How Important is the Bible to America’s Survival? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2702

How Important is the Bible to America’s Survival?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

There was a time in American civilization when the Bible was integral to every aspect of life. It was reverenced in the home. It was taught and used in the schools. It was incorporated into our laws and integrated into our courts of justice. It was quoted by politicians, judges, educators, and even entertainers. It permeated the great literature of Western Civilization. But with the multitude of attacks on the integrity, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Bible over the last century, respect for the Bible has waned significantly. Particularly after World War II, confidence in the Bible as the divine Word of God has been seriously undermined in America. Amazingly, a recent poll still shows the Bible to be the all-time favorite book for American adults: “Researchers said it’s rare to find such consensus among Americans, regardless of gender, education level, geographic location, race/ethnicity or age” (Hamm, 2008).

THE BIBLE’S CLAIM

How important is belief in the Bible to the survival of any nation? The Bible speaks directly to this point: it is absolutely critical to both personal and private life, as well as national life. Consider these few biblical declarations:

Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?... You shall therefore keep His statutes and His commandments which I command you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land (Deuteronomy 4:5-8,40, emp. added; cf. 5:33; 6:2-3,18).
Set your hearts on all the words which I testify among you today, which you shall command your children to be careful to observe—all the words of this law. For it is not a futile thing for you, because it is your life, and by this word you shall prolong your days in the land (Deuteronomy 32:46-47, emp. added).
The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it (Jeremiah 18:7-10, emp. added).
I will never forget Your precepts, for by them You have given me life. Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day. You, through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies; for they are ever with me. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep Your precepts. How sweet are Your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path (Psalm 119:93,97-98,100,103-105, emp. added).
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12, emp. added).
If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.... He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.... Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth (John 8:31-32; 12:48; 17:17, emp. added).

This means that the Bible is the most important book on the planet, in a class by itself, surpassing all others. Indeed, whereas all other books are the word of men, the Bible is the Word of God.

THE FOUNDERS’ CLAIM

How important was the Bible in the minds of the architects of American civilization? History is decisive on this point as well: the Founders viewed the Bible as absolutely indispensable and integral to the survival of the Republic. It is no wonder that, after a decade-long study in an effort to identify where the Founders acquired their ideas for the formation of the nation and the writing of its constitutions of government, political scientists conducting the study concluded that the Founders cited the Bible in their political utterances far more often than any other source (see Lutz, 1988, pp. 140-141).
Indeed, we live in a time warp far removed from America’s origins. The Founders clearly believed that the initial founding and the future survival of the Republic were both heavily, if not exclusively, dependent on the successful diffusion of the Bible throughout society. In fact, the Framers of the first state constitution of Massachusetts emphasized that very point in its third article:

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of...teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily (Constitution of the...,” emp. added).

The Framers of the Massachusetts constitution believed that “public instructions in piety, religion and morality” could come only from the Bible.
The Continental Congress considered the Bible so important to national life that they actually passed resolutions to make certain that Bibles were in abundance in the country. The Continental Congress directed a committee to investigate ways by which Bibles could be secured. The committee made its report on September 11, 1777, stating “that the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great...your Committee recommend [sic] that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the states in the Union.” Congress promptly ordered the importation (Journals of..., 1907, 8:734-745, emp. added). Four years later, as the colonies suffered from the effects of the British embargo, and as the shortage of Bibles continued, importation became sufficiently impractical that Congress was again petitioned for approval, this time to print Bibles in America, rather than to import them from outside the country. The request was approved and upon completion of the printing, on Thursday, September 12, 1782, the full Congress not only approved the edition, but gave permission for their endorsement to be placed in the front of the Bible! It read: “Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled...recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States” (Journals of..., 1914, 23:574). Who today would believe that the members of the original Congress of the United States considered the Bible so important to national existence that they would expend effort—even in wartime—to make certain that Bibles were available to the American population? The present widespread loss of respect for and interest in the Bible, is disgraceful, and if continued, will spell our national doom.
Numerous Founders gave eloquent testimony to the critical importance of the Bible to America. For example, Constitution signer and Secretary of War under the first two Presidents, James McHenry, insisted:

The Holy Scriptures...can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses (as quoted in Steiner, 1921, p. 14, emp. added).

Patrick Henry believed that the Bible is “a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed” (as quoted in Wirt, 1818, p. 402). The first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1789-1795), John Jay, wrote to Peter Jay on April 8, 1784: “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts” (1980, 2:709, emp. added). One of the Fathers of American jurisprudence, Joseph Story, called the Bible “the common inheritance, not merely of Christendom, but of the world” (1854, p. 259). In his The Age of Revelation (a devastating response to Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason), Elias Boudinot declared:

[W]ere you to ask me to recommend the most valuable book in the world, I should fix on the Bible as the most instructive, both to the wise and the ignorant. Were you to ask me for one, affording the most rational and pleasing entertainment to the inquiring mind, I should repeat, it is the Bible: and should you renew the inquiry, for the best philosophy, or the most interesting history, I should still urge you to look into your Bible. I would make it, in short, the Alpha and Omega of knowledge; And be assured, that it is for want of understanding the scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, that so little value is set upon them by the world at large (1801, p. xv, emp. added).

Noah Webster asserted: “[C]itizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion” (1832, p. 6). Webster also insisted that “[t]he Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society; the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men” (1833, p. v). He further claimed: “All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible” (1832, p. 339). Who today believes these statements? According to this prominent Founding Father, the Bible is responsible for our Republic, our civil liberty, our constitutions of government, and for correcting and regulating human behavior. Yet, we have banned the Bible from public schools, we allow college professors to impugn its inspiration and integrity, and we disallow its use in jury deliberation rooms (People v. Harlan, 2005).

