Where Did Life Come From? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2641

Where Did Life Come From?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

From an atheist’s perspective, the question of life’s origin is a “big mystery” at best. Since nature has shown continually for thousands of years that all physical life comes from previously existing life (a recognized scientific law known as biogenesis), a naturalistic explanation of how life supposedly evolved from non-life is extremely problematic. Stuart Clark recently revisited this conundrum in a series of articles in New Scientist regarding Earth’s “biggest mysteries.” Clark titled one article simply, “Where Did Life Come From?” (2008, 199[2675]:30-31). Consider some of his admissions.

“Leaving aside the remote possibility that life arrived on Earth on a meteorite from somewhere else,” Clark first acknowledged, “we have to assume that it emerged from whatever physical and chemical conditions existed in the planet’s youth” (p. 30, emp. added). Clark admitted in the opening line of his article that the evolutionary explanation of life must be assumed. Such a confession is reminiscent of what one of the world’s foremost origin-of-life experts admitted in a lecture series titled Origins of Life. Dr. Robert Hazen, a member of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, acknowledged from the outset: “This course focuses exclusively on the scientific approach to the question of life’s origins. In this lecture series, I make an assumption that life emerged from basic raw materials” (2005, 1:6, emp. added). The fact is, thebest that evolutionary science can do with the question of life’s origin is to assume it was purely naturalistic.

Second, Clark admitted: “There are no recorded instances of an ‘origin-of-life’ event on modern Earth” (p. 30). Even though evolutionists have no problem teaching impressionable students in science classes throughout the world that life arose from chemicals billions of years ago, they must admit, as did Mr. Clark, that science has no evidence (i.e., “there are no recorded instances”) that physical life ever came from non-life (which would violate the law of biogenesis). The best Clark could do was question whether “the right conditions” still exist, or conjecture whether “it is happening on such tiny scales that we have not noticed” (p. 30, emp. added).

As he continued stumbling through his answer to one of Earth’s “biggest mysteries,” Clark acknowledged “another difficulty” (p. 31). “[W]e are faced with a chicken-and-egg situation: forDNA to do its thing it needs proteins, yet the blueprints for those proteins are provided by theDNA. So which came first? The most likely answer is now thought to be that they evolved at the same time through a network of reactions between simpler chemicals” (p. 31, emp. added). Unbelievable! Not only have evolutionary scientists never observed life evolving from non-life, but they acknowledge that such a suggestion means that DNA and proteins must have evolved and come together at exactly the same time. Supposedly, such precise timing of the necessary building blocks of life all happened purely by chance, and without any kind of intelligence. As the British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle wrote 27 years prior to Stuart Clark in the same science journal, such calculation is “nonsense of a high order” (1981, 92:527).

So where did life come from? According to evolutionist and Nobel laureate George Wald, “The only alternative” to spontaneous generation is “to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position” (Wald, 1954, 191[2]:46). Life was either created, or it evolved from non-life. Since every scientific observation known to man has demonstrated that physical life never comes from non-life, and cannot do so, the only logical conclusion is that life was created supernaturally.

Truly, life’s origin is mysterious only if one refuses to recognize the implications of the scientific law of biogenesis. Science, Scripture, and common sense demand a supernatural explanation.

REFERENCES

Clark, Stuart (2008), “Where Did Life Come From?,” New Scientist, 199[2675]:30-31, September 27.

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

Hoyle, Fred (1981), “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” New Scientist, 92:521-527, November 19.

Wald, George (1954), “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191[2]:44-53, August.

The Miracles of Jesus by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=556

The Miracles of Jesus

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

In John 20:31, we learn why Jesus performed miracles—so “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” The miracles of Christ recorded in the Gospels proved that Jesus had been given all power in Heaven and on Earth. Trustworthy men documented that He had power over the human body and could heal sickness and disease with the touch of His hand (Matthew 8:1-4). On other occasions, He proved that He had power over the spiritual world by forgiving sins (Luke 5:20-24) and casting out demons (Luke 6:18). He also had power to control the physical world by calming storms and walking on water (Matthew 14:25-43). And His power over death was shown through His glorious resurrection three days after His crucifixion (John 20:24-29).

Jesus’ miracles were designed to prove that He was the Son of God. Even the Pharisees, His worst enemies, admitted: “This man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him” (John 11:47-48). Yet they steadfastly refused to believe that He was God’s Son. Many of them even saw Him raise Lazarus from the dead, heal the sick, and cause the blind to see. Yet they would not admit to His deity.

Why should it be any different today? Anyone who takes an honest look at the evidence should see that this world must have had a Creator. The Bible is inspired by that Creator, and informs us that Jesus performed miracles to prove He was the Son of God. Yet many people will brush aside all the evidence—just as the Pharisees did—and deny Christ’s divinity. The Judgment Day will find those people hearing the words of Christ: “Woe unto you!… For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes” (Matthew 11:21).

CONCLUSION

Miracles are only impossible in a world with no God. Throughout history, God has used miracles to create the Universe, to add credibility to the men who had been entrusted with His message, and to accomplish His divine purposes. Jesus of Nazareth repeatedly performed miraculous deeds in order to prove to His followers (and to His enemies!) that He was indeed the Son of God. Sadly, many people during Christ’s day refused to believe in Him as God’s Son. And, just as sadly, many today stubbornly refuse to believe in the Sonship of Christ. As Christ told the unbelieving Pharisees of His day, so will He tell the modern-day disbelievers, “Woe unto you!"

