May 31, 2014

From Gary... Bible Reading May 31

Bible Reading 
May 31

The World English Bible



May 31
Judges 19, 20

Jdg 19:1 It happened in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the farther side of the hill country of Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehem Judah.
Jdg 19:2 His concubine played the prostitute against him, and went away from him to her father's house to Bethlehem Judah, and was there the space of four months.
Jdg 19:3 Her husband arose, and went after her, to speak kindly to her, to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of donkeys: and she brought him into her father's house; and when the father of the young lady saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.
Jdg 19:4 His father-in-law, the young lady's father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they ate and drink, and lodged there.
Jdg 19:5 It happened on the fourth day, that they arose early in the morning, and he rose up to depart: and the young lady's father said to his son-in-law, Strengthen your heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward you shall go your way.
Jdg 19:6 So they sat down, ate, and drank, both of them together: and the young lady's father said to the man, Please be pleased to stay all night, and let your heart be merry.
Jdg 19:7 The man rose up to depart; but his father-in-law urged him, and he lodged there again.
Jdg 19:8 He arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart; and the young lady's father said, Please strengthen your heart and stay until the day declines; and they ate, both of them.
Jdg 19:9 When the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father-in-law, the young lady's father, said to him, Behold, now the day draws toward evening, please stay all night: behold, the day grows to an end, lodge here, that your heart may be merry; and tomorrow get you early on your way, that you may go home.
Jdg 19:10 But the man wouldn't stay that night, but he rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus (the same is Jerusalem): and there were with him a couple of donkeys saddled; his concubine also was with him.
Jdg 19:11 When they were by Jebus, the day was far spent; and the servant said to his master, Please come and let us turn aside into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it.
Jdg 19:12 His master said to him, We won't turn aside into the city of a foreigner, that is not of the children of Israel; but we will pass over to Gibeah.
Jdg 19:13 He said to his servant, Come and let us draw near to one of these places; and we will lodge in Gibeah, or in Ramah.
Jdg 19:14 So they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down on them near to Gibeah, which belongs to Benjamin.
Jdg 19:15 They turned aside there, to go in to lodge in Gibeah: and he went in, and sat him down in the street of the city; for there was no man who took them into his house to lodge.
Jdg 19:16 Behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field at even: now the man was of the hill country of Ephraim, and he sojourned in Gibeah; but the men of the place were Benjamites.
Jdg 19:17 He lifted up his eyes, and saw the wayfaring man in the street of the city; and the old man said, Where are you going? Where did you come from?
Jdg 19:18 He said to him, We are passing from Bethlehem Judah to the farther side of the hill country of Ephraim; from there am I, and I went to Bethlehem Judah: and I am now going to the house of Yahweh; and there is no man who takes me into his house.
Jdg 19:19 Yet there is both straw and provender for our donkeys; and there is bread and wine also for me, and for your handmaid, and for the young man who is with your servants: there is no want of anything.
Jdg 19:20 The old man said, Peace be to you; howsoever let all your wants lie on me; only don't lodge in the street.
Jdg 19:21 So he brought him into his house, and gave the donkeys fodder; and they washed their feet, and ate and drink.
Jdg 19:22 As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain base fellows, surrounded the house, beating at the door; and they spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man who came into your house, that we may know him.
Jdg 19:23 The man, the master of the house, went out to them, and said to them, No, my brothers, please don't act so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into my house, don't do this folly.
Jdg 19:24 Behold, here is my daughter a virgin, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble them, and do with them what seems good to you: but to this man don't do any such folly.
Jdg 19:25 But the men wouldn't listen to him: so the man laid hold on his concubine, and brought her forth to them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
Jdg 19:26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, until it was light.
Jdg 19:27 Her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way; and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold.
Jdg 19:28 He said to her, Up, and let us be going; but none answered: then he took her up on the donkey; and the man rose up, and got him to his place.
Jdg 19:29 When he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces, and sent her throughout all the borders of Israel.
Jdg 19:30 It was so, that all who saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt to this day: consider it, take counsel, and speak.
Jdg 20:1 Then all the children of Israel went out, and the congregation was assembled as one man, from Dan even to Beersheba, with the land of Gilead, to Yahweh at Mizpah.
Jdg 20:2 The chiefs of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, four hundred thousand footmen who drew sword.
Jdg 20:3 (Now the children of Benjamin heard that the children of Israel had gone up to Mizpah.) The children of Israel said, Tell us, how was this wickedness brought to pass?
Jdg 20:4 The Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered, I came into Gibeah that belongs to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge.