Constitution signer, Gouverneur Morris, observed: “The reflection and experience of many years have led me to consider the holy writings not only as the most authentic and instructive in themselves, but as the clue to all other history. They tell us what man is, and they alone tell us why he is what he is” (1821, p. 30). Declaration of Independence signer, Dr. Benjamin Rush, declared that the Bible “should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness” (1798, p. 100, emp. added). Signer of the Declaration and second President of the United States, John Adams, wrote in his diary on February 22, 1756: “Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited.... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be” (1854, 2:6-7, emp. added). In a letter to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813, John Adams stated that “the Bible is the best Book in the world” (1856, 10:85). Robert Winthrop, who was Speaker of the House in the 1840s, explained: “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet” (1852, p. 172, emp. added).

Another telling indication of the Founders’ attachment to the Bible is seen in their affiliations with Bible societies that were formed to facilitate the distribution of Bibles throughout the country. “A list of Bible society founders reads like a ‘Who’s Who’ of the early Republic” (“Our Story,” n.d.). Founded in New York City in 1816, the American Bible Society provided Bibles to the U.S. military in the 1817 provision of Bibles for the U.S. Navy, and produced its first translation of the Bible in 1818 in a Native American language (“Fact Sheet...,” 2008). The founder and first president of the American Bible Society was Elias Boudinot, one-time President of the Continental Congress. The first vice-president of the Society was the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, who became the Society’s president on the death of Boudinot. Other Founders who were members and/or officers of the American Bible Society included:

James Brown (Revolutionary War soldier; Minister to France; U.S. Senator)
DeWitt Clinton (U.S. Senator; Mayor of New York City; Governor of New York)
Jonas Galusha (Revolutionary War soldier; Vermont State Supreme Court justice and Governor)
William Gaston (U.S. Congressman; North Carolina State Supreme Court justice)
Charles Goldsborough (U.S. House member; Governor of Maryland)
William Gray (Revolutionary War solder; Constitution ratification Massachusetts convention delegate)
Felix Grundy (U.S. House member; U.S. Senator)
William Jones (Revolutionary War solder; Governor of Rhode Island)
Andrew Kirkpatrick (New Jersey House Member; New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice)
Rufus King (Revolutionary War solder; Signer of federal Constitution;U.S. Senator)
John Langdon (Delegate to Continental Congress; Constitution signer; U.S. Senator)
George Madison (Revolutionary War soldier; Governor of Kentucky)
John Marshall (Minutemen officer; U.S. Congress; Secretary of State; U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice)
David Morril (Physician; Clergyman; U.S. Senator; Governor of New Hampshire)
Joseph Nourse (Military Secretary to General Charles Lee; Clerk/Paymaster for Board of War)
William Phillips (Lt. Governor of Massachusetts; State Senator)
Charles C. Pinckney (Revolutionary War officer; Signer of federal Constitution)
Thomas Posey (Revolutionary War officer; State and U.S. Senator)
Isaac Shelby (Revolutionary War officer; first Governor of Kentucky)
John Cotton Smith (U.S. House member; Connecticut Supreme Court Judge and Governor)
Caleb Strong (Constitutional Con­vention delegate; U.S. Senator; Governor of Massachusetts)
Smith Thompson (New York State Supreme Court Chief Justice; U.S. Supreme Court justice)
William Tilghman (Federal Constitution ratification delegate; Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice)
Daniel Tompkins (New York State Supreme Court justice; Vice-President under James Monroe)
Robert Troup (Revolutionary War Lieutenant-Colonel; New York U.S. District Court judge)
Peter Vroom (New Jersey Governor; U.S. House; State Supreme Court Chief Justice)
Bushrod Washington (Revolutionary War soldier; Constitution ratification Virginia delegate)
William Wirt (Virginia State House member; U.S. Attorney; U.S. Attorney-General under Monroe)
Thomas Worthington (Ohio state constitutional convention delegate; U.S. Senator; Governor)

Still other Founders were associated with various Bible societies. Revolutionary War soldier and Governor of New Jersey, Joseph Bloomfield, was a member of the New Jersey Bible Society. Revolutionary War officer and Governor of Massachusetts, John Brooks, served as president of the Middlesex County Bible Society. Chief Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court and U.S. Senator, James Burrell, Jr., served as president of the Providence Auxiliary Bible Society. James McHenry, Secretary of War and signer of the federal Constitution, was a founder and president of the Baltimore Bible Society. Rufus Putnam, Revolutionary War Brigadier-General as well as Surveyor-General under Presidents Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, served as president of the Ohio Bible Society. Declaration signer and Surgeon-General of the Continental Army, Benjamin Rush, served as founder and vice-president of the Philadelphia Bible Society. These lists could be greatly expanded. [NOTE: see American Bible Society, 1816 and Barton, 2000, pp. 139-143, for lengthy listings.]
The following Founders were members of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others (see Holmes, 1808):

James Bowdoin (Constitution ratification delegate and Massachusetts Governor)
Francis Dana (Continental Congress member; Constitution ratification Massachusetts delegate)
Samuel Dexter (U.S. House; U.S. Senator; Secretary of War/Treasury/State under John Adams)
Benjamin Lincoln (Revolutionary War Major-General; Secretary of War)
John Lowell (Continental Congress member; Court of Appeals judge; U.S. federal judge)
William Phillips (Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor; state constitutional convention delegate)
James Sullivan (Massachusetts Supreme Court judge; elected to Continental Congress)
Increase Sumner (Consti­tution ratification Massachusetts delegate; State Supreme Court justice)

Such indications of the importance of the Bible to national health were typical of the mass of American Founders. Some Founders served as Christian chaplains in the Continental Army, including Abraham Baldwin, who signed the federal Constitution and served in both the U.S. House and Senate; Joel Barlow, who filled various foreign diplomatic roles; and Robert Treat Paine, a preacher who signed the Declaration of Independence and served as a Massachusetts Supreme Court judge.
Still another indication of the central place of the Bible among America’s Founders is seen in the fact that U.S. Presidents still follow the tradition, set at the very beginning of the Republic by the “Father of our country,” by placing their hand on a copy of the Bible while being sworn in as President (“Bibles and Scripture...”). History even records that immediately after taking the oath of office, George Washington leaned down and kissed the Bible (“Inaugurals of Presidents...”). The Bible has been so thoroughly part and parcel of American culture that a Bible is still included in most motel and hotel rooms across America.