Which Spirits are from God? (1 John 4:1-3)? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1203

Which Spirits are from God? (1 John 4:1-3)?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The first three verses of 1 John 4 contain certain elements that, at first glance, can be somewhat confusing. Yet, when taken in their proper context and compared with the rest of the letter, their meaning becomes much clearer. The verses state:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world (NRSV).

As a brief background to these verses, it should be noted that the book of 1 John deals in an in-depth fashion with the Gnostic apostasy that divided the Lord’s Church during the later part of the first century and on into the second century. One of the main tenets of the Gnostic heresy was the idea that anything physical was, by its very nature, evil. Therefore, according to the Gnostics, if Jesus Christ actually came in the flesh, then He must have been tainted by sinful, evil flesh. This group suggested, then, that Jesus Christ never literally came “in the flesh,” but onlyseemed to come in the flesh.

John’s argument at the beginning of 1 John 4 is an encouragement to Christians to test the teachings and beliefs of everyone who would pretend to be speaking on behalf of God. [John used the word “spirit” to refer to the teachings, beliefs, and actions of people (in this case, true and false teachers). Lenski stated: “ ‘Spirit’ is the person as such with his inner, spiritual character. There is no need to put more into this word” (1966, p. 485).] John then suggested the criterion whereby his readers could know if the teacher was speaking from God or not. John wrote: “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” This particular phrase has caused some confusion in the religious world. Looking at the phrase by itself, it seems that every person who claims that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is “from God,” regardless of any other beliefs or teachings that may conflict with the Bible. Using this verse, it has been argued that God accepts any religious group that acknowledges that Jesus has come in the flesh.

Upon further investigation, however, it can be shown that this phrase was not intended to offer blanket acceptance of all religious people or groups who simply state a belief that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. In fact, to state that one believes that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is to do no more than the demons did during the earthly ministry of Christ. In Mark 1:21-28, the gospel writer related a story about Jesus casting an unclean spirit out of a man who lived in Capernaum. Upon meeting Jesus, the unclean spirit cried out, “Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” (1:24). Obviously, the unclean spirit recognized Jesus as coming in the flesh; yet few, if any, would argue that the unclean spirit’s verbal confession would classify this demon as being pleasing or acceptable to God. Therefore, it is clear that John’s statement does not mean that every person who merely says that Jesus came in the flesh is pleasing to God.

What does John’s statement about confessing Christ mean? When looking at other parts of 1 John, several criteria for a faithful follower of God are enumerated. James Burton Coffman offered a list of at least seven things that John used in the epistle to gauge whether or not a person was faithful and acceptable to God (1979, p. 415). Among other things, John wrote that a person must: (1) confess his or her sins (1:8-10); (2) keep God’s commandments (2:3-4; 5:2); (3) practice righteousness (2:29); (4) love others (3:10); (5) provide for the physical needs of others (4:17); and (6) believe and confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (4:1-3). As Coffman noted of these criteria:

They are not separate tests, actually, but a composite, each of the above scriptures being, in a sense, commentary on each one of the others…. [T]he unity of the tests is seen in the fact that “keeping his commandments,” “loving one another,” “doing righteousness,” “possessing the Holy Spirit,” etc., all amount to one and the same thing” (1979, pp. 415-416).

It is evident, therefore, that John’s statement about confessing Christ was not meant to be a single test of authenticity, but rather a summary statement that entailed all of the other necessary conditions found throughout the book. Charles Ryrie wrote in regard to 1 John 4:2: “From this verse, we are not to suppose that this was the only test of orthodoxy; but it is a major one, and it was the most necessary one for the errors of John’s day” (1971, p. 1022). R.C.H. Lenski likewise stated: “It would be a serious mistake to think that John speaks of confessing only the one fact or doctrine of the Incarnation…” (1966, p. 488). Thus, mental acceptance and verbal acknowledgment of the fact that Jesus Christ came in flesh will never put a person in a right relationship with God without the proper actions and obedience to God’s commands.

Additional comments are in order concerning John’s reference to the “spirit of the antichrist.” Countless people and groups have attempted to identify the antichrist. Simply type in the word “antichrist” on the Internet, and you will be inundated with suggested personalities such as the Roman Emperor Nero, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and the Pope—which are but a few of the candidates put forth. In most cases, “the antichrist” is supposed to be connected with the end of the world, the number 666, and various other “signs of the times.” However, John is the only biblical writer to use the word antichrist(s). He uses it five times in the following verses: 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7. In these five brief references, John made several things clear concerning the antichrist. He wrote in 1 John 2:18,22: “Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour…. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.”

First, let it be noted that John specifically mentioned that many antichrists had already come into the world. If his readers were looking for a single, solitary figure distinguished as the sole antichrist, John disabused them of this notion by mentioning that many antichrists had come. Any attempt to identify the antichrist as a solitary political or religious personality misses the pointed statement by John that many antichrists had already come into the world. No doubt, John was specifically referring to those of the Gnostic persuasion.

Second, John unambiguously informed his readers that during their own lifetime (i.e., the first century), these antichrists had already come into the world. All efforts to connect the antichrist with some future, end-time predictions fail to account for the fact that John specifically stated that the many antichrists were already in the world at the time of his writing.

If, according to John, there were many antichrists in the first century, what was John’s definition of an antichrist? John defined an antichrist as any person (or group) who denies the Father and the Son. In 1 John 4:3, he explained, “every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world.” When analyzed critically, one can see that any person or group, which does not recognize that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has come in the flesh, is a person or group that has been seized by the spirit of antichrist. As abrasive as it may seem, groups such as Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even orthodox Jews would all fall under John’s condemnation of denying the Son and the Father.

