August 15, 2016

Beyond Spectacular by Gary Rose

https://www.facebook.com/goalcast/videos/1039859252757931/

I saw this video today on Facebook and loved it!!!  Robin Williams had talent that was indeed SPECTACULAR!!!  He was right, make your life the best you can possibly make it, for our time on this Earth is fleeting. 

God loves us and if we truly love him in return, our lives will be a devotion to HIM and frankly that is BEYOND SPECTACULAR!!!

Consider God's words to the prophet Jeremiah, for they apply to God's faithful, obedient followers...

Jeremiah, Chapter 29 (WEB)
11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says Yahweh, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you hope and a future. 12 You shall call on me, and you shall go and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You shall seek me, and find me, when you shall search for me with all your heart.

What could possibly be better than a life that is SPECTACULAR? A life that isBEYOND SPECTACULAR is my answer. How is that possible? A life spent in loving and pleasing our creator is in fact BEYOND SPECTACULAR because at the end of it, we will continue to exist, spiritually, with God- FOREVER!!!

Listen to the words of Jeremiah 29; follow God, for with HIM is the only genuine future!!!

May God bless!!!

Gary

ps. Thanks for sharing this, Madeline!!!

Bible Reading August 15 by Gary Rose


Bible Reading August 15 (WEB)

Aug. 15
Esther 7-10
Est 7:1 So the king and Haman came to banquet with Esther the queen.
Est 7:2 The king said again to Esther on the second day at the banquet of wine, "What is your petition, queen Esther? It shall be granted you. What is your request? Even to the half of the kingdom it shall be performed."
Est 7:3 Then Esther the queen answered, "If I have found favor in your sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request.
Est 7:4 For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bondservants and bondmaids, I would have held my peace, although the adversary could not have compensated for the king's loss."
Est 7:5 Then King Ahasuerus said to Esther the queen, "Who is he, and where is he who dared presume in his heart to do so?"
Est 7:6 Esther said, "An adversary and an enemy, even this wicked Haman!" Then Haman was afraid before the king and the queen.
Est 7:7 The king arose in his wrath from the banquet of wine and went into the palace garden. Haman stood up to make request for his life to Esther the queen; for he saw that there was evil determined against him by the king.
Est 7:8 Then the king returned out of the palace garden into the place of the banquet of wine; and Haman had fallen on the couch where Esther was. Then the king said, "Will he even assault the queen in front of me in the house?" As the word went out of the king's mouth, they covered Haman's face.
Est 7:9 Then Harbonah, one of the eunuchs who were with the king said, "Behold, the gallows fifty cubits high, which Haman has made for Mordecai, who spoke good for the king, is standing at Haman's house." The king said, "Hang him on it!"
Est 7:10 So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath pacified.

Est 8:1 On that day, King Ahasuerus gave the house of Haman, the Jews' enemy, to Esther the queen. Mordecai came before the king; for Esther had told what he was to her.
Est 8:2 The king took off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai. Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman.
Est 8:3 Esther spoke yet again before the king, and fell down at his feet, and begged him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews.
Est 8:4 Then the king held out to Esther the golden scepter. So Esther arose, and stood before the king.
Est 8:5 She said, "If it pleases the king, and if I have found favor in his sight, and the thing seem right to the king, and I am pleasing in his eyes, let it be written to reverse the letters devised by Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews who are in all the king's provinces.
Est 8:6 For how can I endure to see the evil that would come to my people? How can I endure to see the destruction of my relatives?"
Est 8:7 Then King Ahasuerus said to Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew, "See, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged on the gallows, because he laid his hand on the Jews.
Est 8:8 Write also to the Jews, as it pleases you, in the king's name, and seal it with the king's ring; for the writing which is written in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, may not be reversed by any man."
Est 8:9 Then the king's scribes were called at that time, in the third month Sivan, on the twenty-third day of the month; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, and to the satraps, and the governors and princes of the provinces which are from India to Ethiopia, one hundred twenty-seven provinces, to every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language, and to the Jews in their writing, and in their language.
Est 8:10 He wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus, and sealed it with the king's ring, and sent letters by courier on horseback, riding on royal horses that were bread from swift steeds.
Est 8:11 In those letters, the king granted the Jews who were in every city to gather themselves together, and to defend their life, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, their little ones and women, and to plunder their possessions,
Est 8:12 on one day in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar.
Est 8:13 A copy of the letter, that the decree should be given out in every province, was published to all the peoples, that the Jews should be ready for that day to avenge themselves on their enemies.
Est 8:14 So the couriers who rode on royal horses went out, hastened and pressed on by the king's commandment. The decree was given out in the citadel of Susa.
Est 8:15 Mordecai went out of the presence of the king in royal clothing of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a robe of fine linen and purple; and the city of Susa shouted and was glad.
Est 8:16 The Jews had light, gladness, joy, and honor.
Est 8:17 In every province, and in every city, wherever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had gladness, joy, a feast, and a good day. Many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen on them.

