Blind, Biased Failure to See God by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3754

Blind, Biased Failure to See God

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The flagellum that propels bacteria has long been recognized as a marvel of engineering. Scientists know that this rotating wonder, and the assembly to which it is attached, is a tiny but powerful molecular engine. One of nature’s smallest, and yet most powerful, motors rotates at over 200 revolutions per second, driven by incredible torque. Researchers have also long been puzzled by what enables the flagellum to come to a stop, and even reverse its rotation. In recent years they have discovered that it does so using a “clutch.” The bacterium can disconnect from the flagellum by releasing a protein that disengages the clutch (“‘Clutch’ Stops...,” 2008).

In the presence of such sophistication and intelligent design, one would think that researchers would recognize divine design when they see it. Sadly, however, the massive propaganda campaign that has inundated the science departments of American schools for a half century has blinded its victims to glaring evidence. Consider the lead researcher’s analysis of the clutch discovery: “We think it’s pretty cool that evolving bacteria and human engineers arrived at a similar solution to the same problem” (“‘Clutch’ Stops...”). Really? Nonsentient, uncoordinated, chance forces of nature somehow designed and created a technologically advanced device long before sentient, intelligent human engineers designed their own version? The same researcher also observed:

“This makes a lot of sense as far as the cell is concerned.... The flagellum is a giant, very expensive structure. Often when a cell no longer needs something, it might destroy it and recycle the parts. But here, because the flagellum is so big and complex, doing that is not very cost-effective. We think the clutch prevents the flagellum from rotating when constrained by the sticky matrix of the biofilm” (“‘Clutch’ Stops...”).

Wait a minute. “Makes a lot of sense”? “Very expensive”? “Big and complex”? The verbal gymnastics that evolutionists engage in would be humorous if not so sadly serious. These are terms that demand intelligence and sentience. The evolutionists constantly allow themselves the luxury of speaking as if the myriad organisms that display incredible design and purpose somehow created themselves and then consciously tweaked themselves over millions of years to become more efficient. They regularly cut themselves slack by speaking as if a mind—a conscious, intelligent being—were orchestrating the endless stream of biological marvels that grace the planet.

So blinded by irrational commitment to an outlandish theory, evolutionists are unable to hear the evidence screaming in their ears and flashing before their eyes, and come to the only logical conclusion: such intricate, complex design demands an intelligent, superior Designer. To deny it is bias of the first order.

“Thus says the LORD.... ‘I am the LORD, who makes all things…Who turns wise men backward, and makes their knowledge foolishness” (Isaiah 44:24-25).

REFERENCE

“‘Clutch’ Stops Flagella” (2008), Photonics Media, June 23, http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=34236.

Did Moses Make a Scientific Mistake? by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1133

Did Moses Make a Scientific Mistake?

by	Wayne Jackson, M.A.

Q.

The Bible speaks of two animals, the coney and the hare, as “chewing the cud.” Isn't the Bible mistaken on this point? These animals do not actually chew the cud, do they?

A.

An infidel once wrote: “Something that has long perplexed me is the way that inerrancy proponents can so easily find ‘scientific foreknowledge’ in obscurely worded Bible passages but seem completely unable to see scientific error in statements that were rather plainly written.” This skeptic then cited Leviticus 11:5-6, where the coney and the hare are said to chew the cud, and boasted that since these animals do not have compartmentalized stomachs like those in ruminants (e.g., the cow), Moses clearly made a mistake. What shall we say to this charge?
First, no scientific mistake can be attributed to the Bible unless all of the facts are fully known. In such an alleged case, the biblical assertion must be unambiguous. The scientific information must be factual. And an indisputable conflict must prevent any harmonization of the two. Do these criteria obtain in this matter? They do not.
Second, we must note that the words “coney” (Hebrew shaphan) and “hare” (arnebeth) are rare and difficult words in the Old Testament. The former is found but four times, and the latter only twice. The etymology of the terms is obscure. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament), shaphan is rendered by dasupoda, meaning “rough foot,” and arnebeth becomes choirogrullion, literally, “swine-pig.” Hence, identification becomes a factor. It is commonly believed, however, that the arnebeth is some species of hare, and that shaphan denotes the Syrian hyrax.
But, so it is claimed, neither of these chews the cud. A number of scholars have noted that both of these animals, even when at rest, masticate, much like the cow or sheep, and that Moses thus employed phenomenal language (i.e., describing something as it appears), for the purpose of ready identification, inasmuch as these creatures were ceremonially unclean and thus prohibited for use as food (Archer, 1982, p. 126).
That is not an impossible solution. Bats, for example, are listed along with birds in Leviticus 11, not because both are mammals, but simply because both fly. The Scriptures do not necessarily follow the arbitrary classification systems of man. When Christ said that the mustard seed is “less than all seeds,” (Matthew 13:33), He was speaking from the vantage point of the Palestinian citizen—not that of a modern botanist. We today employ phenomenal jargon when we speak of the Sun “rising and setting.” Technically, it is not correct to refer to a woman’s amniotic fluid as “water,” and yet doctors employ this language frequently. Why do we not allow the biblical writers as much literary license as we ourselves employ? The bias of agnosticism is utterly incredible.
There is, however, another factor that must be taken into consideration. Rumination does not necessarily involve a compartmentalized stomach system. One definition of “ruminate” is simply “to chew again that which has been swallowed” (Webster’s Dictionary). And oddly enough, that is precisely what the hare does. Though the hare does not have a multi-chambered stomach—which is characteristic of most ruminants—it does chew its food a second time. It has been learned rather recently that hares pass two types of fecal material.

In addition to normal waste, they pass a second type of pellet known as a caecotroph. The very instant the caecotroph is passed, it is grabbed and chewed again.... As soon as the caecotroph is chewed thoroughly and swallowed, it aggregates in the cardiac region of the stomach where it undergoes a second digestion (Morton, 1978, pp. 179-181).

