with me here..." Or, "I’m only saying this to keep you from getting the big-head..." (This one has more power when you’re able to generate what sounds tolerably like a light-hearted laugh. At least you should be able to hide the nervousness that belongs in it.)
I want you to understand that there’s nothing in this piece that relates in any way to my wife Ethel. I’m not just saying that because...well...I’m not just saying it because...well, I’m not just saying it, but she doesn’t need to change to any degree in any way. She’s perfect. Why, that woman can—well, never mind, she’s impeccable. And sometimes she reads what I write. And when she’s flying down our hallway behind me she can get up to some speed in that wheelchair of hers and those metal footrests can tear strips out of those solid door-frames when they make contact. (That’s not a criticism!!!! I love the beat-up look of the door frames. Gives them a lived-with look.)
The only piece of advice I’m giving here (and not everyone would agree with me, don’t you understand—in fact most would be against me)—I’m just saying, it might be best to keep your mouth shut!
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

How Could Samuel Have Inhabited the Temple? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=3735&b=1%20Samuel

How Could Samuel Have Inhabited the Temple?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Although King David had desired to build a “house to the name of the LORD” (1 Chronicles 22:7; 2 Samuel 7:1-17), God chose David’s son, Solomon, to construct His holy temple. Around the year 950 B.C., after seven years of labor, King Solomon’s workers completed the magnificent temple of God in Jerusalem (1 Kings 6:38).

It might surprise some to learn, however, that more than a century before Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem, the inspired writer of 1 Samuel recorded that young Samuel slept “in the temple (heykal) of the Lord” in Shiloh (3:3, KJV, emp. added). Heykalis the same Hebrew word used dozens of times in the Old Testament to refer to the temple of God that Solomon built (1 Kings 6:5; 2 Chronicles 3:17). How could Solomon have built the first temple if one previously existed elsewhere?

Although the question of the “first temple” might be troublesome to some at first glance, the answer is really quite simple: the term for temple (heykal, which literally means “a large public building, such as a palace or temple”—“Heykal,” 2006; cf. “Heykal,” 1993) was used in Scripture prior to the days of Solomon to refer to the tabernacle. Though many may have erroneously concluded that the term “temple” was never used prior to the time of Solomon, several scriptures reveal otherwise.

Aside from learning in 1 Samuel 3:3 that Samuel slept “in the temple,” 1 Samuel 1:9 reveals that “Eli the priest sat upon a seat by a post of the temple of the Lord” (KJV, emp. added). What’s more, David used this term multiple times in the Psalms prior to the building of Solomon’s temple. In Psalm 5:7, for example, he wrote: “But as for me, I will come into Your house in the multitude of Your mercy; in fear of You I will worship toward Your holy temple” (emp. added). In his song of praise designated Psalm 65, he stated: “We shall be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, of Your holy temple” (vs. 4, emp. added).

Though the temporary tabernacle (“tent curtains,” 2 Samuel 7:2) was a totally different building than the more permanent temple that Solomon constructed in Jerusalem, the fact is, God used some of the same names for both structures. Both were called “the house of God” (Judges 18:31; 2 Chronicles 4:11) and “the house of the Lord” (Exodus 23:19; 1 Samuel 1:7; 1 Kings 6:1,37). Likewise, both were referred to as the “temple” of God. Similar to how a woman might wear the name Johnson both before and after she is married (because Johnson is both her maiden name and her newly acquired family name), the dwelling place of the Ark of the Covenant was occasionally referred to as God’s “temple,” even during the time of Samuel, long before Solomon’s temple was constructed in Jerusalem.

REFERENCES

Heykal” (1993), Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Heykal” (2006), New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

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 religioncan 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 that the 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 must 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.

“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution” by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1631

“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution”