Est 9:1 Now in the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, on the thirteenth day of the month, when the king's commandment and his decree drew near to be put in execution, on the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to conquer them, (but it was turned out the opposite happened, that the Jews conquered those who hated them),
Est 9:2 the Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the King Ahasuerus, to lay hands on those who wanted to harm them. No one could withstand them, because the fear of them had fallen on all the people.
Est 9:3 All the princes of the provinces, the satraps, the governors, and those who did the king's business helped the Jews, because the fear of Mordecai had fallen on them.
Est 9:4 For Mordecai was great in the king's house, and his fame went out throughout all the provinces; for the man Mordecai grew greater and greater.
Est 9:5 The Jews struck all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and destruction, and did what they wanted to those who hated them.
Est 9:6 In the citadel of Susa, the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men.
Est 9:7 They killed Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha,
Est 9:8 Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha,
Est 9:9 Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai, and Vaizatha,
Est 9:10 the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Jew's enemy, but they didn't lay their hand on the plunder.
Est 9:11 On that day, the number of those who were slain in the citadel of Susa was brought before the king.
Est 9:12 The king said to Esther the queen, "The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in the citadel of Susa, including the ten sons of Haman; what then have they done in the rest of the king's provinces! Now what is your petition? It shall be granted you. What is your further request? It shall be done."
Est 9:13 Then Esther said, "If it pleases the king, let it be granted to the Jews who are in Shushan to do tomorrow also according to this day's decree, and let Haman's ten sons be hanged on the gallows."
Est 9:14 The king commanded this to be done. A decree was given out in Shushan; and they hanged Haman's ten sons.
Est 9:15 The Jews who were in Shushan gathered themselves together on the fourteenth day also of the month Adar, and killed three hundred men in Shushan; but they didn't lay their hand on the spoil.
Est 9:16 The other Jews who were in the king's provinces gathered themselves together, defended their lives, had rest from their enemies, and killed seventy-five thousand of those who hated them; but they didn't lay their hand on the plunder.
Est 9:17 This was done on the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of that month they rested and made it a day of feasting and gladness.
Est 9:18 But the Jews who were in Shushan assembled together on the thirteenth and on the fourteenth days of the month; and on the fifteenth day of that month, they rested, and made it a day of feasting and gladness.
Est 9:19 Therefore the Jews of the villages, who live in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting, a good day, and a day of sending presents of food to one another.
Est 9:20 Mordecai wrote these things, and sent letters to all the Jews who were in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, both near and far,
Est 9:21 to enjoin them that they should keep the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month Adar yearly,
Est 9:22 as the days in which the Jews had rest from their enemies, and the month which was turned to them from sorrow to gladness, and from mourning into a good day; that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, and of sending presents of food to one another, and gifts to the needy.
Est 9:23 The Jews accepted the custom that they had begun, as Mordecai had written to them;
Est 9:24 because Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had plotted against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast "Pur," that is the lot, to consume them, and to destroy them;
Est 9:25 but when this became known to the king, he commanded by letters that his wicked device, which he had devised against the Jews, should return on his own head, and that he and his sons should be hanged on the gallows.
Est 9:26 Therefore they called these days "Purim," from the word "Pur." Therefore because of all the words of this letter, and of that which they had seen concerning this matter, and that which had come to them,
Est 9:27 the Jews established, and imposed on themselves, and on their descendants, and on all those who joined themselves to them, so that it should not fail, that they would keep these two days according to what was written, and according to its appointed time, every year;
Est 9:28 and that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews, nor the memory of them perish from their seed.
Est 9:29 Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with all authority to confirm this second letter of Purim.
Est 9:30 He sent letters to all the Jews, to the hundred twenty-seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, with words of peace and truth,
Est 9:31 to confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times, as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had decreed, and as they had imposed upon themselves and their descendants, in the matter of the fastings and their cry.
Est 9:32 The commandment of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim; and it was written in the book.