This complicated process provides the rabbit with 100% more riboflavin, 80% more niacin, 160% more pantothenic acid, and a little in excess of 40% more vitamin B₁₂ (Harrison, 1980, p. 121). In a comparative study of cows and rabbits, Jules Carles concluded that rumination should not be defined from an anatomical point of view (e.g., the presence of a four-part stomach); rather, it should be viewed from the standpoint of a mechanism for breeding bacteria to improve food. Cows and rabbits are similar in that both possess a fermentation chamber with microorganisms that digest otherwise indigestible plant material, converting it into nutrients. Some of the microorganisms in these two animals are the same, or very similar. Carles has stated that on this basis “it is difficult to deny that rabbits are ruminants” (as quoted in Brand, 1977, p. 104). Dr. Bernard Grzimek, Director of the Frankfurt Zoological Gardens in Germany, likewise has classified the hare as a ruminant (1975, pp. 421-422).
On the other hand, the hyrax also is considered by some to be a ruminant, based upon the fact that it has a multiple digestive process.

The hyrax has a very long protrusion, a caecum, and two additional caeca near the colon. At least one of these protrusions participates in decomposition of cellulose. It contributes certain enzymes necessary for breakdown of the cellulose (Morton, 1978, p. 184).

Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia (1975) considers the hyrax as a ruminant. Professor Joseph Fischel of the University of California has suggested that the biblical allusion to the coney as a cud-chewer probably was due “to the structure of its digestive system, the protuberances in its large stomach together with its appendix and maw possibly being regarded as analogous to a ruminant’s four stomachs” (1971, p. 1144). In his significant study of the intestinal microflora in herbivores, scientist Richard McBee observed that the hyrax has a fermentation chamber for the digestion of grass by microorganisms (as quoted in Brand, 1977, p. 103).
Finally, the precise meaning of gerah, rendered “chewing the cud” in most versions, is uncertain. Many orthodox Jews consider it simply to mean a second mastication, or the semblance of chewing. Samuel Clark stated that the meaning of gerah “became expanded, and the rodents and pachyderms, which have a habit of grinding with their jaws, were familiarly spoken of as ruminating animals” (1981, 1:546).
In view of the foregoing facts, it is extremely presumptuous to suggest that the Mosaic account contains an error relative to these creatures. A sensible interpretive procedure and/or an acquaintance with accurate information would have eliminated such a rash and unwarranted conclusion.

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Brand, Leonard R. (1977), “Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?,” Origins, 4(2):102-104.
Clark, Samuel (1981), “Leviticus,” The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Fischel, Joseph W. (1971), “Hyrax,” Encyclopedia Judaica (New York: Macmillan).
Grzimek, Bernard, ed. (1975), Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold).
Harrison, R.K. (1980), Leviticus (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press).
Morton, Jean Sloat (1978), Science in the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody).

The Quran and the Flood by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=3509

The Quran and the Flood

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The Quran’s depictions of the great Flood of Noah’s day contain oddities that cause one who is familiar with the Bible to question the Quran’s reliability. For example, in Surah 11:36-40 the Quran describes Noah’s conflict with his contemporaries and, in the process, makes a puzzling remark pertaining to the condition of the Flood waters:

And it was inspired in Noah, (saying): No one of thy folk will believe save him who hath believed already. Be not distressed because of what they do. Build the ship under Our Eyes and by Our inspiration, and speak not unto Me on behalf of those who do wrong. Lo! they will be drowned. And he was building the ship, and every time that chieftains of his people passed him, they made mock of him. He said: Though ye make mock of us, yet we mock at you even as ye mock; And ye shall know to whom a punishment that will confound him cometh, and upon whom a lasting doom will fall. (Thus it was) till, when Our commandment came to pass and the oven gushed forth water (Surah 11:36-40, emp. added).

This peculiar allusion to the waters of the Flood coming from an oven is repeated in Surah 23:

And We verily sent Noah unto his folk, and he said: O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other god save Him. Will ye not ward off (evil)? But the chieftains of his folk, who disbelieved, said: This is only a mortal like you who would make himself superior to you. Had Allah willed, He surely could have sent down angels. We heard not of this in the case of our fathers of old. He is only a man in whom is a madness, so watch him for a while. He said: My Lord! Help me because they deny me. Then We inspired in him, saying: Make the ship under Our eyes and Our inspiration. Then, when Our command cometh and the oven gusheth water, introduce therein of every (kind) two spouses, and thy household save him thereof against whom the Word hath already gone forth. And plead not with Me on behalf of those who have done wrong. Lo! they will be drowned. And when thou art on board the ship, thou and who so is with thee, then say: Praise be to Allah Who hath saved us from the wrongdoing folk! (Surah 23:23-28, emp. added).

The above renderings of the Quran are taken from the celebrated translation by Muslim scholar Muhammad Pickthall. In contrast to Pickthall’s rendering, Abdullah Yusuf Ali translated the phrase “the oven gusheth water” with the words “the fountains of the earth gushed forth.” Observe that these two renderings are significantly different translations of the Arabic. Ali offers the following explanation for his rendering: “Far al tannur. Two interpretations have been given: (1) the fountains or the springs on the surface of the earth bubbled over or gushed forth; or (2) the oven (of Allah’s Wrath) boiled over. The former has the weight of the best authority behind it and I prefer it” (2001, p. 520). But this “explanation” offers no rationale for accepting his preference, and it fails to provide linguistic proof to justify the preference.
In stark contrast, consider the discussion posed by Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, Sunni Pakistani Muslim scholar, revivalist leader, political philosopher, and prominent 20^th century Islamist thinker. His ancestry on his paternal side was traced back to Muhammad. In 1974, the title of Imam-ul-Muslimeen was bestowed upon him in the annual meeting of Raabta-e-Aalam-e-Islami in Saudi Arabia (“Sayyid Abul…,” 2009). From 1942-1972, Maududi produced the Tafhim-ul-Quran (تفہيم القرآن‎)—a six-volume translation and explanation of the Quran. Here is a Muslim scholar, well-qualified to provide assistance in making sense of the text of the Quran. In his insightful discussion of Surah 11:40, Maududi explained:

Commentators on the Qur’an have offered different explanations of this incident. In our view, the place from which the Flood began was a particular oven. It is from beneath it that a spring of water burst forth. This was followed by both a heavy downpour and by a very large number of springs which gushed forth. Surah al-Qamar provides relevant information in some detail: So We opened the gates of the heaven, with water intermittently pouring forth, and We caused the earth to be cleaved and the springs to flow out everywhere. Then the water (from both the sources—the heaven and the earth) converged to bring about that which had been decreed (al-Qamar, 54: 11-12).