As John urged his readers almost two thousand years ago, so we must today: “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

REFERENCES

Coffman, Burton (1979), Commentary on James, 1&2 Peter, 1,2&3 John, and Jude (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1966), The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude(Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Ryrie, Charles C. (1971), Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody Press).

Where Was God in Newtown, Connecticut? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1589

Where Was God in Newtown, Connecticut?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The events that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012 are, in every sense of the word, tragic. A gunman named Adam Lanza shot and killed 20 children, six adults, himself and his mother in one of the most deadly school shootings in U.S. history. As is always the case when tragedies like this occur, various people and groups use the events to propel their agendas. In the past several decades, the atheistic community has used occurrences like this as “evidence” that a loving God does not exist. These atheistic writers and speakers contend that if there is a loving God, He would never allow a person to shoot 20 innocent children in cold blood. If there is a loving God, they claim, He would stop such a brutal killing. Since He did not stop it, either He does not have the power to stop it, or He is not a loving God who cares for innocent children. Either way, they suggest, the concept of a loving, all-powerful God such as the one portrayed in the Bible cannot exist in the face of such senseless brutality. “If there is a loving God, where was He on December 14, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut?” they demand. What can the Christian say in response to such reasoning?

EVIL DID OCCUR—WHICH PROVES ATHEISM CANNOT BE RIGHT

It is a fact that the actions of the gunman were evil. He should not have killed 27 people and himself. Virtually every person who hears an account of his actions rightly understands that what he did was horribly wrong and evil. Yet, in a world without God, there is no way to contend that what he did was evil. Atheist Frederick Nietzsche understood this perfectly. He wrote: “We believe that severity, violence, slavery, danger in the street and in the heart, secrecy, stoicism, tempter’s art and devilry of ever kind—that everything wicked, terrible, tyrannical, predatory, and serpentine in man, serves as well for the elevation of the human species as its opposite” (2007, p. 35). You see, if humans are merely the product of mindless, random, naturalistic processes over millions of years, then how can any person claim to know that Adam Lanza did something evil. From where would the concept of evil originate if nature were all there is or was?

 Charles Darwin was fully aware of the implications of atheism and godlessness. He wrote: “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts with are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones (1958, p. 94). Thus, if there really is no God, then Adam Lanza was simply following the instincts and impulses that seemed the strongest to him. If other products of natural processes (humans) do not like what he did, they cannot say it was evil, or wrong, all they would be able to say is that they do not have those same instincts or impulses. And yet, the truth of the matter is, something evil, wicked, and wrong did occur. If that is true, there must be a God.

In a very famous statement, C.S. Lewis captured this thought perfectly when he wrote:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust...? Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple (Lewis, 1952, pp. 45-46, italics in orig.)

If something that was, in fact, evil, took place in Newtown on December 14, 2012, then there must be a God.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

Once we establish the fact that the existence of evil does not militate against God’s existence, but actually establishes it, there is still the emotional question of how God could allow innocent children to die. In fact, it is often the case that atheists will attempt to draw attention away from the rational side of the discussion and argue from pure emotion. “How could a loving God let innocent children die?” they insist. Their contention is that God has, in some way, wronged the innocent children. Their allegation fails, however, when we understand the true nature of what has happened.

The Bible repeatedly stresses the idea that physical death is not complete loss, and can actually be beneficial to the one who dies. The Bible explains that every person has a soul that will live forever, long after physical life on this Earth is over (Matthew 25:46). The Bible consistently states the fact that the immortal soul of each individual is of much more value than that individual’s physical life on this Earth. Jesus Christ said: “For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26).

Although the skeptic might object, and claim that an answer from the Bible is not acceptable, such an objection falls flat for one primary reason: the skeptic used the Bible to formulate his own argument. Where is it written that God is love? In the Bible, in such passages as 1 John 4:8. Where do we learn that God is all-powerful? Once again, that information comes directly from the Bible, read Genesis 17:1. Where, then, should we look for an answer to this alleged moral dilemma? The answer should be: the Bible. If the alleged problem is formulated from biblical testimony, then the Bible should be given the opportunity to explain itself. As long as the skeptic uses the Bible to formulate the problem, we certainly can use the Bible to solve the problem. One primary facet of the biblical solution is that every human has an immortal soul that is of inestimable value.

With the value of the soul in mind, let us examine several verses that prove that physical death is not necessarily evil. In a letter to the Philippians, the apostle Paul wrote from prison to encourage the Christians in the city of Philippi. His letter was filled with hope and encouragement, but it was also tinted with some very pertinent comments about the way Paul and God view death. In Philippians 1:21-23, Paul wrote: “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ,which is far better” (emp. added).Paul, a faithful Christian, said that death was a welcome visitor. In fact, Paul said that the end of his physical life on this Earth would be “far better” than its continuation. For Paul, as well as for any faithful Christian, the cessation of physical life is not loss, but gain. Such would apply to innocent children as well, since they are in a safe condition and go to paradise when they die (see Butt, 2003).