INTOLERANT ATTACKS ON THE BIBLE

Yet, a full-scale, culture-wide assault on the Bible continues in America. Three plaques, with verses from the Psalms on them posted at lookouts over the Grand Canyon, were removed by the Department of Interior following threats by the ACLU, which claimed the verses were an illegal endorsement of religion by the government (“Scripture Yanked...,” 2003). A U.S. District Court judge ordered the removal of a Bible from a monument that sat in front of the Harris County courthouse in Houston, Texas for 50 years, on the grounds that it violated separation of church and state (“Remove Bible...,” 2003). The Colorado Supreme Court commuted the death penalty conviction of a man on death row (who had kidnapped, raped, and murdered a woman) on the grounds that one of the jurors used the Bible in the decision-making process (Johnson, 2005). The highest judicial figure in the state of Alabama was expelled from the court for his refusal to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the foyer of the judiciary (“Ten Commandments...,” 2003). And the insanity continues....
Indeed, the judiciary of America has been a primary perpetrator in the war on the Bible, as the U.S. Supreme Court banned the practice of requiring students in public schools to read Bible verses every morning (Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963), banned postings of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, since worship of God is included in them (Stone v. Graham, 1980), and banned teachers from sitting at their desks and silently reading the Bible in front of students during a classroom silent reading period (Roberts v. Madigan, 1990). And what of the incessant, ongoing assault in universities across America for the last 50 years, as professors have paraded before their students, steadily chipping away at the integrity of Bible. Such instances are legion. Founder and physician Benjamin Rush’s words, written in 1789, could not be more relevant to our predicament: “The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools” (1951, 1:521). This systematic cleansing of American culture in an effort to jettison the Bible from public life is absurd, demented, and utterly foolish.

THE OUTCOME

If the Bible is correct (and the Founders of American civilization believed it to be), the future of the Republic is inextricably linked with and inherently dependent on the extent to which Americans are willing to return to an intimate acquaintance with the Bible. In a speech delivered in Denver, Colorado in 1911, President Woodrow Wilson referred to the Bible as “the great charter of the human soul, as the ‘Magna Charta’ of the human soul” (Wilson and DiNunzio, 2006, p. 54). He insisted that “America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture” and that Americans must “realize that part of the destiny of America lies in their daily perusal of this great book of revelations, that if they would see America free and pure they will make their own spirits free and pure by this baptism of the Holy Scripture” (p. 59, emp. added). The 30th President of the United States, Calvin Coolidge, warned: “The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country” (as quoted in Thomas, 1996). Time will tell.
Words spoken by God to our predecessors who strayed from His Word are sobering:

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you...; because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. The more they increased, the more they sinned against Me; I will change their glory into shame (Hosea 4:6-7, emp. added).
Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame (1 Corinthians 15:34, emp. added).

We remove the Bible from public life to our shame—and at dire peril. May God bless us with a sufficient number of citizens, educators, preachers, and political leaders who will recall America from her shame. May God bless Americans with the will to return to the Bible in order to bask in the marvelous light of His glorious Word (1 Peter 2:9).