In the present verse, the word tannur has been preceded by the article al: According to Arabic grammar, this indicates that the reference is to a particular tannur (oven). Thus, it is evident that God had determined that the Flood should commence from a particular oven. As soon as the appointed moment came, and as soon as God so ordained, water burst forth from that oven. Subsequently, it became known as the Flood-Oven. The fact that God had earmarked a certain oven to serve as the starting-point of the Flood is borne out by al-Mu’minun 23:27 (n.d., endnote 42, emp. added).

In his commentary on the parallel passage in Surah 23:27, Maududi further explained:

In view of the context, we see no reason why one should take a farfetched figurative meaning of a clear word of the Qur’an. It appears that a particular oven (tannur) had been ear-marked for the deluge to start from, which was to all appearances an unexpected origin of the doom of the wretched people (n.d., endnote 29, emp. added).

Of course, the Bible makes no reference to any oven or the temperature of the Flood waters. However, Jewish legends codified in the Talmud do. Jewish rabbinical sources (Midrash Tanchuma 5; Rosh Hashanah 12a; Sanhedrin 108b; Zebahim 113b; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10,29b; et al.) provide the basis for the Quran’s allusion:

The crowd of sinners tried to take the entrance to the ark by storm, but the wild beasts keeping watch around the ark set upon them, and many were slain, while the rest escaped, only to meet death in the waters of the flood. The water alone could not have made an end of them, for they were giants in stature and strength. When Noah threatened them with the scourge of God, they would make reply: “If the waters of the flood come from above, they will never reach up to our necks; and if they come from below, the soles of our feet are large enough to dam up the springs.” But God bade each drop pass through Gehenna before it fell to earth, and the hot rain scalded the skin of the sinners. The punishment that overtook them was befitting their crime. As their sensual desires had made them hot, and inflamed them to immoral excesses, so they were chastised by means of heated water (Ginzberg, 1909, 1:106, emp. added).

Keep in mind that these Jewish legends are just that—legends. The rabbis that formulated them recognized that their renditions were not to be confused with actual Scripture. The brand of Judaism to which the author of the Quran was exposed, like Christianity at the time, was a corrupt one. Literally centuries of legend, myth, and fanciful folklore had accumulated among the Jews, reported in the Talmud, the Midrash, and the Targumim. These three Jewish sources were replete with rabbinical commentary and speculation—admitted to be uninspired. These tales and fables would have existed in Arabia in oral form as they were told and retold at Bedouin campfires, among the traveling trade caravans that crisscrossed the desert, and in the towns, villages, and centers of social interaction from Yemen in the southern Arabian Peninsula, to Abyssinia to the west, and Palestine, Syria, and Persia to the north. The allegedly hot waters of the Flood are one example among many of the Quran’s reliance on uninspired Jewish sources. Indeed, the Quran is literally riddled with such allusions. The evidence that the Quran contains a considerable amount of borrowed material from uninspired Talmudic sources, rabbinical oral traditions, and Jewish legends—stories that abound in puerile, apocryphal, absurd, outlandish pablum—is self-evident and unmistakable. [For more discussion on this point, see Miller, 2005, pp. 73ff.]

REFERENCES

Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (2001), The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Beltsville, MD: Amana Productions), tenth edition.
Ginzberg, Louis (1909), The Legends of the Jews (Charleston, SC: Forgotten Books, 2008 reprint).
Maududi, Sayyid Abul Ala (no date), Tafhim al-Qur’an (The Meaning of the Qur’an), englishtafsir.com.
Miller, Dave (2005), The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Pickthall, Mohammed M. (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).
“Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi” (2009), English Islam Times, May 16, http://www.islamtimes.org/vdca.onyk49nomgt14.html.

"THE BOOK OF PROVERBS" The Fear Of The Lord by Mark Copeland

                         "THE BOOK OF PROVERBS"

                          The Fear Of The Lord

INTRODUCTION

1. We now change our approach to studying the book to the book of
   Proverbs...
   a. Using a topical rather than textual approach
   b. Noting recurring themes dispersed throughout the proverbs

2. A good topic to begin with is "the fear of the Lord"...
   a. Described as "the beginning of knowledge" - Pr 1:7
   b. Also as "the beginning of wisdom" - Pr 9:10

[Yes, we examined "the fear of the Lord" in an earlier lesson. But it's
importance to living wisely justifies another look.  So let's begin
with...]

I. UNDERSTANDING THE FEAR OF THE LORD

   A. THE MEANING OF THE WORD "FEAR"...
      1. In Hebrew, the word is yara'
      2. In the Old Testament, it has a three-fold range of meaning:
         a. Dread, terror - Deut 1:29; Jon 1:10
         b. To stand in awe (in reference to a king) - 1Ki 3:28
         c. To revere, to respect (in regards to parents) - Lev 19:3
      3. Notice when God descended upon Sinai amid geophysical
         convulsions - cf. Exo 20:18-20
         a. Moses encouraged the Israelites to not be afraid of God
            arbitrarily striking them dead for no reason ("Do not
            fear!")
         b. He informed them that the Lord revealed Himself in such a
            terrifying manner to scare them from sinning ("God has come
            to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that
            you may not sin.")
      -- The proper kind of fear is that which causes one to stand in
         awe, to revere, to respect

   B. ITS ROLE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHRISTIAN...
      1. We are to  fear God, not man - Mt 10:28
      2. The early church walked in the fear of the Lord - Ac 9:31
      3. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling - Ph
         2:12
      4. We should be fearful of apostasy, serving God with godly fear
         - He 10:26-31; 12:28-29
      -- The fear of the LORD is expressed in reverential submission to
         his will - NET Bible

[With a proper understanding of the fear of the Lord, we are more likely
to appreciate the value of the fear of Lord as revealed in the
Proverbs...]