Other verses in the Bible show that the loss of physical life is not inherently evil. The prophet Isaiah concisely summarized the situation when he was inspired to write: “The righteous perishes, and no man takes it to heart; merciful men are taken away, while no one considers that the righteous is taken away from evil. He shall enter into peace; they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness” (57:1-2, emp. added). Isaiah recognized that people would view the death of the righteous incorrectly. He plainly stated that this incorrect view of death was due to the fact that most people do not think about the fact that when a righteous or innocent person dies, that person is “taken away from evil,” and enters “into peace.”

The psalmist wrote, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints” (Psalm 116:15). Death is not inherently evil. In fact, the Bible indicates that death can be great gain in which a righteous person is taken away from evil and allowed to enter peace and rest. God looks upon the death of His faithful followers as precious. Skeptics who charge God with wickedness because He has allowed the physical lives of innocent babies to be ended are in error. They refuse to recognize the reality of the immortal soul. Instead of the death of innocent children being an evil thing, it is often a blessing for that child to be taken away from a life of hardship and evil influence at the hands of a sinful society, and ushered into a paradise of peace and rest. In order for a skeptic to legitimately charge God with cruelty, the skeptic must prove that there is no immortal soul, and that physical life is the only reality—neither of which the skeptic can do. Failure to acknowledge the reality of the soul and the spiritual realm will always result in a distorted view of the nature of God. “The righteous perishes…while no one considers that the righteous is taken away from evil.”

WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

Our hearts are breaking for those in Newtown who have suffered such tragic loss. No words can adequately describe such emotional pain. But instead of allowing the skeptical community to use the evil actions of Adam Lanza to push people into the despair of atheism and unbelief, we should use this opportunity to encourage those in Newtown, and worldwide, to seek their God and Creator in times of trouble. The apostle Paul wrote to the church at Corinthian: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God” (2 Corinthians 1:3-4). What can atheism tell the survivors?—that nothing evil was really done, and that their precious children have simply ceased to exist. Oh, how desperate. But what can Christianity offer those who mourn? We can acknowledge that evil was done, that innocent children were killed, but that their immortal souls are in paradise with their Creator. And that God offers all who will obey Him the opportunity to live forever. Thus, parents can be reunited with their children when the fleeting years of this brief earthly life are past. God, the God of all comfort, is the only One who can offer any hope or consolation in such a tragedy.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1201.

Darwin, Charles (1958), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow (New York: W.W. Norton).

Lewis, C.S. (1952), Mere Christianity (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Nietzsche, Friedrich (2007), Beyond Good and Evil, http://books.google.com/books?id=BAz7fkKhu30C&dq=%22We+believe+that+severity,+violence%22&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0.

The Walls Came Tumbling Down by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=592

The Walls Came Tumbling Down

by	Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

Jericho’s inhabitants watched the army of Israel circle their city each day for six days. On the seventh day, the Israelites marched around the city seven times. When the Israelites shouted and the priests blew their trumpets, those strong walls in which the Jerichoites placed such confidence crumbled like sand. Just as Egypt’s so-called gods were powerless against Yahweh, Jericho’s stately walls bowed before Him. Such is the biblical scenario of Jericho’s fate during the time of Joshua.

In the preliminary report of her extensive excavations at Jericho, archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon adduced a purely naturalistic explanation of the biblical story. She conjectured that, at the precise moment of Israel’s trumpet blasts and shouts, an earthquake fortuitously crumbled Jericho’s walls. In their religious naivete, the Israelites regarded this natural event as divine intervention on their behalf (Kenyon, 1957, p. 262).

Kenyon’s analyses demonstrate the status to which archaeology has been elevated in some circles. To many scholars, archaeology has become such a sophisticated scientific endeavor that they attach greater importance to archaeological interpretations than to biblical information. Accordingly, if archaeology cannot prove it, we are asked to suspend judgment on the integrity of a given biblical text.

Yet, archaeology can do only so much. Though it provides some valuable information regarding culture in biblical times, and has illuminated the biblical text in many unexpected ways, archaeology is woefully inadequate to address questions of theology. It is true that archaeological investigations often have confirmed biblical historicity. Bryant G. Wood, for example, has extensively analyzed the evidence from Jericho and concluded that the data are consistent with biblical information regarding Jericho’s destruction (see Wood, 1987; 1990). Such evidence does confirm the historical reliability of the Bible—something we would expect from a divinely inspired document. Archaeology, however, cannot determine Who caused Jericho’s walls to fall. It is by faith that we acknowledge divine causes in human history. And it is by such faith that we know that at God’s command, the walls of Jericho came tumbling down.

REFERENCES

Kenyon, Kathleen (1957), Digging Up Jericho: The Results of the Jericho Excavations 1952-1956(New York: Praeger).

Wood, Bryant G. (1987), “Uncovering the Truth at Jericho,” Archaeology and Biblical Research, Premiere Issue, pp. 6-16, Autumn.

Wood, Bryant G. (1990), “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?: A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 16[2]:44-58, March/April.

The Quran and Corrupt Christianity by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=1535

The Quran and Corrupt Christianity

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Both Muhammad and the Quran show a failure to grasp the difference between New Testament Christianity and the corrupted Christianity practiced by those who professed to be Christians in the Arabian peninsula of the sixth and seventh centuries. The fact that the Quran reflects this failure shows that its author(s) did not have divine guidance, even as it failed to detect the Jewish misrepresentations of the Old Testament as projected by the rabbinic folklore of the day. The form of Christianity reflected prominently in the Quran is Catholicism (e.g., Surah 57:27—monasticism; Surah 17:56—saint worship). Anyone familiar with the first five centuries of church history is well aware of the extent to which the Christian religion had become perverted and distorted. These perversions did not escape the attention of the author of the Quran. However, even when an appropriate criticism is leveled against a doctrine with which Muhammad disagreed, the criticism often will contain an implicit approval of another element that is contrary to New Testament teaching.