REFERENCES

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), 374 U.S. 203 (1963), The Oyez Project, [On-line], URL: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_142/.
Adams, John (1850-1856), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company).
American Bible Society (1816), Constitution of the American Bible Society: Formed by a Convention of Delegates, Held in the City of New York, May, 1816: Together with Their Address to the People of the United States: a Notice of Their Proceedings: and a List of Their Officers (New York: G.F. Hopkins), [On-line], URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=uXsXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=”Constitution+of+the+American+Bible+Society”&source=web&ots=U3Nhsz-BxA& sig=psatMhvNw81TY5k7tiMTo-3NQV8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPT1,M1.
Barton, David (2000), Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders).
“Bibles and Scripture Passages Used by Presidents in Taking the Oath of Office,” Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pibible.html.
Boudinot, Elias (1801), The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia, PA: Asbury Dickens), [On-line], URL: http://www.google.com/books?id=XpcPAAAAIAAJ&q=baptized.
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, [On-line], URL: http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm.
“Fact Sheet: Who We Are” (2008), American Bible Society, [On-line], URL: http://www.americanbible.org/pages/about-more-facts.
Hamm, Brittani (2008), “Poll: Bible is America’s Favorite Book,” USA Today, April 22, [On-line], URL: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-04-22-bible-favorite-book_N.htm.
Holmes, Abiel (1808), Discourse, Delivered Before the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others in North America (Boston, MA: Farrand, Mallory, & Co.), [On-line], URL: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=ChATAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22Society+for+Propagating+the+Gospel+Among&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=CGHJcDhcpY&sig=l2TPzRA6q069U63GfH65dYp-KiI&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA64,M1.
“Inaugurals of Presidents of the United States: Some Precedents and Notable Events,” Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html.
Jay, John (1980), John Jay: The Winning of the Peace. Unpublished Papers 1780-1784, ed. Richard Morris (New York: Harper & Row).
Johnson, Kirk (2005), “Colorado Court Bars Execution Because Jurors Consulted Bible,” The New York Times, March 29, [On-line], URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/national/29bible.html.
Journals of the Continental Congress (1904-1937), (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office), [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.
Lutz, Donald (1988), The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press).
Morris, Gouverneur (1821), “An Inaugural Discourse Delivered Before the New York Historical Society by the Honorable Gouverneur Morris on September 4, 1816,” in Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1821 (New York: E. Bliss & E. White).
“Our Story” (no date), National Association of State and Regional Bible Societies, [On-line], URL: http://www.nasrbs.org/.
People v. Harlan (2005), Colorado Supreme Court, Case No. 03SA173, [On-line], URL: http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/opinions/2003/03SA173.pdf.
“Remove Bible from Courthouse Display, Judge Says” (2004), The Associated Press, August 11, [On-line], URL: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13849.
Roberts v. Madigan (1990), 921 F. 2d. 1047 (10th Cir. 1990).
Rush, Benjamin (1798), Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia, PA: Thomas & Samuel Bradford).
Rush, Benjamin (1951), Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L.H. Butterfield (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
“Scripture Yanked From Grand Canyon” (2003), World Net Daily, July 14, [On-line], URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33564.
Steiner, Bernard (1921), One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland: 1810-1920 (Baltimore, MD: Maryland Bible Society).
Stone v. Graham (1980), 449 U.S. 39 (1980), The Oyez Project, [On-line], URL: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_321/.
Story, Joseph (1854), A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Harper).
“Ten Commandments Judge Removed from Office” (2003), CNN News, November 14, [On-line], URL:font http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/.
Thomas, Cal (1996), “Silent Cal Speaks: Why Calvin Coolidge is the Model for Conservative Leadership Today,” The Heritage Foundation, [On-line], URL: http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL576.cfm.
Webster, Noah (1832), History of the United States (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).
Webster, Noah (1833), The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments, in the Common Version. With Amendments of the Language (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).
Wilson, Woodrow and Mario R. DiNunzio (2006), Woodrow Wilson: Essential Writings and Speeches of the Scholar-President (New York: NYU Press).
Winthrop, Robert (1852), Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.).
Wirt, William (1818), Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia, PA: James Webster).

God--In Process or Perfection? by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=369

God--In Process or Perfection?

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

Influenced by Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, Alfred North Whitehead introduced the first systematic presentation of a panentheistic world view in 1929 (Geisler, 1971, p. 194; cf. Brown, 1974, pp. 424-425). Panentheism, also known as process theology, should not be misconstrued with pantheism. Pantheism suggests that God is the world, while panentheism argues that God is in the world as the soul is in the body. Hence, the world actually is the temporal manifestation of God.
Building on this God/world relationship, process theologians suggest that God has two poles: potential and actual. His potential pole is His unchanging, perfect, absolute nature, while the actual pole is that aspect of God which is reflected in the changing, imperfect, and incomplete creation. In this regard, the influence of Darwin’s theory of evolution is evident. Though our world, according to the evolutionary scenario, is characterized by apparently purposeless meanderings, “the circuitous wanderings of cosmic evolution seem to mask a faint but persistent urge toward order” (Brown, 1974, p. 433). This “urge toward order” in process theology reflects God’s progress toward His potential pole—He is in the process of becoming all He can be. The theological implication of this position is that God not only has created the world, but is being created by the world (Edwards, 1972, pp. 198-202).
While panentheism has emphasized correctly God’s intimate connection to His creation, its concept of God does not correspond to the biblical portrait. Scripture presents God as the great “I AM”—the self-existing, self-sustaining Being Who created the physical Universe ex nihilo (Exodus 3:14; Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:2; 13:4). Thus, while God is intimately concerned with the creation, He is an eternal spirit Being Who is both superior and prior to the creation (cf. John 4:24; Luke 24:39). In panentheism, the creation (and thus God) is incomplete, and progressing toward its potential perfection. However, the Bible shows that the transcendent God completed His creative activity and pronounced it “very good” (Genesis 2:3; 1:31). As a corollary to this perspective, the Bible suggests that, unlike the optimistic world view of process theology, the creation is experiencing degenerative, not progressive, change. God, on the other hand, is unchanging in His nature (Hebrews 1:10-12). In the final analysis, panentheism is a bold, though failed, attempt to develop a theology that is consistent with the evolutionary world view.
[See related article: “Purpose, Goodness, and Evolution”]

REFERENCES

Brown, Delwin (1974), “The World and God: A Process Perspective,” Philosophy of Religion: Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Norbert O. Schedler (New York: Macmillan).
Edwards, Rem B. (1972), Reason and Religion: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich).
Geisler, Norman L. (1976), Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

In Defense of the Golden Rule by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2853

In Defense of the Golden Rule

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Christ’s summary ethical principle, stated in Matthew 7:12, is often called the “golden rule”: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” We have demonstrated that Christ’s principle is unique—distinct in principle and fruit from the ethics of utilitarianism and other human systems of conduct—and also that it is superior to any other moral principle (Jackson, 1996). Consider the following account of an attack upon the rule, and a response, by Wayne Jackson:

Some, like Dan Barker (a former Pentecostal preacher who converted to atheism), have suggested that the golden rule should be characterized as “bronze”.... Barker argued that if one were a masochist, the golden rule would justify his beating up on someone else (1992, pp. 347-348). His argument assumes that it is rational to be a masochist! Others, not quite so much of the fringe element, have suggested that the golden rule might at least be improved: “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” Such a view, however, is fatally flawed, and even someone who is as ethically confused as Joseph Fletcher (the famed situation ethicist) has acknowledged such (1966, p. 117). The weak may want you to supply them with drugs, or indulge them with illicit sex, etc., but such a response would not be the right thing to do. If I am thinking sensibly, I do not want others to accommodate my ignorance and weakness (1996, emp. and parenthetical items in orig.).