II. APPRECIATING THE FEAR OF THE LORD

   A. WITH THE FEAR OF THE LORD...
      1. We will hate evil - Pr 8:13
      2. We will prolong life - Pr 10:27
      3. We have strong confidence and a fountain of life - Pr 14:26-27
      4. We will be prompted to depart from evil - Pr 16:6
      5. We will have a satisfying life, spared from much evil - Pro
         19:23
      6. We will enjoy riches, honor, and life! - Pr 22:4
      -- Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?

   B. WITHOUT THE FEAR OF THE LORD...
      1. We deprive ourselves of the treasures of God's wisdom and
         knowledge
      2. We will flirt with evil and be corrupted by it
      3. Our lives are likely to be shortened by our refusal to heed
         God's word (e.g., suffering sexually transmitted diseases if we
         do not heed His Word on sexual relationships)
      4. We will not come to know the love of God that gives assurance
         and confidence of salvation
      5. When fallen into sin, we will not be motivated to repent and
         turn to God!
      6. We will not be motivated to truly "work out our own salvation"
      -- Sounds dreadful, doesn't it?

[The fear of the Lord should be a highly regarded and sought after
trait, one that we desire to develop in our lives.  With that in mind,
here are some suggestions on...]

III. DEVELOPING THE FEAR OF THE LORD

   A. THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD...
      1. Just as faith comes by hearing the word of God - cf. Ro 10:17
      2. The same can be said for the fear of the Lord - cf. Deut 31:
         10-13
         a. Israel was to gather every seven years to read and hear the
            Word
         b. The purpose?  "...that they may learn to fear the Lord"
      3. As one reads the Word of God, they should gain a healthy degree
         of the fear of the Lord
         a. For example, consider the words of Paul - Ro 2:4-11
         b. Or how about the words of Peter? - cf. 2Pe 3:7-14
      -- Do we allow the Word to develop a proper reverence for the
         Lord?

   B. PROPERLY USED TO MAINTAIN BALANCE...
      1. To avoid extremes we must read all of God's Word
         a. Some read only about God's love, and have no fear of the
            Lord
         b. Others read only about God's judgment, and know nothing of
            His loving kindness
         c. The one develops an attitude of permissiveness that
            belittles God's holiness and justice
         d. The other develops a psychosis of terror that forgets His
            grace and compassion
      2. Even in the passages noted above, the context of each speaks
         much of God's grace and forgiveness for those who will repent
         - cf. Ro 2:4-11; 2Pe 3:7-14
      -- We must be careful how we use the Word of God, but use it we
         must!

CONCLUSION

1. If we desire to be truly wise, then let us begin with the fear of the
   Lord

2. Understanding it, appreciating it, and developing it in our lives as
   children of God!

   "Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had
   peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in
   the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied." - Ac 9:31

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

"THE BOOK OF PROVERBS" The Folly Of The Fool by Mark Copeland

                         "THE BOOK OF PROVERBS"

                         The Folly Of The Fool

INTRODUCTION

1. The goal of Proverbs is to impart wisdom...
   a. To know wisdom and instruction - Pr 1:1-2
   b. To receive the instruction of wisdom - Pr 1:3

2. One way to learn about something is to consider its opposite...
   a. Want to understand what is wisdom?  Then know what is folly!
   b. Want to be wise?  Then don't be a fool!

[In studying the wisdom of Proverbs, then, we learn much about "The
Folly Of The Fool."  Exactly what is a fool...?]

I. THE FOOL DEFINED

   A. THE HEBREW WORD...
      1. 'eviyl; it appears primarily in wisdom literature - Vine's
      2. An adjective meaning foolish in the sense of one who hates
         wisdom and walks in folly, despising wisdom and morality - TCWD
      -- A fool thus despises wisdom and walks in folly

   B. DEFINED FURTHER...
      1. The word is used in Scripture with respect to moral more than
         to intellectual deficiencies - Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 375
      2. The 'fool' is not so much lacking in mental powers, as one who
         misuses them... - ibid.
      3. In Scripture the 'fool'...is the person who casts off the fear
         of God, and thinks and acts as if he could safely disregard the
         eternal principles of God's righteousness - ibid.
      -- A fool thus chooses to disregard God and His wisdom

[To help us to further understand "The Folly Of The Fool," let's now
consider...]

II. THE FOOL DESCRIBED

   A. ONE WHO TRUSTS IN HIMSELF...
      1. In his own eyes, he can do no wrong - Pr 12:15
      2. Foolishly, he trusts in his own heart - Pr 28:26
      -- Conversely, we should trust in the Lord, not lean on our own
         understanding - Pr 3:5-6

   B. ONE WHO IS DEAF TO INSTRUCTION...
      1. Fools despise wisdom and instruction - Pr 1:7
      2. Even the instruction from one's father - Pr 15:5
      3. Thus fools die for lack of wisdom - Pr 10:21
      4. A fool cares only to tell others what he knows - Pr 18:2
      5. For a fool thinks he knows every thing - Pr 18:13
      6. What fools know is soon known by all - Pr 14:33
      7. Their foolishness becomes apparent to all - Pr 12:23; 13:16
      -- Therefore we waste energy in trying to share wisdom with a fool
         - Pr 23:9

   C. ONE WHO CANNOT BE DISCIPLINED...
      1. Fools are destined for much punishment - Pr 19:29, 26:3
      2. Yet they are unlikely to learn from attempts to correct them
         - Pr 17:10
      3. Such hatred of correction is the height of folly - Pr 12:1
      -- Trying to correct a fool is folly within itself - Pr 16:22

   D. ONE WHO IS IMPULSIVE...
      1. A fool is one who vents all his feelings - Pr 29:11
      2. His wrath is soon known - Pr 12:16
      -- His impulsiveness makes his folly worse - Pr 14:29