For example, the Quran refers to Jesus as “son of Mary” 22 times. Most of these allusions are uttered by Allah Himself (Surah 2:87,253; 3:45; 4:171; 5:17,46,75,78,110,114,116; 9:31; 19:34; 23:50; 33:7; 43:57; 57:27; 61:6,14). Yet this phrase occurs in the New Testament only one time—and only then as used by certain unnamed townspeople whose use of the term shows they knew of Him only in terms of His earthly relationships, i.e., the son of Mary, and as a carpenter who had brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3). The Quran places an undue and unbiblical emphasis on Mary, thereby reflecting the Catholic notion that characterized his day (cf. Surah 5:116). The overwhelming emphasis in the New Testament is on Jesus being the “Son of God” (Mark 1:1; Luke 1:35; John 1:34; 3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4; Acts 9:20; Romans 1:4; 2 Corinthians 1:19; Hebrews 4:14; 7:3; 10:29; 1 John 3:8; 4:15; 5:10,13,20; et al.)—an acknowledgment made even by Satan and the demons (Luke 4:3,9,41; 8:28). [NOTE: The notion of Mary as intercessor on behalf of those still on Earth (Abbott, 1966, pp. 96,630) is reflected in the comparable role assigned to Muhammad by Muslims (Geisler and Saleeb, 1993, pp. 85-86)].

The author of the Quran unquestionably had heard the squabbles between Christians and Jews (Surah 2:113). Mistakenly assuming they were supposed to follow the same book, the Quran demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament, as well as the relationship sustained between Judaism and Christianity. This surface misconception undoubtedly contributed to the uninformed conclusion that the Bible is corrupt, and is unable to transmit God’s will accurately.

The Quran possesses many characteristics that demonstrate its uninspired (i.e., human) origin. One such trait is its failure to distinguish between the Christianity taught in the New Testament and the distorted form of Christianity to which the author of the Quran was exposed. It unwittingly endorses the corrupt features that characterize the Byzantine Christianity that manifested itself in Arabia in the sixth and seventh centuries after Christ.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Walter, ed. (1966), The Documents of Vatican II (New York: America Press).

Geisler, Norman L. and Abdul Saleeb (1993), Answering Islam (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

"THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS" Chapter Eight by Mark Copeland

                 "THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS"

                             Chapter Eight

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS CHAPTER

1) To see the relationship between knowledge and love

2) To understand how we might misuse the liberty we have in Christ

3) To realize the responsibility we have to our brethren who may be
   weak or lacking in knowledge

SUMMARY

In this chapter and the two to follow, Paul addresses the matter of 
Christians eating things that had been sacrificed to idols.  Though in 
the tenth chapter he will conclude with specific warnings concerning 
this issue (10:18-33), he begins by arguing on the basis of the 
supremacy of love over knowledge (1-3).  While concurring that some 
might have correct knowledge about God and idols, he points out that 
all might not, and it would be very easy by an abuse of "liberty" to 
cause those with weak consciences to stumble (4-10).  Such would be a 
serious offense, even against Christ, prompting Paul to say how far he 
would go to avoid causing a brother to stumble (11-13).

OUTLINE

I. KNOWLEDGE, LOVE, AND EATING THINGS OFFERED TO IDOLS (1-6)

   A. THE SUPREMACY OF LOVE OVER KNOWLEDGE (1-3)
      1. Knowledge puffs up, while love edifies (1)
      2. Knowledge can lead one to think he knows more than he really
         does (2)
      3. While he who loves God is known by Him (3)

   B. KNOWLEDGE IN RELATION TO THINGS OFFERED TO IDOLS (4-6)
      1. Knowledge concurs that an idol is nothing, and that there is
         only one God and one Lord (4-6a)
      2. For Christians that means the Father, and Jesus Christ (6b)

II. APPLYING LOVE TOWARD THOSE WHOSE CONSCIENCES ARE WEAK (8-13)

   A. NOT ALL HAVE CORRECT KNOWLEDGE, OR STRONG CONSCIENCES (7)
      1. Some eat things that were offered to idols with consciousness
         of the idol (7a)
      2. In so doing, they defile their weak consciences (7b)

   B. DO NOT LET THAT WHICH IS INCONSEQUENTIAL BECOME A STUMBLINGBLOCK
      (8-9)
      1. Food or the lack of it does not effect our relationship with
         God (8)
      2. But if we are not careful, our liberty concerning food can
         become a stumblingblock to others (9)

   C. ABUSE OF KNOWLEDGE AND LIBERTY CAN LEAD TO SIN AGAINST CHRIST!
      (10-12)
      1. Through improper exercise of knowledge and liberty, our 
         example might encourage others to violate their weak
         conscience (10)
      2. Through improper exercise of knowledge and liberty, we may
         cause others to perish, which is a sin against Christ! (11-12)

   D. PAUL'S OWN APPLICATION (13)
      1. If food makes his brother to stumble, he will never again eat
         meat (13a)
      2. Lest he make his brother stumble (13b)

REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE CHAPTER

1) List the main points of this chapter
   - Knowledge, Love, And Eating Things Offered To Idols (1-7)
   - Applying Love Toward Those Whose Consciences Are Weak (8-13)

2) What is the danger of knowledge? (1)
   - It can lead to being "puffed up" or arrogant

3) What is the power of love? (1)
   - It can build another person up

4) What attribute is important in regards to knowledge? (2)
   - Humility

5) How can one abuse their liberty in Christ? (9-11)
   - By allowing their example to encourage others whose consciences
     are weak to do that which would violate their consciences (even in
     matters that are lawful in of themselves)

6) What happens if we sin against our brothers? (12)
   - We sin against Christ!