Est 10:1 King Ahasuerus laid a tribute on the land, and on the islands of the sea.
Est 10:2 All the acts of his power and of his might, and the full account of the greatness of Mordecai, to which the king advanced him, aren't they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?

Est 10:3 For Mordecai the Jew was next to King Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted by the multitude of his brothers, seeking the good of his people, and speaking peace to all his descendants.

Aug. 15, 16
Acts 26

Act 26:1 Agrippa said to Paul, "You may speak for yourself." Then Paul stretched out his hand, and made his defense.
Act 26:2 "I think myself happy, King Agrippa, that I am to make my defense before you this day concerning all the things that I am accused by the Jews,
Act 26:3 especially because you are expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews. Therefore I beg you to hear me patiently.
Act 26:4 "Indeed, all the Jews know my way of life from my youth up, which was from the beginning among my own nation and at Jerusalem;
Act 26:5 having known me from the first, if they are willing to testify, that after the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Act 26:6 Now I stand here to be judged for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers,
Act 26:7 which our twelve tribes, earnestly serving night and day, hope to attain. Concerning this hope I am accused by the Jews, King Agrippa!
Act 26:8 Why is it judged incredible with you, if God does raise the dead?
Act 26:9 "I myself most certainly thought that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
Act 26:10 This I also did in Jerusalem. I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, and when they were put to death I gave my vote against them.
Act 26:11 Punishing them often in all the synagogues, I tried to make them blaspheme. Being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.
Act 26:12 "Whereupon as I traveled to Damascus with the authority and commission from the chief priests,
Act 26:13 at noon, O King, I saw on the way a light from the sky, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who traveled with me.
Act 26:14 When we had all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
Act 26:15 "I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' "He said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
Act 26:16 But arise, and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose: to appoint you a servant and a witness both of the things which you have seen, and of the things which I will reveal to you;
Act 26:17 delivering you from the people, and from the Gentiles, to whom I send you,
Act 26:18 to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
Act 26:19 "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,
Act 26:20 but declared first to them of Damascus, at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance.
Act 26:21 For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple, and tried to kill me.
Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would happen,
Act 26:23 how the Christ must suffer, and how, by the resurrection of the dead, he would be first to proclaim light both to these people and to the Gentiles."
Act 26:24 As he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, "Paul, you are crazy! Your great learning is driving you insane!"
Act 26:25 But he said, "I am not crazy, most excellent Festus, but boldly declare words of truth and reasonableness.
Act 26:26 For the king knows of these things, to whom also I speak freely. For I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him, for this has not been done in a corner.
Act 26:27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe."
Act 26:28 Agrippa said to Paul, "With a little persuasion are you trying to make me a Christian?"
Act 26:29 Paul said, "I pray to God, that whether with little or with much, not only you, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these bonds."
Act 26:30 The king rose up with the governor, and Bernice, and those who sat with them.
Act 26:31 When they had withdrawn, they spoke one to another, saying, "This man does nothing worthy of death or of bonds."
Act 26:32 Agrippa said to Festus, "This man might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar." 