   E. ONE WHO COMMITS EVIL...
      1. Evil is like sport to a fool - Pr 10:23
      2. They even make fun of sin - Pr 14:9
      -- Thus it is difficult to get fools to depart from evil - Pro
         14:16

   F. ONE WHO IS VIRTUALLY UNCHANGEABLE...
      1. Despite the most extreme efforts to rehabilitate him - Pro
         27:22
      2. Because he considers it an abomination to depart from evil
         - Pr 13:19
      -- Truly a fool is like a dog that returns to his own vomit - Pro
         26:11

CONCLUSION

1. In summary, then, a fool is a person who...
   a. Trusts in himself
   b. Is deaf to instruction
   c. Cannot be disciplined
   d. Is impulsive
   e. Commits evil
   f. Is virtually unchangeable

2. Reinforcing these qualities of a fool...
   a. Let's now read Pr 26:1-12
   b. Where we find several observations about fools and their folly

Hopefully, such observations and warnings about "The Folly Of The Fool"
will encourage us to choose an alternative path in life; especially when
we consider the final contrast between the wise and the fools:

   "The wise shall inherit glory, But shame shall be the legacy of
   fools."
                                                      - Pr 3:35

What shall we inherit?  What shall be our legacy?  It depends on our
willingness to listen to God...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Where are you? by Gary Rose

Ok, I know this is a play on words and perhaps just a "tad" Corney, but it does make a point- we need to be close to Jesus! 

Why is this important?

John, Chapter 15 (WEB)
 ¹  “I am the true vine, and my Father is the farmer.   ²  Every branch in me that doesn’t bear fruit, he takes away. Every branch that bears fruit, he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.   ³  You are already pruned clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.   ⁴  Remain in me, and I in you. As the branch can’t bear fruit by itself unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you, unless you remain in me.   ⁵  I am the vine. You are the branches. He who remains in me and I in him bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.   ⁶  If a man doesn’t remain in me, he is thrown out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned.   (emp. added GDR)

 How do we do this?

1 Thessalonians, Chapter 5 (WEB)
¹⁷ Pray without ceasing.

 To put it another way...

And listen to Snoopy as well!!!

Bible Reading September 27 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading September 27 (WEB)

Sept. 27

Psalms 109-111

Psa 109:1 God of my praise, don't remain silent,

Psa 109:2 for they have opened the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of deceit against me. They have spoken to me with a lying tongue.

Psa 109:3 They have also surrounded me with words of hatred, and fought against me without a cause.

Psa 109:4 In return for my love, they are my adversaries; but I am in prayer.

Psa 109:5 They have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.

Psa 109:6 Set a wicked man over him. Let an adversary stand at his right hand.

Psa 109:7 When he is judged, let him come forth guilty. Let his prayer be turned into sin.

Psa 109:8 Let his days be few. Let another take his office.

Psa 109:9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

Psa 109:10 Let his children be wandering beggars. Let them be sought from their ruins.

Psa 109:11 Let the creditor seize all that he has. Let strangers plunder the fruit of his labor.

Psa 109:12 Let there be none to extend kindness to him, neither let there be any to have pity on his fatherless children.

Psa 109:13 Let his posterity be cut off. In the generation following let their name be blotted out.

Psa 109:14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered by Yahweh. Don't let the sin of his mother be blotted out.

Psa 109:15 Let them be before Yahweh continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth;

Psa 109:16 because he didn't remember to show kindness, but persecuted the poor and needy man, the broken in heart, to kill them.

Psa 109:17 Yes, he loved cursing, and it came to him. He didn't delight in blessing, and it was far from him.

Psa 109:18 He clothed himself also with cursing as with his garment. It came into his inward parts like water, like oil into his bones.

Psa 109:19 Let it be to him as the clothing with which he covers himself, for the belt that is always around him.

Psa 109:20 This is the reward of my adversaries from Yahweh, of those who speak evil against my soul.

Psa 109:21 But deal with me, Yahweh the Lord, for your name's sake, because your loving kindness is good, deliver me;

Psa 109:22 for I am poor and needy. My heart is wounded within me.

Psa 109:23 I fade away like an evening shadow. I am shaken off like a locust.

Psa 109:24 My knees are weak through fasting. My body is thin and lacks fat.

Psa 109:25 I have also become a reproach to them. When they see me, they shake their head.

Psa 109:26 Help me, Yahweh, my God. Save me according to your loving kindness;

Psa 109:27 that they may know that this is your hand; that you, Yahweh, have done it.

Psa 109:28 They may curse, but you bless. When they arise, they will be shamed, but your servant shall rejoice.

Psa 109:29 Let my adversaries be clothed with dishonor. Let them cover themselves with their own shame as with a robe.

Psa 109:30 I will give great thanks to Yahweh with my mouth. Yes, I will praise him among the multitude.

Psa 109:31 For he will stand at the right hand of the needy, to save him from those who judge his soul.

Psa 110:1 Yahweh says to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet."

Psa 110:2 Yahweh will send forth the rod of your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies.

Psa 110:3 Your people offer themselves willingly in the day of your power, in holy array. Out of the womb of the morning, you have the dew of your youth.

Psa 110:4 Yahweh has sworn, and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek."

Psa 110:5 The Lord is at your right hand. He will crush kings in the day of his wrath.

Psa 110:6 He will judge among the nations. He will heap up dead bodies. He will crush the ruler of the whole earth.

Psa 110:7 He will drink of the brook in the way; therefore he will lift up his head.

Psa 111:1 Praise Yah! I will give thanks to Yahweh with my whole heart, in the council of the upright, and in the congregation.

Psa 111:2 Yahweh's works are great, pondered by all those who delight in them.

Psa 111:3 His work is honor and majesty. His righteousness endures forever.

Psa 111:4 He has caused his wonderful works to be remembered. Yahweh is gracious and merciful.

Psa 111:5 He has given food to those who fear him. He always remembers his covenant.

Psa 111:6 He has shown his people the power of his works, in giving them the heritage of the nations.