7) How far should we be willing to go out of consideration for our
   brethren who are weak in faith? (13)
   - Even if it means to restrict what liberty we might have in Christ!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

 

"THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS" Chapter Nine by Mark Copeland

                  "THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS"

                               Chapter Nine

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS CHAPTER

1) To be impressed with Paul's own example of restricting his liberty
   in Christ so as to save others

2) To understand the Biblical authority for supporting those who labor
   in the preaching of the gospel

3) To see the importance of self-control, and the danger of apostasy

SUMMARY

After warning in chapter eight that the improper exercise of one's
liberty in Christ might lead to the damnation of those who are weak in
faith and conscience, Paul now illustrates how he was willing to
exercise restraint even when it came to the liberties he had as an
apostle of Jesus Christ.  Though he had the right to have a believing
wife and be supported in the preaching the gospel (1-14), he freely
chose not to exercise these and other rights.  One reason was so he
might be able to freely offer some sort of service to the Lord (15-18),
but it also was because he desired to save others (19-23).  There was
also the realization that self-restraint was a necessary quality to
assure his own salvation as well (24-27)!

OUTLINE

I. PAUL'S LIBERTY AS AN APOSTLE (1-14)

   A. AN AFFIRMATION OF HIS APOSTLESHIP AND LIBERTY (1-2)
      1. By virtue of being an eyewitness of the Lord (1a)
      2. By virtue of his work among the Corinthians (1b-2)

   B. VARIOUS LIBERTIES AVAILABLE TO PAUL (3-14)
      1. The right to eat and drink (4)
      2. The right to take along a believing wife, as other apostles,
         the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas were doing (5)
      3. The right to refrain from working and be supported by others
         (6-14)
         a. Illustrations of a soldier, farmer, and shepherd (7)
         b. As illustrated by the Law of Moses (8-10)
         c. An exchange of spiritual things for material things (11)
         d. If others could, why not Paul, if he wanted? (12)
         e. The example of priests in the temple (13)
         f. The clear decree of the Lord Himself (14)

II. PAUL'S EXAMPLE OF RESTRICTING HIS LIBERTY TO SAVE OTHERS AND
    HIMSELF (15-27)

   A. WHY HE CHOSE NOT TO EXERCISE HIS LIBERTY CONCERNING SUPPORT
      (15-18)
      1. His purpose in writing is not to raise support, for that would
         make his boasting void (15)
      2. Preaching the gospel was a necessity laid upon him by the Lord
         (16-17)
         a. He had no choice, he would be lost if he did not (16)
         b. If he had chosen to preach on his own, he would have a
            reward (17a)
         c. But he was like a slave, entrusted with a stewardship
            regardless of his will (17b)
      3. But by choosing to present the gospel without charge, he could
         have a reward, and also not abuse his authority in the gospel
         (18)

   B. HIS EXAMPLE OF SERVITUDE TOWARDS OTHERS (19-23)
      1. Though free from all men, he made himself a servant to all to
         save them (19-22a)
         a. To the Jews and those under the Law (20)
         b. To those not under the Law (21)
         c. To the weak (22a)
      2. He became all things to all men, desiring to save them and share
         the gospel with them (22b-23)

   C. ANOTHER REASON TO EXERCISE RESTRAINT:  THE POSSIBILITY OF
      APOSTASY (24-27)
      1. Not all who run in a race win a prize, so one needs to run so
         as to win (24)
      2. Those who compete for perishable crowns exercise self-control
         in all things, how much more should we who seek for an
         imperishable crown! (25)
      3. So Paul runs his race, and fights the good fight, with
         determined discipline and control over his own body (26-27a)
      4. For he knows he could be lost (disqualified) after preaching
         to others! (27b)

REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE CHAPTER

1) List the main points of this chapter
   - Paul's Liberty As An Apostle (1-14)
   - Paul's Example Of Restricting His Liberty To Save Others And
     Himself (15-27)

2) What two things helped to verify Paul's apostleship? (1-2)
   - He had seen the Lord
   - The conversion of the Corinthians

3) What were two things that the apostles had the right to do? (5-6)
   - To take along a believing wife
   - To refrain from working

4) What arguments does Paul make to justify preachers receiving
   support? (7-14)
   - Illustrations of a soldier, farmer, and shepherd
   - Illustrated by the Law of Moses
   - An exchange of spiritual things for material things
   - The fact others were receiving support
   - The example of priests in the temple
   - The clear decree of the Lord Himself

5) Why did Paul choose not to accept support? (15-18)
   - So he might receive a reward for doing something willingly, not
     out of necessity

6) Why was Paul willing to make himself a servant to all men? (19,22)
   - So he could save some of them

7) What two athletic events did Paul compare with the Christian life?
   (24-26)
   - Running a race
   - Boxing

8) Why was Paul so concerned about exercising self-control? (27)
   - He was aware of the real possibility of being "disqualified"
     himself after having preached to others

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

 

"THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS" Chapter Ten by Mark Copeland