Does the church of Christ consist of the saved? by Roy Davison


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/salvation.html

Jesus built His church on a Rock
(Matthew 16:18)
Does the church of Christ consist of the saved?
“The Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47).
I. The church is the assembly of the saved.
A. The church of Christ came into being on the Day of Pentecost, when the Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, proclaimed God’s message of Salvation, and God added those who were saved to His church.
1. To the question “What shall we do?” Peter replied: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:37, 38).
2. “And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation.’ Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them” (Acts 2:40, 41).
3. “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47).
B. By definition then, the church of Christ consists of those who are saved. God adds the saved to His church.
C. Salvation is needed because people sin. Only God can forgive sins. To make forgiveness possible, He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to be the Savior of the world. People who believe in Him, repent of sin, confess faith and are baptized, receive forgiveness, and God adds them to His church.
II. “Salvation is of the LORD” (Jonah 2:9).
A. “Our God is the God of salvation” (Psalm 68:20).
1. “I, even I, am the LORD, and besides Me there is no savior” (Isaiah 43:11).
2. “Oh come, let us sing to the LORD! Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation” (Psalm 95:1).
B. Through the ages, men of faith have looked to God for salvation.
1. In the depths of despair Job still could say: “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.” ... “He also shall be my salvation” (Job 13:15a, 16a).
2. Shortly before his death, Jacob said: “I have waited for your salvation, O LORD!” (Genesis 49:18).
4. David looked to God for salvation. “Lead me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation” (Psalm 25:5).
5. Isaiah wrote: “I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for He has clothed me with the garments of salvation” (Isaiah 61:10a).
6. Jeremiah said: “It is good that one should hope and wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD” (Lamentations 3:26).
7. Micah said: “Therefore I will look to the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation; my God will hear me” (Micah 7:7).
8. Habakkuk said: “Though the fig tree may not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines; though the labor of the olive may fail, and the fields yield no food; though the flock be cut off from the fold, and there be no herd in the stalls - yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation” (Habakkuk 3:17, 18).
III. God promised to send a Savior for the whole world.
Old Testament prophets told of the coming Messiah who would bring salvation, not only to Israel, but also to the whole world.
A. “There is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me. Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:21b-22). [See also Isaiah 25:9; 35:3, 4; 49:6; 52:7.]
B. “In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely” (Jeremiah 33:15, 16a).
C. Joel wrote: “And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved” (Joel 2:32).
IV. God’s promised salvation has come: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, Savior of the world.
A. Joseph was told in a dream regarding Mary: “And she will bring forth a Son and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).
B. After Jesus was born, an angel proclaimed to shepherds nearby: “I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David, a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10b, 11).
C. John the Baptist testified when he saw Jesus: “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).
D. Believers at Sychar in Samaria, after hearing Jesus preach for two days, said: “We have heard for ourselves and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world” (John 4:42).
E. To the Jewish leaders Peter said of Jesus: “This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11, 12).
V. We are saved by the sacrifice of Christ who “bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24).
A. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
B. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).
C. Because of our sins, we deserve to die, but “the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6).
VI. What is the message of salvation preached by the church?