Psa 111:7 The works of his hands are truth and justice. All his precepts are sure.

Psa 111:8 They are established forever and ever. They are done in truth and uprightness.

Psa 111:9 He has sent redemption to his people. He has ordained his covenant forever. His name is holy and awesome!

Psa 111:10 The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom. All those who do his work have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!

 

Sept. 27

2 Corinthians 7

2Co 7:1 Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

2Co 7:2 Open your hearts to us. We wronged no one. We corrupted no one. We took advantage of no one.

2Co 7:3 I say this not to condemn you, for I have said before, that you are in our hearts to die together and live together.

2Co 7:4 Great is my boldness of speech toward you. Great is my boasting on your behalf. I am filled with comfort. I overflow with joy in all our affliction.

2Co 7:5 For even when we had come into Macedonia, our flesh had no relief, but we were afflicted on every side. Fightings were outside. Fear was inside.

2Co 7:6 Nevertheless, he who comforts the lowly, God, comforted us by the coming of Titus;

2Co 7:7 and not by his coming only, but also by the comfort with which he was comforted in you, while he told us of your longing, your mourning, and your zeal for me; so that I rejoiced still more.

2Co 7:8 For though I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it, though I did regret it. For I see that my letter made you sorry, though just for a while.

2Co 7:9 I now rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that you were made sorry to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly way, that you might suffer loss by us in nothing.

2Co 7:10 For godly sorrow works repentance to salvation, which brings no regret. But the sorrow of the world works death.

2Co 7:11 For behold, this same thing, that you were made sorry in a godly way, what earnest care it worked in you. Yes, what defense, indignation, fear, longing, zeal, and vengeance! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be pure in the matter.

2Co 7:12 So although I wrote to you, I wrote not for his cause that did the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered the wrong, but that your earnest care for us might be revealed in you in the sight of God.

2Co 7:13 Therefore we have been comforted. In our comfort we rejoiced the more exceedingly for the joy of Titus, because his spirit has been refreshed by you all.

2Co 7:14 For if in anything I have boasted to him on your behalf, I was not disappointed. But as we spoke all things to you in truth, so our glorying also which I made before Titus was found to be truth.

2Co 7:15 His affection is more abundantly toward you, while he remembers all of your obedience, how with fear and trembling you received him.

2Co 7:16 I rejoice that in everything I am of good courage concerning you.

The Biblical Doctrine of the Godhead by Wayne Jackson

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Jackson/Boyd/Wayne/1937/godhead.html

The Biblical Doctrine of the Godhead

Since the late second century A.D., controversy has existed concerning the nature of the Godhead. Is God a solitary person—simply manifested in three forms? Or do three separate personalities exist, each of whom possesses the nature of deity? Is the popular doctrine of the Trinity true or false?
Though the word “Trinity” is not explicitly found in the Bible, the teaching that there are three individual personalities of divine nature (known in the New Testament as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is thoroughly scriptural, and has been generally acknowledged by the writers of “Christendom” since the apostolic age.
Around A.D. 190, Theodotus of Byzantium advocated the absolute personality of God. Asserting that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one person, he sought to propagate his views in the church at Rome. He is said to be “the first representative of Dynamistic Monarchianism whose views have been recorded” (Newman 1931, 198).
Later, however, the “oneness” heresy found its fullest expression in Sabellius of Libya, who commenced the publication of his errors about A.D. 260. Sabellius denied the doctrine of the Trinity, maintaining that God is uni-personal, and that the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost merely designate the same person in different capacities. As the Father, God created the world; as the Son, he redeemed it; as the Holy Ghost, he sanctifies the elect. These three, he said, are no more different persons than the body, soul, and spirit of man are three persons (Sanford 1910, 827).
In modern times, this doctrine has been taught by the United Pentecostal Church and other religious groups. It is, however, false. This survey will show: (a) The Scriptures do teach the concept of monotheism, i.e., there is one God—one unified divine nature. (b) However, the divine nature, i.e., the nature or quality which identifies one as deity (as opposed, for example, to the angelic or human natures) is shared by three distinct personalities, and that these personalities are characterized in the New Testament as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of the three personalities of the Godhead is eternal and equal in essence, though they may assume individual roles in their respective work (which may involve subordination).

Biblical Monotheism

Monotheism is the belief in one God, in contrast to polytheism, the notion that numerous gods exist. Unquestionably, the Bible affirms the concept of monotheism. In the first commandment of the Decalogue, Jehovah charges, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). Again, “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Or, “Jehovah, he is God; there is none else besides him” (Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 1 Kings 8:60; 1 Chronicles 17:20; Isaiah 43:11; Zechariah 14:9).
In the New Testament, Paul says that “God is one” (Galatians 3:20), while James notes: “You believe that God is one; you do well: the demons also believe, and shudder” (James 2:19). Clearly, therefore, the oneness of God, in some sense, is a biblical truth. The question is: what does Scripture mean by one God?
In the Old Testament, the words el, eloah, and elohim, from related roots, are generic designations of God. The New Testament term is theos. These appellations, when used of the true God, simply suggest the nature or quality of being divine — deity. The word “God” is not the name of a personality; it is the name of a nature, a quality of being. When it is said, therefore, that there is but one God, the meaning is: there is but one divine nature. There is a unified set of traits or characteristics that distinguish a personality as God.