                  "THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS"

                               Chapter Ten

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS CHAPTER

1) To realize the possibility of apostasy

2) To appreciate the help of God in times of temptation

3) To understand the importance of properly applying the principle of
   expediency

SUMMARY

In this chapter Paul brings to a conclusion his discussion concerning 
things offered to idols.  Reminding them about the example of Israel's 
apostasy and the danger of their own, he commands them to "flee 
idolatry" (1-14).  He describes the communal implications of religious
feasts and warns against provoking the Lord to jealousy by having
fellowship with demons (15-22).  This is probably a rebuke to the sort
of practice alluded to in chapter 8, verse 10, where some at the church 
in Corinth thought nothing of eating sacrificial meat even in an idol's 
temple!  He closes by giving specific instructions concerning meat that 
was later sold in the market place, or offered at the dinner of an 
unbeliever to which they might be invited; that they not be concerned 
unless someone specifically associates it with having been offered to 
an idol, and then to refrain out of consideration for the other's 
conscience (23-30).  An overriding principle?  Do all to the glory of 
God, and provide no occasi on for others to stumble (31-32).  In other 
words, imitate Paul, who sought to save others just as Christ did 
(33-11:1).

OUTLINE

I. EXAMPLES OF ISRAEL'S APOSTASY (1-14)

   A. APOSTASY IN SPITE OF BLESSINGS (1-5)
      1. Blessings received in the crossing of the Red Sea (1-2)
      2. Blessings received as they sojourned in the wilderness (3-4)
      3. Still, with most of them God was not pleased, and they died in
         the wilderness (5)

   B. THE EXAMPLE OF ISRAEL SHOULD SERVE TO WARN CHRISTIANS (6-14)
      1. Their example of apostasy to warn us (6)
         a. Not to become idolaters (7)
         b. Not to commit sexual immorality (8)
         c. Not to tempt Christ (9)
         d. Not to murmur (10)
      2. Their history recorded to admonish us (11)
         a. For we can just as easily fall (12)
         b. Though God is faithful to provide help in dealing with
            temptation (13)
      3. Therefore, flee from idolatry! (14)

II. RELIGIOUS FEASTS AND THEIR COMMUNAL IMPLICATIONS (15-22)

   A. THE EXAMPLE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER AND THE SACRIFICES OF ISRAEL
      (15-18)
      1. Paul speaks as to those capable of making wise judgments (15)
      2. Partaking of the Lord's Supper is a communion of the Lord's
         body and blood (16-17)
      3. The priests of Israel who ate the sacrifices were sharing in
         the services offered on the altar (18)

   B. APPLIED TO THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS (19-22)
      1. Not to say that an idol is anything, nor that which is offered
         to the idol (19)
      2. But those who offer the sacrifices do so to demons, not God;
         and Paul would not want them to have fellowship with demons
         (20)
      3. They cannot eat and drink at the Lord's table and then do the
         same at the tables of demons (21)
      4. Such would provoke the Lord to jealousy (22)

III. CONCLUSION REGARDING THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS (23-11:1)

   A. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS (23-30)
      1. Seek for those things that are helpful, being considerate of
         the well-being of others (23-24)
      2. Concerning things sold in the market, eat without question
         (25-26)
      3. When you are invited to a dinner with an unbeliever (27-30)
         a. Eat what is set before you, asking no question for  
            conscience's sake (27)
         b. But if someone should point out that the food had been
            offered to an idol, don't eat (28-30)
            1) For the sake of the one who pointed it out (28a)
            2) For the sake of another's conscience (28b)
               a) Lest your liberty be judged (condemned?) by the
                  other's conscience (29)
               b) Lest you be evil spoken of concerning that for which
                  you gave thanks (30)

   B. GENERAL PRINCIPLES (31-11:1)
      1. Whatever you do, do all to the glory to God (31)
      2. Give no offense to Jews, Greeks, or the church of God (32)
      3. Just as Paul sought to please others rather than himself, that
         others may be saved (33)
      4. Imitate him, as he imitated Christ (11:1)

REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE CHAPTER

1) List the main points of this chapter
   - Examples Of Israel's Apostasy (1-14)
   - Religious Feasts And Their Communal Implications (15-22)
   - Conclusion Regarding Things Sacrificed To Idols (23-11:1)

2) What Old Testament account illustrates the possibility of apostasy?
   (1-11)
   - The exodus and wilderness wanderings of the Israelites

3) What attitude is most likely to precede one's fall? (12)
   - Thinking that by standing there is no danger of falling

4) What promises do we have that should encourage us in times of
   temptation? (13)
   - That God will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able
     to bear
   - That He will provide a way of escape to bear it

5) What is the Lord's Supper according to verse 16?
   - A communion (or sharing) of the body and blood of the Lord

6) What does partaking of the one bread demonstrate? (17)
   - That we are one body

7) In considering a matter, what must be considered besides its
   lawfulness? (23-24)
   - Is it helpful; does it edify one another

8) To whom are we to give no offense (an occasion of stumbling)? (32)
   - Jews, Greeks, the church of God

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

 

"THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS" Chapter Eleven by Mark Copeland

                 "THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS"

                             Chapter Eleven

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS CHAPTER

1) To ascertain if Paul's instructions concerning the veil were meant
   to be applied today, or if he was simply admonishing them to abide
   by what was a social custom of their day

2) To notice the purpose of the Lord's Supper and the manner in which
   it is to be observed

SUMMARY

Having spent three chapters discussing the issue of eating things
sacrificed to idols, Paul now quickly covers two separate matters in
this one chapter.  The first pertains to women praying and prophesying
with heads uncovered (2-16).  In view of what we are able to glean
about the society of Corinth, and from comments made by Paul in this
chapter and elsewhere, I believe that the problem Paul addresses is one
that was occurring out in public and not in the assembly.  Beginning in 
verse 17 and continuing through chapter 14, Paul covers issues 
affecting their assemblies as a church, the first being the manner in 
which they abused the observance of the Lord's Supper (17-34).