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The Law of Biogenesis tells us that in nature, life comes only from life of its kind (Miller, 2012). Therefore, abiogenesis (i.e., life arising from non-living materials) is impossible, according to the scientific evidence. How then can atheistic theories like Darwinian evolution be considered acceptable? There is a growing trend among evolutionists today to attempt to sidestep the problem of abiogenesis by contending that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather is a theory which starts with life already in existence and explains the origin of all species from that original life form. However, this approach is merely wishful thinking—an effort to avoid the logical import of the Law of Biogenesis.
Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory, and intuitively must be so. In 1960, British evolutionary physiologist, G.A. Kerkut, listed abiogenesis as the first assumption in a list of non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is founded. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred” (Kerkut, 1960, p. 6). Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain the origin of species through natural means—without supernatural Creation. Logically, unless you concede the existence of God and subscribe to theistic evolution in order to explain the origin of life (a position that has been shown to be unsustainable, cf. Thompson, 2000), abiogenesis must have originally occurred in order to commence the process of Darwinian evolution. Abiogenesis is required by evolution as the starting point.
Further, atheistic evolutionary geologist, Robert Hazen, who received his doctoral degree from Harvard, admitted that he assumes abiogenesis occurred. In his lecture series, Origins of Life, he says, “In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with natural laws of chemistry and physics” (2005, emp. added). Again, evolution is an attempt to explain life through natural means, and abiogenesis must go hand-in-hand with such a theory. Hazen further stated that in his assumption of abiogenesis, he is “like most other scientists” (2005). It makes perfect sense for atheistic evolutionists to admit their belief in abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution to occur. However, many evolutionists do not want to admit such a belief too loudly, since such a belief has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. It is a blind faith—a religious dogma.
It is also true that atheists themselves use the term “evolution” as a generalized catchall word encompassing all materialistic origin models, including those dealing with the origin of the cosmos, not just the origin of species. A simple Google search of the keywords, “cosmic evolution,” illustrates that contention. Consider, for example, the title of Harvard University astrophysicist Eric Chaisson’s Web site: “Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind” (2012). Consider also the comments of NASA chief historian, Steven Dick: “Cosmic evolution begins…with the formation of stars and planetary systems, proceeds…to primitive and complex life, and culminates with intelligence, technology and astronomers…contemplating the universe…. This story of the life of the universe, and our place in it, is known as cosmic evolution” (2005). If atheism were true, in this mythical story of how the Universe evolved from nothing to everything, abiogenesis must have occurred somewhere along the way. Thus, abiogenesis is a fundamental, implied phenomenon of evolutionary theory. Creationists are merely using atheistic evolutionists’ terms in the same way they use them.
The truth is, one cannot logically commence a study of Life Science or Biology—studies which are intimately linked with the theory of evolution by the bulk of the scientific community today—without first studying the origin of that life which allegedly evolved from a single-celled organism into the various forms of life on Earth today. Biology and Life Science textbooks today, with almost unanimity, include a discussion of biogenesis, abiogenesis (ironically, discussing the work of Pasteur, Spallanzani, and Redi, who disproved the theory of abiogenesis), and extensive discussions of evolutionary theory. The evolutionists themselves inevitably couple Biology and Life Science with evolution, as though they are one and the same. But a study of life—biology—must have a starting point. So, evolutionists themselves link the problem of abiogenesis to evolution. If the evolutionary community wishes to separate the study of biology from evolution—a position I would strongly recommend—then the evolutionist might be able to put his head in the sand and ignore the abiogenesis problem, but not while the evolutionist couples evolution so intimately with biology.
The reality is that abiogenesis stands alongside evolutionary theory as a fundamental plank of atheism and will remain there. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together. It is time for the naturalist to forthrightly admit that his religious belief in evolution is based on a blind acceptance of an unscientific pheonomenon.

REFERENCES

Chaisson, Eric (2012), “Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind,” Harvard College Observatory, https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html.
Dick, Steven J. (2005), “Why We Explore: Our Place in the Universe,” NASA,http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_13.html
Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).
Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).
Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.
Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Did Jesus Go to Hell? Did He Preach to Spirits in Prison? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=851

Did Jesus Go to Hell? Did He Preach to Spirits in Prison?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