This response to Barker and other critics rightly suggests that the golden rule cannot be manipulated to encourage an action that one perceives as evil prior to applying the rule. On this point, we have defended the golden rule previously.
However, others have suggested that Immanuel Kant’s ethical principle, summarized in his “categorical imperative” does a better job of tracking our moral intuitions than Christ’s rule. The categorical imperative has three formulations, which Kant thinks are equivalent to one another:

1. “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
2. “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.”
3. “[One’s acts—CC] ought to harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends as a kingdom of nature” (1994, pp. 30,42).

Each formulation, according to Kant, is equivalent to the others (p. 41). It is not necessary to develop a full understanding of the categorical imperative here (for more information, see Copleston, 1994, 6:308-348). Of concern here is the alleged superiority of the categorical imperative to the golden rule. The argument goes like this (adapted from Pecorino, 2000):

1. Kant’s rule, as traditionally interpreted, tells us to act as we would want all other people to act toward all other people, and atrocities would be disallowed.
2. The golden rule tells us to act toward others as we would have them act toward us.
3. The golden rule would allow us to do terrible things to others, as long as it is what we wish they would do to us (e.g., masochistic desires could be fulfilled in accordance with the rule).
4. Therefore, Kant’s principle is superior to the golden rule.

In order to dispute the conclusion (4), we must show that either (1) or (3) is false. I will dispute both, in order to demonstrate that the golden rule is superior to the categorical imperative.

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE AND ATROCITIES

There is doubt concerning whether the categorical imperative is equipped to forbid terrible actions. John Stuart Mill, for example, writes:

But when [Kant—CC] begins to deduce from this precept any of the actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur (2001, p. 4; parenthetical item in orig.).

Mill thinks that, even though Kant would have wished to prevent atrocities, his categorical imperative does not do the job.
To assess Mill’s claim, consider an application of the universal-law formulation to an act like masochism or suicide. In this case, Kant uses the universal-law formulation to assert that a person has a duty to avoid harming oneself because the maxim of self-love that is necessary for suicide “cannot possibly hold as a universal law of nature and is, consequently, wholly opposed to the supreme principle of all duty” (1994, p. 31). Let us suppose that Mill views license to commit suicide as one of those “outrageously immoral rules of conduct” (he does think suicide is at least wrong; see Mill, 2003, p. 163). Mill’s objection (above) does indeed contradict Kant’s position here. Kant eschews a world in which everyone feels free to commit suicide, but there is no evident contradiction in such a world, as there is in the world where everyone makes promises they do not intend to keep. The universal-law formulation of the imperative clearly forbids the lying promise, because if everyone lied, it would no longer be effective to lie, and so there is a contradiction in the very conception of such a scenario.
However, it would seem just as easy to harm oneself in a “perturbed social world” where everyone commits suicide as in the world we actually inhabit (the Kantian “perturbed social world is the imagined world wherein the proposed principle of action is universalized according to the categorical imperative; see Rawls, 1999, p. 501). Humanity might destroy itself in such a circumstance, but that result is not equivalent to a contradiction in conception. Mill is correct, based on the first interpretation of his argument, that Kant’s rule allows for atrocities (Kantians would disagree, maintaining that Kant is consistent at least on some interpretation, and I will briefly address this objection before concluding).
Since Mill’s objection is justified in the case of the first formulation (but not in the second or third), then it is not the case that the other formulations are merely new statements of the first formulation, as Kant asserts (p. 41). Robert Johnson observes about the supposed unity of the formulations: “Perhaps Kant thought this, but it is not very plausible: That I should always treat Humanity as an end in itself, for instance, does not seem to mean the same thing as that I should act only on maxims that are consistent with themselves as universal laws of nature” (2008).
One Kantian response to my position would be that I am unfairly manipulating the definition of Mill’s “outrageously immoral” tag. However, if this objection is valid, then suicide is not outrageously immoral, and Kant clearly thinks that it is (pp. 82-85). Johnson mentions another possible Kantian solution: “if the formulas are not equivalent in meaning, they are nevertheless logically interderivable and hence equivalent in sense” (2008). However, it is much more difficult to establish that three separate ethical claims are “equivalent in sense” when they do not yield the same practical results, than it is to agree with Mill that something is wrong with Kant’s model. It is not at all clear that the categorical imperative disallows the kind of actions the permission for which are, allegedly, the downfall of the golden rule. If the golden rule disallows such atrocities, then its superiority to the imperative will have been maintained.

THE GOLDEN RULE AND ATROCITIES

The golden rule certainly does not allow for what are generally considered moral atrocities. Consider two essential principles.
1. The golden rule presupposes natural care for one’s own person. Objections such as Pecorino’s presuppose that the golden rule liberates a person to decide how to treat oneself. The golden rule simply is not designed to determine how one should treat oneself. However, when describing or promoting general ethical guidelines that are based squarely upon the very principle that people act out of self-interest, it is necessary to assume a typical level of self-interest; otherwise the point is unintelligible.
Paul made precisely this assumption in his epistle to the Ephesians: “So husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church” (5:28-29). Paul’s implication is that no rational person is interested in destroying his own body (this is not to say that a person must be unwilling to suffer physically or emotionally for a good cause, or to promote longer life to the neglect of all other considerations; cf. Acts 4:1-20; Revelation 2:10). Jesus obviously was speaking from this perspective when He announced the golden rule.
Yet, someone might wonder whether Jesus took into account the possibility that someone might apply the golden rule to promote atrocities (or, for that matter, whether Paul accounted for cases such as spouse battery or self-mutilation). To answer this question, consider the following.
2. The golden rule must not be separated from the overall context of biblical ethics. We, along with scores of ethicists, have allowed Kant to contextualize his principle in order to explain and defend its implications. Why should we not allow biblical ethics the same privilege? Christ Himself made it clear that the golden rule reflected a large body of doctrine (i.e., “the Law and the Prophets”; see Jackson, 1996; Lyons, 2009).
Moreover, as we interpret Christ’s statement, we must remember that it is part of a larger, verbal presentation to people who presumably did not have self-destruction on their minds. After all, in the very same presentation that includes the golden rule, the Lord made the following statements, all of which promote respectful, loving treatment of self and others:

1. “Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent?” (Matthew 7:9-10).
2. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.... Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (5:7,9).
3. “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake” (5:11).
4. “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned.... You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.... Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.”
5. “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment” (5:21-22).
6. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (5:27-28).
7. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven” (5:43-45).

These passages from Christ’s sermon do not include many other scriptures that corroborate and enlarge upon His teaching in this sermon. Such texts include Pauline injunctions that coincide with the golden rule and disallow sins such as battery (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:3-4; Galatians 5:13, 22; 6:10; Ephesians 4:3, etc.).

CONCLUSION

It is utterly impossible that, at the announcement of the golden rule, Christ’s audience took the golden rule as an endorsement of moral atrocities. Rather, members of the audience would have understood the golden rule as a practical tool to help a person with common-sense intuitions to decide how to treat others, in light of what Jesus previously said in the sermon. There is no reason we should interpret the rule differently.
On the other hand, Kant’s categorical imperative may reasonably be shown to allow moral atrocities. Therefore, the golden rule is better than Kant’s rule. May we strive to implement Christian moral principles in our lives, no matter what may be fashionable in the field of modern or contemporary ethics.

REFERENCES

Copleston, Frederick (1994), A History of Philosophy (New York: Doubleday).
Jackson, Wayne (1996), “Three Rules of Human Conduct,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/231.
Johnson, Robert (2008), “Kant’s Moral Philosophy,” Stanford University, [On-line], URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/.
Kant, Immanuel (1994 reprint), Ethical Philosophy (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett), second edition.
Lyons, Eric (2009), “‘This Is the Law and the Prophets’,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1655.
Mill, John Stuart (2001 reprint), Utilitarianism (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).
Mill, John Stuart (2003 reprint), On Liberty (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Pecorino, Philip A. (2000), “Categorical Imperative,” [On-line], URL: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/ Categorical_Imperative.htm.
Rawls, John (1999), Collected Papers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Pharaoh's Heart Weighed in the Balance by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1343

Pharaoh's Heart Weighed in the Balance

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

“Let My people go” was the demand that set the stage for a conflict that literally changed history. In a devastating series of plagues, Yahweh systematically humbled the contemptuous Egyptian monarch into compliance with His will. The theological impact of these plagues has been elucidated dramatically by Egyptian mythology, which demonstrates that these phenomena were not mere random, punitive acts recklessly performed by an angry God. To the contrary, they were polemical scourges carefully calculated to expose the impotence of Egypt’s so-called gods, whom the Egyptians believed were personified in nature (Exodus 12:12). In fact, scholars have detected a direct relationship between each plague and an Egyptian god, or some aspect of ancient Egypt’s religion (see White, 1975; Davis, 1971).
Egyptian mythology also produces a deeper meaning to another aspect of the Exodus narrative: the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. The heart, according to Egyptian belief, was the seat of emotions, and represented the integrity and purity of an individual. According to the papyrus of Hu-nefer (1550-1090 B.C.), the jackal-headed god, Anubis, weighs this organ against a feather in the balance of truth. If the deceased’s heart weighed more than the feather, he or she would be judged a sinner and eaten by Amenit, the Devouress. If, however, the heart weighed no more than a feather, the deceased gained eternal life (see Pritchard, 1958, pp. 356-357; Currid, 1993).
Interestingly, one of the three words used to describe Pharaoh’s heart (all translated harden) in the Exodus narrative is kabed, which basically means “to be heavy or weighty” (Oswalt, 1980, 1:428). No doubt Pharaoh’s obstinacy was under consideration. But this word used to describe his heart has far-reaching implications in light of Egyptian mythology. It possibly suggests that, contrary to the Egyptian belief that Pharaoh was a divine being whose heart was the epitome of purity, and therefore light as a feather, the Egyptian monarch was a sinner unworthy of eternal life (Currid, 1993, 9[6]:51). This would serve, as did the plagues, to demonstrate Yahweh’s supremacy over the Egyptian god-king. Such information further suggests that the author of Exodus was intimately familiar with the nuances of the Egyptian religion. And, of course, Moses fits that bill perfectly.

REFERENCES

Davis, John J. (1971), Moses and the Gods of Egypt (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Currid, John E. (1993), “Why Did God Harden Pharaoh’s Heart?,” Bible Review, 9[6]:46-51, December.
Oswalt, John (1980), “kabed,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R.L. Harris, G.L. Archer, Jr., and B.K. Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody), 1:426-428.
Pritchard, James (1958), The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
White, W. (1975), “Plagues of Egypt,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 4:805-807.

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" The Family Of Jesus (3:20-21) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

                     The Family Of Jesus (3:20-21)

INTRODUCTION

1. The ministry of Jesus in Galilee certainly drew the attention of
   many...
   a. Multitudes followed Him everywhere - Mk 3:7-8
   b. Jesus' very life was endangered by the crowds - Mk 3:9-10
   c. The house where he stayed was besieged - Mk 3:19b-20

2. It also drew the attention of His physical family...
   a. Who were concerned about what they heard - Mk 3:21a
   b. Who sought to take Him into custody - Mk 3:21b
   c. For they even questioned His sanity - Mk 3:21c

[The reaction of His family is interesting, somewhat understandable.
Before we consider their reaction, and how they later responded to
Jesus, let's review what is revealed in the Scriptures about...]

I. THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY

   A. HIS PARENTS...
      1. Mary - His birth mother
         a. A virgin until Jesus was born - Mt 1:18-25; Lk 1:26-38
         b. Visited her cousin Elizabeth - Lk 1:39-56
         c. Gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem - Lk 2:1:19
         d. Took Jesus to Jerusalem when He was 12 - Lk 2:48-51
         e. Present with Jesus at a marriage in Cana - Jn 2:1-10
         f. Sought Jesus when He was teaching - Mt 12:46; Mk 3:31; Lk 8:19
         g. Present at the cross, committed to John's care - Jn 19:27
         h. With the disciples in Jerusalem following the ascension - Ac1:14
      2. Joseph - His adoptive father
         a. Descendant of David - Mt 1:1-16
         b. Took Mary as wife, did not know her until Jesus was born
            - Mt 1:18-25
         c. From Nazareth, enrolled at Bethlehem - Lk 2:1-5
         d. Presented Jesus at the temple in Jerusalem, returned to
            Nazareth - Lk 2:22-30
         e. Fled to Egypt, later re-settled in Nazareth - Mt 2:13-15,
            19-23
         f. Took Jesus to Jerusalem when He was 12 - Lk 2:48-51
         g. Supposed father of Jesus, a carpenter - Mt 13:55; Lk 3:23;
            4:22; Jn 1:45; 6:42
      -- Jesus was blessed to be born of a virtuous woman, and raised by
         a just man

   B. HIS SIBLINGS...
      1. Brothers - James, Joses, Simon, Judas
         a. All four mentioned by name on one occasion 

            - Mk 6:3; Mt 13:55
         b. They accompanied Jesus and His mother from Cana to Capernaum
            - Jn 2:11-12
         c. Later, with Mary they sought to see Jesus 

            - Mk 3:31; Mt 12:46; Lk 8:19-20
      2. Sisters - Mary, Salome
         a. There were at least two sisters - Mt 13:56; Mk 6:3
         b. No names are given in the Scriptures
         c. Later Christian literature gives the names Mary and Salome
            - Protevangelium of James 19:3-20:4; Gospel of Philip 59:
            6-11; Epiphanius, Pan. 78.8.1; 78.9.6
      -- Jesus was blessed to have a number of half-siblings

[Some believe these "brothers" and "sisters" were actually step-siblings
or cousins, that His mother Mary remained a virgin all her life.  In any
case, let's now direct our attention to...]

II. THE MISGIVINGS IN HIS FAMILY

   A. BEFORE HIS RESURRECTION...
      1. Some thought He was crazy - Mk 3:21
         a. They thought "He is out of His mind"
         b. They endeavored to take custody of Him
      2. His brothers did not believe in Him - Jn 7:3-5
         a. They taunted Him to prove Himself
         b. To show Himself openly to the world
      -- When their brother claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God,
         who can blame them?

   B. AFTER HIS RESURRECTION...
      1. Jesus appeared to James - 1Co 15:8
      2. His brothers became His disciples - Ac 1:14
      3. James
         a. Became identified as "the Lord's brother", a pillar in the
            church, likely author of the epistle of James - Ac 12:17;
            15:13; 21:18; Ga 1:19; 2:19; Jm 1:1
         b. Martyred by being thrown from the pinnacle of the temple
            - Josephus, Eusebius
      4. Joses - little known, evidently became a traveling missionary
         - 1Co 9:5
      5. Simon - little known, likewise a traveling missionary - 1Co 9:5
      6. Judas - believed to be the author of the epistle of Jude - Ju
         1:1
      -- Jesus' resurrection from the dead overcame any misgivings by
         His brothers

CONCLUSION

1. The initial unbelief of some members of His family is
   understandable...
   a. Mary never doubted, for she alone really knew the truth about
      Jesus' birth
   b. But the doubt of His brothers was a normal reaction to His
      outlandish claims

2. Their initial unbelief and eventual faith can be thought-provoking...
   a. They did not believe despite the miracles of His ministry (why
      not?)
   b. Yet they later chose to follow His apostles and suffer for His
      cause (how come?)

3. The transformation in the skeptical members of Jesus' family is
   easily understood...
   a. If in fact Jesus did rise from the dead and appear to them
      afterward!
   b. Thus "The Family Of Jesus" serves as a powerful testimony to the
      resurrection of Jesus!

One last thought:  if Jesus was not truly born of a virgin, what kind of
mother would let her son suffer like Jesus did on the cross and not say
a word?  A simple admission that Joseph (or someone else) was the father
of Jesus, and He could have come down from that cross.  Her silence
speaks volumes...!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" The Unforgiveable Sin (3:22-30) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

                    The Unforgiveable Sin (3:22-30)

INTRODUCTION

1. During His earthly ministry, Jesus faced great opposition from
   religious leaders...
   a. By Pharisees and Herodians who plotted to destroy Him - Mk 3:6
   b. By scribes from Jerusalem, who accused Him of using demonic power
      - Mk 3:22

2. In our text for this lesson, Jesus easily answered the scribes'
   charge...
   a. For Satan to cast out demons defeated his (Satan's) own purpose
      - Mk 3:23-26
   b. On the contrary, casting out demons was integral to defeating
      Satan - Mk 3:27

3. On this occasion Jesus mentioned an "unforgiveable sin"...
   a. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit - Mk 3:28-29
   b. For which there is no forgiveness - cf. Mt 12:31-32

[These words of Jesus have troubled many, who wonder if they have
committed this "eternal sin" (ESV) that "never has forgiveness".  Let's
first seek to identify exactly what was...]