A. Once when Jesus spoke of the difficulty of entering God’s kingdom, His disciples said: “Who then can be saved?” His reply was: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:25, 26).
1. Salvation depends on the grace of God. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:8, 9).
2. Man cannot save himself.
a. Some think they will be saved because they are relatively good people, but good deeds do not remove sin. Cornelius was a good man but he still needed the gospel to be saved (Acts 11:13, 14).
b. Some think they can be saved by law-keeping, but law-keeping cannot save because no one keeps laws perfectly (Romans 8:3, 4).
c. Some think political systems can save mankind, but in all systems, including democracies, sinners misuse political power to the detriment of others. John “saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together to make war” against Christ and His army (Revelation 19:19-21).
d. Some think modern technology can save mankind, but technology facilitates evil as well as good. After a century of unprecedented technological advancement, man still has the same horrible problems caused by sin. Unprecedented evils occurred during the last century. Two world wars killed fifty million people. Nuclear weapons capable of destroying civilization were developed, deployed and stockpiled. Medical doctors murdered two billion unborn babies by abortion. Millions died of famine because of the uneven distribution of wealth. Earth’s resources started being consumed at an unsustainable rate. An AIDS pandemic killed more than 25 million people, with 30 million currently infected by HIV, a virus spread by immorality, especially homosexual relationships. Yet sexual perversion has been given human-rights status in many so-called developed countries.
Thus, in spite of amazing technological advancement, the four horsemen of Revelation chapter six (lust for power, war, famine and death) still gallop throughout the earth wreaking havoc as God allows men to suffer the consequences of their sins. In spite of these plagues “they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts” (Revelation 9:20, 21).
e. Man definitely cannot save himself. But the good news is that God offers salvation to all!
3. God saves those who respond to His grace with a good and noble heart.
a. Explaining the parable of the sower, Jesus said: “But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit” (Luke 8:15).
b. “The LORD is near to those who have a broken heart, and saves such as have a contrite spirit” (Psalm 34:18). “He will beautify the humble with salvation” (Psalm 149:4b).
C. What is this message of salvation that noble hearts gladly receive and obey?
1. “He who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6).
a. When the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” they replied, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:30, 31).
b. Paul said: “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).
2. Faith in Christ must be confessed.
a. Jesus said: “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32, 33).
b. Paul explains: “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation” (Romans 10:9, 10).
3. Repentance is required.
a. Jesus came to call sinners to repentance (Matthew 9:13).
b. When He sent out the twelve, they preached that people should repent (Mark 6:12).
c. Jesus told His hearers: “Unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).
d. Before His ascension, He told His disciples “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations” (Luke 24:47).
e. “Godly sorrow produces repentance to salvation” (2 Corinthians 7:10).
4. At baptism penitent believers are saved by God.
a. Jesus told Nicodemus: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
b. Ananias told Paul: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).
c. “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:26, 27).
d. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13), which is the church of Christ.
VI. What have we learned? Man cannot save himself. God is the only source of salvation that He offers freely through the sacrifice of His Son. All who accept God’s grace by believing in Christ, confessing His name, repenting, and being baptized for the forgiveness of sins are saved. It is still true, as it was 2000 years ago, that the Lord adds to the church day by day those who are being saved. The church of Christ consists of all the saved. Amen.
Roy Davison
http://www.oldpaths.com/RD
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