OUTLINE

I. WOMEN PRAYING AND PROPHESYING WITH HEADS UNCOVERED (2-16)

   A. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS (2-5a)
      1. Commendation for having kept the apostolic traditions
         delivered to them (2)
      2. A reminder concerning the proper line of authority (3)
      3. Concerning praying and prophesying (4-5a)
         a. Every man who does so with head covered dishonors his head
            (Christ)
         b. Every woman who does so with head uncovered dishonors her
            head (man)

   B. EXPLANATORY COMMENTS (5b-16)
      1. A woman praying or prophesying uncovered would make her appear
         as one shorn or shaved (5a)
         a. If a woman is not covered, let her be shorn (6a)
         b. If to be shorn or shaved is shameful, let her be covered
            (6b)
      2. It is proper for a man not to cover his head (7-9)
         a. Man is the image and glory of God, while woman is the glory
            of man (7)
         b. Man did not come from woman, nor was created for woman (8-9)
      3. It is appropriate for a woman to have a symbol of authority on
         her head, because of angels (10)
      4. This is not to say that man is independent of woman (11-12)
         a. Especially in the Lord (11)
         b. For as the woman is from the man, so the man is through the
            woman (12a)
         c. And all things are from God (12b)
      5. Judge this matter for yourselves (13-15)
         a. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with uncovered 
            head? (13)
         b. Does not even nature teach you? (14-15)
            1) That long hair on a man is a dishonor to him? (14)
            2) That long hair on a woman is a glory to her, and 
               provides a covering? (15)
      6. But if anyone is contentious about this matter... (16)
         a. We have no such custom (i.e., this is not an "apostolic
            tradition")
         b. Nor do the churches of God

II. CONCERNING THE LORD'S SUPPER (17-34)

   A. THE CONDUCT AT CORINTH IN REGARDS TO THE LORD'S SUPPER (17-22)
      1. He cannot praise them for their conduct in their assemblies
         (17-19)
         a. Their coming together is not for the better, but for the
            worse (17)
         b. He has heard of their divisions, of which the only good
            thing that could be said is that it does show who is really
            approved among them (18-19)
      2. Especially in regards to the Lord's Supper (20-22)
         a. Their divisiveness made it impossible to eat properly, and
            led to severe abuses (20-21)
         b. They despised the church and shamed the poor, for which 
            Paul could not praise them (22)

   B. THE INSTITUTION AND PROPER OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
      (23-34)
      1. The institution as received by Paul directly from the Lord
         (23-25)
      2. Properly observed, it is a proclamation of the Lord's death
         (26)
      3. Properly observed, it is accompanied by self-examination
         (27-32)
         a. Which enables us to observe it without bringing judgment to
            ourselves (27-29)
         b. Otherwise, we will be judged and chastened by the Lord,
            that we might not be condemned with the world (30-32)
      4. Concluding instructions (33-34)
         a. When you come together to eat the Supper, wait for one
            another (33)
         b. If you are hungry, eat at home (34a)
         c. Paul will have more to say when he comes to Corinth (34b)

REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE CHAPTER

1) List the main points of this chapter
   - Women Praying And Prophesying With Head Uncovered (2-16)
   - Concerning The Lord's Supper (17-34)

2) For what does Paul commend the church in Corinth? (2)
   - Remembering him and keeping the traditions as he delivered to them

3) What is the proper order of authority? (3)
   - God, Christ, Man, Woman

4) What evidence is there that Paul is discussing praying and
   prophesying out in public, and not in the assembly?
   - His commendation in verse 2 (they were keeping the apostolic
     traditions delivered to them)
   - His question in verse 13 (they would have answered "yes" if they
     were being asked concerning women in a religious assembly in
     Corinth; see The Expositors' Greek Testament)
   - His remarks in verses 17-18 (he at this point begins to address
     abuses in their assemblies)
   - His commandments in 14:34-37 (concerning women in the assembly)

5) What evidence is there that Paul is encouraging them to act in
   harmony with the customs of their day?
   - His comments in verses 5-6 (arguing on the basis of "IF it is
     shameful...")
   - His appeal to propriety in verse 13 ("is it proper...?")
   - His conclusion in verse 16 (this is not an "apostolic" or "church"
     custom)

6) How did Paul feel about eating common meals in the assemblies?
   (22, 34)
   - He did not approve, and strongly condemned those who did

7) What is the purpose of the Lord's Supper? (24-26)
   - A memorial in which we proclaim the Lord's death

8) How should one observe the Lord's Supper? (27-29)
   - In a worthy manner
   - With self-examination
   - Discerning the Lord's body

9) How can we avoid the judgement of God? (31)
   - By judging ourselves

10) What is God's purpose in judging His children? (32)
   - To chasten, that we not be condemned with the world

11) What appears to be an important element in observing the Lord's
    Supper? (33; Acts 20:7)
   - That it be done "together"

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016