I. THE UNFORGIVEABLE SIN THEN

   A. WHAT WAS THIS SIN...?
      1. Jesus described it as blaspheming the Holy Spirit - Mk 3:29
         a. Blaspheme - "to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile,
            calumniate, blaspheme" - Thayer
         b. Thus to speak evil of the Holy Spirit in some way
      2. Mark reveals exactly how they spoke evil of the Spirit - Mk 3:30
         a. "because they said, 'He has an unclean spirit.'"
         b. By attributing Jesus' power to cast out demons to Beelzebub
            (Satan), they spoke evil of the Holy Spirit by whom Jesus
            cast out demons - cf. Mt 12:28
      3. In effect, they were calling the Holy Spirit a demon; in so
         doing...
         a. They denied the evidence that Jesus was truly from God
         b. They deprived themselves of evidence to believe in Jesus
         c. They divested all hope of forgiveness that comes only
            through Jesus
      -- The unforgiveable sin was to believe that the Holy Spirit was
         in fact Satan!

   B. CAN IT BE COMMITTED TODAY...?
      1. "Probably not. It was a sin committed when Jesus was on earth
         performing miracles. Since He is not physically on earth today,
         casting out demons, the same possibility of blaspheming the
         Holy Spirit does not exist." - Believer's Bible Commentary
      2. "People who worry that they have committed the unpardonable sin
         have not done so. The very fact that they are concerned
         indicates that they are not guilty of blasphemy against the
         Holy Spirit." - ibid.
      3. From the NET Bible:  "Three things must be kept in mind..."
         a. "The nature of the sin is to ascribe what is the obvious
            work of the Holy Spirit (e.g., releasing people from Satan's
            power) to Satan himself"
         b. "It is not simply a momentary doubt or sinful attitude, but
            is indeed a settled condition which opposes the Spirit's
            work, as typified by the religious leaders who opposed
            Jesus"
         c. "A person who is concerned about it has probably never
            committed this sin, for those who commit it here (i.e., the
            religious leaders) are not in the least concerned about
            Jesus' warning"
      -- Even if it can be committed today, if you worry that you have,
         you haven't!

[Speaking of "unforgiveable sins", we do well to review how we can still
fall into a condition where forgiveness is not possible as long as we
remain in it...]

II. THE UNFORGIVEABLE SIN TODAY

   A. WHAT IS THIS SIN...?
      1. There is a sin by which we "crucify again" the Son of God - He6:4-6
      2. There is a sin for which there "no longer remains a sacrifice
         for sin" - He 10:26-31
      -- This sin is one in which there is no hope for forgiveness!

   B. HOW DO WE COMMIT IT...?
      1. Note carefully that it is an ongoing sin, a condition of
         rebellion against God
         a. Committed openly - cf. He 6:6
         b. Committed continually - cf. He 10:26 ("go on sinning", ESV,
            NASB)
         c. Committed willfully - cf. He 10:26 ("deliberately", ESV,
            TNIV)
         d. Committed knowingly - cf. He 6:4; He 10:26
      2. A spiritual condition in which one is doing grave things 

         - He 10:29
         a. Trampling the Son of God underfoot
         b. Treating the blood of the covenant (Jesus' blood) a common
            thing
         c. Insulting the Spirit of grace
      3. A spiritual condition that left unchecked has grave
         consequences
         a. Fearful expectation of judgment - He 10:27
         b. Fiery indignation - He 10:27
         c. Worse punishment than death - He 10:28-29
         d. Vengeance and judgment by the Lord upon His people - He 10:
            30-31
      -- It is any sin that we knowingly refuse to repent of, despite
         many opportunities!

CONCLUSION

1. Many today worry about blaspheming the Holy Spirit...
   a. A serious sin indeed, but likely cannot be replicated today
   b. If one worries about it, they are certainly not guilty of it!

2. People should be more concerned about any sin...
   a. They knowingly commit
   b. They refuse to give up

Whether one is obeying the gospel of Christ for the first time, or has
already "tasted the heavenly gift" (He 6:4) and "received the knowledge
of the truth" (He 10:26), all sins are "unforgiveable" unless we repent.

Are we willing to let the goodness of God lead us to repentance...? -
cf. Ro 2:4-5

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

CHRISTIAN by Gary Rose

Warning label about what? Some character defect? Not good looking? Conservative political views? Poor job? Warning:__________ you fill in the blank.

Now, whatever you fill in the blank with is what is really important to you.

So, WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO YOU....................

Acts, Chapter 11 (World English Bible)

 ¹⁸ When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life!” 

  ¹⁹ They therefore who were scattered abroad by the oppression that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews only.  ²⁰ But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus.  ²¹ The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.  ²² The report concerning them came to the ears of the assembly which was in Jerusalem. They sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch,  ²³ who, when he had come, and had seen the grace of God, was glad. He exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they should remain near to the Lord.  ²⁴ For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith, and many people were added to the Lord. 

  ²⁵ Barnabas went out to Tarsus to look for Saul.  ²⁶ When he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they were gathered together with the assembly, and taught many people. The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. (emp. added vs. 26c, GDR)

WHY?

 Acts, Chapter 4 (World English Bible)

 ¹² There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that is given among men, by which we must be saved!” 

What is most important to you? Answer: that which is the most valuable? Now, you probably are asking "and, how do I determine that...?

My answer is this this: That which provides the best return on investment for the longest time.  And the final answer is.... eternity in heaven with my fellow Christians and God!!!

In short, a CHRISTIAN!!!

BE ONE!!!