What Exactly Did Jesus Say? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2142&b=Luke

What Exactly Did Jesus Say?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Numerous times in the gospel accounts, the Bible writers recorded statements made by Jesus while He was on Earth. Puzzling to some Bible readers is the fact that, although Bible writers frequently recorded the same statements, they are not exactly (word-for-word) alike. For example, whereas Matthew recorded that Jesus told Satan, “It is written again (palingegrapti), ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (4:7), Luke wrote: “It has been said (eiratai), ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (4:12). Although this difference is considered minor, and is referring to the same thing (the Old Testament), Matthew and Luke still recorded Jesus’ statement using different words. Why? Why did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John not always record the words of Jesus exactly alike?
First, it is possible that some differences are due to Jesus having made both statements. It is unwise to think that every similar statement recorded by the gospel writers must refer to the exact same moment. In the example of Jesus responding to Satan’s temptation, it may be that Jesus repeated the same thought on the same occasion using different words. After telling Satan, “It has been said, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God,” Jesus could have re-emphasized the point (especially if Satan repeated the temptation) by saying, “It is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” Thus, Jesus could have made both statements.
A second reason why differences exist among the gospel writers’ testimony of Jesus’ teachings is because the writers’ purpose was to record precisely what the Holy Spirit deemed necessary (cf. John 16:13), but not necessarily exactly what Jesus said. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), one writer may summarize a person’s (e.g., Jesus’) words, while another writer may quote the exact words.
Consider the variation in notes taken by honest, intelligent college students in the same class on the Civil War. At the close of the class, when the notes of the students are compared and contrasted (as the gospel accounts are) differences are evident. If one student recorded that the teacher said Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous Gettysburg Address “in November of 1863 to honor those who died in the Civil War Battle of Gettysburg,” and another student wrote that Lincoln’s speech was delivered “on November 19, 1863 in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania,” their notes would not be considered contradictory. Though there are slight differences in what the students indicate the teacher said, they both are faithful testimonies of what the teacher taught—one student simply chose a less definite style of note-taking (i.e., not mentioning the precise day on which the Gettysburg Address was given).
Throughout the gospel accounts, we find accurate statements that Jesus made, but not necessarily the exact quotations. Inspired summaries of what someone said does not take away from the sacredness of the God-given Scriptures, nor our ability to apply those Scriptures to our lives. What’s more, differences among statements recorded in the gospel accounts also may be the result of the statements being made at different times. In whichever category a difference among the gospel accounts falls, Bible students can be confident of the Bible’s reliability.

“Sundays Excepted”? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2405

“Sundays Excepted”?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Did the Founders of American civilization believe in the God of the Bible? More specifically, did the vast majority of them embrace the Christian worldview? Even though they advocated freedom of worship, and opposed any persecution instigated against those who sought to practice divergent religious views, did they, themselves, approach life from the perspective of the Christian religion? A mountain of evidence exists to prove that they did. Consider just one.
Though the Founders intentionally omitted an extensive treatment of religion in the federalConstitution, since they intended for the federal government to stay out of the religious arena and leave such matters to the States and local communities, they nevertheless implied their religious orientation in that seminal document. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution reads:
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law (Constitution of the United..., emp. added).
“Sundays excepted”? Indeed, to this day, the U.S. government shuts down and does not transact business on Sunday? Why? If this provision had been made in respect of Jews, theConstitution would have read “Saturdays excepted.” If provision had been made for Muslims, theConstitution would have read “Fridays excepted.” If the Founders had intended to encourage a day of inactivity for the government without regard to any particular religion, they could have chosen Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Instead, the federal Constitution reads “Sundays excepted”—proving that America was Christian in its orientation, that the Framers themselves shared the Christian worldview, and that they were determined to give politicalrecognition to and accommodation of that fact by making allowance for the Christian day of worship. Their decision reflects a respect for Bible teaching on the matter (Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10).
This respect for the Christian worship of God on Sunday has been perpetuated throughout American history. The vanishing “Blue Laws” verify this fact. For example, in the 1846 South Carolina court case City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin, the court declared:
The Lord’s day, the day of the Resurrection, is to us, who are called Christians, the day of rest after finishing a new creation. It is the day of the first visible triumph over death, hell and the grave! It was the birth day of the believer in Christ, to whom and through whom it opened up the way which, by repentance and faith, leads unto everlasting life and eternal happiness! On that day we rest, and to us it is the Sabbath of the Lord—its decent observance, in a Christian community, is that which ought to be expected (2 Strob. L. 508 [S. C. 1846], emp. added).
Many other examples exist (cf. Miller, 2006). America was founded on Christian principles. The future of the Republic is endangered in direct proportion as those principles are abandoned. “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12).

REFERENCES

City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin (1846), 2 Strob. L. 508 (S. C. 1846).
Constitution of the United States, [On-line], URL: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/ constitution.html.
Miller, Dave (2006), “America, Christianity, and the Culture War (Part I),” Reason & Revelation, June 2006 - 26[6]41-47, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2942.

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


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

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

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

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

“NOT GUILTY, JUST SICK”

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

THE BIBLICAL RESPONSE

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

CONCLUSION

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

REFERENCES

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