The Divine Three

It is also clear that the Scriptures teach that there is a personal distinction between those individuals identified in the New Testament as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these persons are in some sense three. Study very carefully the following passages in which the persons of the divine Godhead are distinguished: Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; Luke 1:35; John 14:26; 15:26; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 2:18; 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; Jude 20-21; Revelation 1:4-5.
It is obvious that these inspired verses reveal three separate persons. Furthermore, additional biblical data reveal that each of these three persons is God — i.e., each possesses the quality or nature of deity. The Father is deity (Ephesians 1:3), as is the Son (Hebrews 1:8), and so also the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). Any elementary student of logic knows perfectly well that the Godhead cannot be both one and three without a logical contradiction being involved — if the adjectives “one” and “three” are employed in the identical sense. But the fact of the matter is, they are not used in the same sense. There is but one divine nature, but there are three distinct personalities possessing that unified set of infinite qualities. Thus, there is no contradiction at all.
Without a recognition of the above principle, some Bible passages would be difficult to harmonize. For example, in Isaiah 44:24 Jehovah affirms that he “stretches forth the heavens alone; that spreads abroad the earth (who is with me?).” So, God was alone. Yet in John 8:29 Christ said, “And he [the Father] that sent me is with me; he has not left me alone.” And so, Jesus was not alone, for the Father was with him; correspondingly, the Father was not alone. The question is: how can God be both alone and not alone?
In Isaiah’s passage, God (the one divine nature) was being contrasted with the false gods of paganism; the personalities of the Godhead were not a consideration there. In John 8:29, the relationship of two divine personalities (Father and Son) was in view. Different subjects, but no discrepancy. Similarly, when a certain scribe affirmed that “he [God] is one; and there is none other but he” (Mark 12:32), he was correct. He was declaring monotheism, as suggested above. In another setting though, Christ, revealing a distinction between himself and the Father, said: “It is another that bears witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesses of me is true” (John 5:32).

Old Testament Evidence of Divine Plurality

The biblical doctrine of the Godhead is progressive. By that we mean that the concept unfolds, being gradually illuminated from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Nevertheless, the multiple personalities of the holy Godhead clearly are distinguished in the Old Testament.
(1) “In the beginning God [elohim — plural] created [bara — singular]” (Genesis 1:1). In the plural form elohim, many scholars see a “foreshadowing of the plurality of persons in the Divine Trinity” (Smith 1959, 11). Adam Clarke declared that the term “has long been supposed, by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a plurality of Persons in the Divine nature” (n.d., 28). Richard Watson wrote that elohim “seems to be the general appellation by which the Triune Godhead is collectively distinguished in Scripture” (1881, 1024).
Though some scholars call this plural form a “plural of majesty” (i.e., a suggestion of multiple majestic traits), Nathan Stone observed that the plural of majesty “was not known then” (1944, 12). Professor Harold Stigers noted: “A multiplicity of personalities in the Godhead, implied in the creative process in the use of the titles ‘God’ (1:1) and ‘Spirit of God’ (1:2), is involved in the creative and redemptive work of God” (1976, 47).
(2) Multiple divine personalities are alluded to in such passages as follows:

• “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). (Note: this cannot refer to angels, as is often claimed, for angels are themselves created (Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 148:2, 5), not creators; and the context limits the creating to God [v. 27].)
• “The man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” (Genesis 3:22).
• “Come, let us go down, and there confound their language” (Genesis 11:7). (Incidentally, “come” in the Hebrew text is plural, so that the divine spokesman must be addressing and acting in union with at least two others [Thiessen 1949, 126].)
• “And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” (Isaiah 6:8).
• “Remember also thy Creator [Hebrew plural] in the days of thy youth” (Ecclesiastes 12:1).

(3) Numerous other passages reveal a distinction of personalities within the Godhead:

• In Genesis 18:21, Jehovah, temporarily assuming the form of a man, visits Sodom. Surveying the evil of that area, this “Jehovah” then “rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven” (19:24). Two persons are clearly denominated “Jehovah.”
• “Thus says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6). (Note: the language of this verse is applied to Christ in Revelation 1:17.)
• In Zechariah 11:12, 13, Christ prophetically says: “And I said unto them, if ye think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver. And Jehovah said unto me ...”
• “Jehovah [the first person] said unto my Lord [the second person], Sit thou at my right hand” (Psalm 110:1).
• “Jehovah [the Father] laid on him [Christ] the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6).
• “The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against Jehovah, [the Father] and against his anointed [the Son] saying, Let us break their bonds asunder, And cast away their cords from us” (Psalm 2:2, 3).

This is but a fractional sampling of a vast amount of Old Testament evidence for the plural personalities of deity.

New Testament Evidence of Divine Plurality

There are many obvious indications of distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in the New Testament. For instance, there is the clear case of the baptismal scene of Christ, where Jesus is in the water, the Father is speaking from heaven, and the Spirit is descending as a dove (Matthew 3:16-17).
Then there is Matthew’s record of the “great commission” where baptism is “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The term “name” (Greek onoma) stands for becoming the possession of, and under the protection of, the one into whose name an individual is immersed (Arndt and Gingrich 1967, 575), and its singular form here likely stresses the unity of the holy Three. The multiple use of the article “the” before the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, however, according to a well-known rule of Greek grammar (Dana and Mantey 1955, 147), plainly demonstrates that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate persons, and not merely three manifestations of one person (Warfield 1952, 42).
There are other New Testament evidences revealing a distinction between the divine persons of the holy Godhead:
(1) Christ is said to be a “mediator” between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). The word “mediator” translates the Greek mesites (from mesos, “middle,” and eimi, “to go”), and so literally, a go-between. Arndt and Gingrich note that the term is used of “one who mediates between two parties to remove a disagreement or reach a common goal. Of Christ with the genitive of persons between whom he mediates ...” (508). Clearly, Christ cannot be a mediator between God and man if he is the totality of the holy Godhead.
(2) In John 8:16-17, the Lord cited the Old Testament principle of multiple witnesses for legal documentation. He is countering the Pharisaic allegation that his witness is not true (v. 13). He reasons, therefore, that just as the law requires at least two witnesses to establish credibility, so the Lord is “not alone”; he bears witness of himself, and the Father bears witness of him. If Jesus is the same person as the Father, his argument makes no sense!
(3) Christ once taught: “I am the vine, and my Father is the husbandman” (John 15:1). In the same allegory he identified the disciples as “branches.” The narrative thus has three principal features: husbandman (the Father), vine (the Son), and branches (disciples). It is not difficult to see that there is as much distinction between the husbandman and the vine as there is between the vine and the branches.
(4) “But of that day nor that hour knows no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32). While Jesus was upon the earth, he knew not the time of the judgment day. The Father, however, did know! Thus, clearly the Father and the Son were not the same person. Similarly, “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him” (Matthew 12:32). The contrast here between the Son and the Holy Spirit plainly shows that they are not identical in personality. These two arguments make it certain that Christ was neither the Father nor the Spirit.
(5) In speaking of Christ’s subordination to God, Paul says: “[T]he head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3). Edward Robinson noted the use of “head” (Greek kephale): “Trop. of persons, i.e., the head, the chief, one to whom others are subordinate” (1855, 398). Would it make any sense to speak of one being head of himself?
(6) Jesus is said to be “the very image” of the Father’s substance (Hebrews 1:3). Of the word “image” (Greek charakter), W. E. Vine observed:

In the New Testament it is used metaphorically in Heb. 1:3, of the Son of God as ‘the very image (marg. – the impress) of His substance,’ RV. The phrase expresses the fact that the Son is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint (1940, 247).

(7) The following passages contain contrasts which reveal a distinction between the Father and the Son:

• Christ did not seek his own will, but the will of his Father (John 5:30).
• His teaching was not his, but the Father’s (John 7:16).
• He came not of himself, but was sent of the Father (John 7:28; 8:42).
• He glorified him (John 8:54).
• The Father does not judge, but has given judgment unto the Son (John 5:22).

(8) The Jews had neither heard the Father’s voice, nor seen his form at any time (John 5:37; cf. 1:18). But they had both seen and heard Christ. Hence, he was not the same person as the Father.
(9) There are many grammatical forms which show the distinction between the persons of the Godhead. In addition to plural pronouns (e.g., “our,” “we,” “us” [John 14:23; 17:11, 21]), prepositions frequently function in this capacity. The Spirit is sent from the Father (John 15:26). In the beginning Christ was with (Greek pros) God (John 1:1). He spoke the things which he had seen with (Greek para) him (John 8:38), and he came forth from the Father (John 16:27). All created things are of the Father, and through Christ (1 Corinthians 8:6). Through Christ we have access in the Spirit unto the Father (Ephesians 2:18).
Conjunctions can also indicate a distinction. He that abides in the teaching of Christ has both the Father and the Son (2 John 9). Jesus rebuked the Jews: “Ye know neither me, nor my Father: if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also [Greek kai—as an adverb]” (John 8:19). Comparative terms reveal distinction. Though Christ did not hold onto his equality with God (Philippians 2:6)—in terms of the independent exercise of divine privileges—nonetheless, in essence he was equal with God (John 5:18). In Christ’s subordinate position, though, the Father was greater than he (John 14:28).
(10) Many verbal forms indicate that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate in personality. The Father sent the Son (John 7:29), and the Son sent the Spirit (John 15:26). The Father loves the Son (John 3:35) and abides in him (John 14:10). The Father gave the Son (John 3:16), exalted him (Philippians 2:9), and delivered all things unto him (Matthew 11:27). Jesus commended his spirit into the Father’s hands (Luke 23:46) and ascended unto him (John 20:17). The Bible contains many such expressions which are meaningless if the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person.
If we were so disposed, not only could we introduce a number of additional biblical arguments, but we could also show that the writers of the first several centuries of the post-apostolic age were virtually one in affirming that the Godhead consists of three separate, divine persons. Concerning the matter of their being three persons in the Trinity, A. C. Cox wrote: “Evidences, therefore, are abundant and archaic indeed, to prove that the Ante-Nicean Fathers, with those of the Nicean and the Post-Nicean periods, were of one mind, and virtually of one voice” (1855, 49).

Baptism in the Name of Jesus Only

Before concluding, we need to address the Oneness Pentecostal idea that only certain words may be spoken during a baptismal ceremony (e.g., “I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ”). Oneness clergymen contend that should the statement be made, “I baptize you into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” it would be a violation of Scripture, and thus negate the validity of the immersion. This exhibits a lack of biblical information on this theme.
First, let us note the illogical consequences of such a doctrine. If a specific set of words is to be pronounced at the time of a baptism, exactly what are those words? A brief look at the New Testament will reveal that a variety of expressions are employed when the terms “baptize” and “name” are connected. Observe the following:

• “... baptizing them into (eis) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
• “... be baptized ... in (epi) the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38).
• “... baptized into (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16).
• “... baptized in (en) the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48).
• “... baptized into (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).

These passages contain five variant phraseologies. Which one is to be pronounced at the time of the baptism, to the exclusion of the others? The truth of the matter is none of them has reference to any set of words to be pronounced at the time of baptism.
Second, the language is designed to express certain truths, not prescribe a ritualistic set of words. If the phrase “in the name of Christ” implies the saying of those words in connection with the act to which they are enjoined, what would Colossians 3:17 require?—“And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Accordingly, one would have to preface every word and act with the phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Such highlights the absurdity of the Oneness position.
Wayne Jackson

Sources/Footnotes

• Arndt, W. F. and F. W. Gingrich. 1967. Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Clarke, Adam. n.d. Clarke’s Commentary. Vol. 1. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
• Cox, A. Cleveland, ed. 1885. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 6. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
• Dana, H. E. and J. R. Mantey. 1955. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York, NY: Macmillan.
• Newman, A. H. 1931. Manual of Church History. Vol. 1. Chicago, IL: American Baptist Publication Society.
• Robinson, Edward. 1855. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.
• Sanford, E. B., ed. 1910. A Concise Cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Hartford, CT: S. S. Scranton.
• Smith, R. Payne. 1959. Genesis. Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
• Stigers, Harold. 1976. A Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
• Stone, Nathan. 1944. Names of God. Chicago, IL: Moody.
• Thiessen, H. C. 1949. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
• Vine, W.E. (1940), Expository Dictionary of the New Testament (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
• Warfield, Benjamin. 1952. Biblical and Theological Studies. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed.
• Watson, Richard. 1881. A Biblical and Theological Dictionary. Nashville, TN: Southern Methodist Publishing House.

Copyright © 2013 Christian Courier. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

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