A significant misconception that has prevailed through the centuries within Christendom has been the idea that Jesus went to hell after His crucifixion, prior to His resurrection. The creedal statements of historic Christianity are largely responsible for generating this notion. For example, the Apostles’ Creed affirmed belief in Jesus on the following terms: “Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and buried; He descended into hell, the third day He rose again from the dead” (emp. added). The Athanasian Creed states: “He suffered death for our salvation. Hedescended into hell and rose again from the dead” (emp. added). “Church Fathers” and Reformers toyed with this viewpoint. John Calvin, in his voluminous Institutes of the Christian Religion, treated the subject at length (1599, II.16.8-12). Calvin cited earlier theologians who agreed with him, including Hilary in his On the Trinity (IV.xlii; III.xv). The renowned medieval Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, held a similar view (Summa Theol. III. 52. 5). The apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, which dates from the fifth century A.D., claims that Jesus descended into hell and retrieved all the Old Testament saints, including Adam, David, Habakkuk, and Isaiah (see James, 1924, pp. 125ff.).
Further impetus for confusion was generated by the English translations of the 16th and 17thcenturies, due to translator confusion regarding the technical distinctions that exist between the pertinent Greek terms. Specifically, the Greek term hades generally was equated with gehenna.Hades refers to the intermediate state of the dead (disembodied spirits) who are awaiting the Judgment. Gehenna, on the other hand, refers to the location of the final state of the wicked after the Judgment. This confusion culminated in the King James Version’s rendering of hades as “hell” in all ten of its occurrences in the New Testament (Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27,31; Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 20:13,14). Rendering hades as “hell” in Acts 2:27,31 leaves the reader with the impression that when Jesus exited His physical body on the cross, He went to hell. The first English translation to maintain the distinction between hades and gehenna was the English Revised Version and its subsequent American counterpart, the American Standard Version of 1901 (Lewis, 1981, p. 64).
In 1 Peter 3:18-20, a most curious reference appears on the surface to be an affirmation that Jesus descended into the spirit realm and preached to deceased people. However, a close consideration of the grammar will clarify the passage. First, the preaching referred to was not done by Jesus in His own person. The text says Jesus did the preaching through the Holy Spirit: “…the Spirit, by whom…” (v. 18-19). [“My Spirit” (Genesis 6:3) = the Spirit of God = the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 2:17).] Other passages confirm that Jesus was said to do things that He actually did through the instrumentality of others (John 4:1-2; Ephesians 2:17). Nathan charged King David: “You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword” (2 Samuel 12:9), when, in fact, David had ordered it done by another. Elijah accused Ahab of killing Naboth, using the words, “Have you murdered and also taken possession?” (1 Kings 21:19), even though his wife, Jezebel, arranged for two other men to accomplish the evil action. Paul said Jesus preached peace to the Gentiles (Ephesians 2:17), when, in fact, Jesus did so through others, since He, Himself, already had returned to heaven when the first Gentiles heard the Gospel (Acts 15:7). So the Bible frequently refers to someone doing something that he, in fact, did through the agency of another person.
In fact, within the book of 1 Peter itself, Peter already had made reference to the fact that the Spirit “testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow” (1 Peter 1:11). But it was the prophets who did the actual speaking (vs. 10). Then, again in chapter 4, Peter stated that “the gospel was preached also to those who are dead” (1 Peter 4:6). Here were individuals who had the Gospel preached to them while they were alive (“in the flesh”), and who responded favorably by becoming Christians. But then they were “judged according to men in the flesh,” i.e., they were treated harshly and condemned to martyrdom by their contemporaries. At the time Peter was writing, they were “dead,” i.e., deceased and departed from the Earth. But Peter said they “live according to God in the spirit,” i.e., they were alive and well in spirit form in the hadean realm in God’s good graces.
Second, when did Jesus do this preaching through the Holy Spirit? Notice in verse 20, the words “formerly” (NKJV) and “when”—“when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah.” So the preaching was done in the days of Noah by Jesus through the Holy Spirit Who, in turn, inspired Noah’s preaching (2 Peter 2:5).
Third, why are these people to whom Noah preached said to be “spirits in prison”? Because at the time Peter was writing the words, that is where those people were situated. Those who were drowned in the Flood of Noah’s day descended into the hadean realm, where they continued to reside in Peter’s day. This realm is the same location where the rich man was placed (Luke 16:23), as were the sinning angels (“Tartarus”—2 Peter 2:4). However, Jesus did not go to “prison” or “Tartarus.” He said He went to “Paradise” (Luke 23:43).
Fourth, why would Jesus go to hades and preach only to Noah’s contemporaries? Why would He exclude those who died prior to the Flood? What about those who have died since? Since God is no “respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11), Jesus would not have singled out Noah’s generation to be the recipients of preaching in the spirit realm.
Fifth, what would have been the content of such preaching? Jesus could not have preached the whole Gospel in its entirety. That Gospel includes the resurrection of Jesus (Romans 4:25; 1 Corinthians 15:4). However, at the time the alleged preaching was supposed to have occurred, Jesus had not yet been raised!
The notion of people being given a second opportunity to hear the Gospel in the afterlife is an extremely dangerous doctrine that is counterproductive to the cause of Christ. Why? It potentially could make people think they can postpone their obedience to the Gospel in this life. Yet the Bible consistently teaches that no one will be permitted a second chance. This earthly life has been provided by God for all human beings to determine where they wish to spend eternity. That decision is made by each individual based upon personal conduct. Once a person dies, his eternal destiny has been cinched. He is “reserved for judgment” (2 Peter 2:4; cf. vss. 9,17). His condition will not and cannot be altered—even by God Himself (Luke 16:25-26; Hebrews 9:27).

REFERENCES

Calvin, John (1599), Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (London: Arnold Hatfield).
James, M.R., trans. (1924), The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Lewis, Jack (1981), The English Bible From KJV to NIV (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).