Jdg 20:5 The men of Gibeah rose against me, and surrounded the house by night. They thought to have slain me, and they forced my concubine, and she is dead.
Jdg 20:6 I took my concubine, and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel; for they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel.
Jdg 20:7 Behold, you children of Israel, all of you, give here your advice and counsel.
Jdg 20:8 All the people arose as one man, saying, We will not any of us go to his tent, neither will we any of us turn to his house.
Jdg 20:9 But now this is the thing which we will do to Gibeah: we will go up against it by lot;
Jdg 20:10 and we will take ten men of one hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel, and one hundred of one thousand, and a thousand out of ten thousand, to get food for the people, that they may do, when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin, according to all the folly that they have worked in Israel.
Jdg 20:11 So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, knit together as one man.
Jdg 20:12 The tribes of Israel sent men through all the tribe of Benjamin, saying, What wickedness is this that is happen among you?
Jdg 20:13 Now therefore deliver up the men, the base fellows, who are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death, and put away evil from Israel. But Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brothers the children of Israel.
Jdg 20:14 The children of Benjamin gathered themselves together out of the cities to Gibeah, to go out to battle against the children of Israel.
Jdg 20:15 The children of Benjamin were numbered on that day out of the cities twenty-six thousand men who drew the sword, besides the inhabitants of Gibeah, who were numbered seven hundred chosen men.
Jdg 20:16 Among all this people there were seven hundred chosen men left-handed; everyone could sling stones at a hair-breadth, and not miss.
Jdg 20:17 The men of Israel, besides Benjamin, were numbered four hundred thousand men who drew sword: all these were men of war.
Jdg 20:18 The children of Israel arose, and went up to Bethel, and asked counsel of God; and they said, Who shall go up for us first to battle against the children of Benjamin? Yahweh said, Judah shall go up first.
Jdg 20:19 The children of Israel rose up in the morning, and encamped against Gibeah.
Jdg 20:20 The men of Israel went out to battle against Benjamin; and the men of Israel set the battle in array against them at Gibeah.
Jdg 20:21 The children of Benjamin came forth out of Gibeah, and destroyed down to the ground of the Israelites on that day Twenty-two thousand men.
Jdg 20:22 The people, the men of Israel, encouraged themselves, and set the battle again in array in the place where they set themselves in array the first day.
Jdg 20:23 The children of Israel went up and wept before Yahweh until even; and they asked of Yahweh, saying, Shall I again draw near to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother? Yahweh said, Go up against him.
Jdg 20:24 The children of Israel came near against the children of Benjamin the second day.
Jdg 20:25 Benjamin went forth against them out of Gibeah the second day, and destroyed down to the ground of the children of Israel again eighteen thousand men; all these drew the sword.
Jdg 20:26 Then all the children of Israel, and all the people, went up, and came to Bethel, and wept, and sat there before Yahweh, and fasted that day until even; and they offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before Yahweh.
Jdg 20:27 The children of Israel asked of Yahweh (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days,
Jdg 20:28 and Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days), saying, Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? Yahweh said, Go up; for tomorrow I will deliver him into your hand.
Jdg 20:29 Israel set ambushes all around Gibeah.
Jdg 20:30 The children of Israel went up against the children of Benjamin on the third day, and set themselves in array against Gibeah, as at other times.
Jdg 20:31 The children of Benjamin went out against the people, and were drawn away from the city; and they began to strike and kill of the people, as at other times, in the highways, of which one goes up to Bethel, and the other to Gibeah, in the field, about thirty men of Israel.
Jdg 20:32 The children of Benjamin said, They are struck down before us, as at the first. But the children of Israel said, Let us flee, and draw them away from the city to the highways.
Jdg 20:33 All the men of Israel rose up out of their place, and set themselves in array at Baal Tamar: and the ambushers of Israel broke forth out of their place, even out of Maareh Geba.
Jdg 20:34 There came over against Gibeah ten thousand chosen men out of all Israel, and the battle was sore; but they didn't know that evil was close on them.
Jdg 20:35 Yahweh struck Benjamin before Israel; and the children of Israel destroyed of Benjamin that day twenty-five thousand one hundred men: all these drew the sword.
Jdg 20:36 So the children of Benjamin saw that they were struck; for the men of Israel gave place to Benjamin, because they trusted the ambushers whom they had set against Gibeah.
Jdg 20:37 The ambushers hurried, and rushed on Gibeah; and the ambushers drew themselves along, and struck all the city with the edge of the sword.
Jdg 20:38 Now the appointed sign between the men of Israel and the ambushers was that they should make a great cloud of smoke rise up out of the city.
Jdg 20:39 The men of Israel turned in the battle, and Benjamin began to strike and kill of the men of Israel about thirty persons; for they said, Surely they are struck down before us, as in the first battle.
Jdg 20:40 But when the cloud began to arise up out of the city in a pillar of smoke, the Benjamites looked behind them; and behold, the whole of the city went up in smoke to the sky.
Jdg 20:41 The men of Israel turned, and the men of Benjamin were dismayed; for they saw that evil had come on them.
Jdg 20:42 Therefore they turned their backs before the men of Israel to the way of the wilderness; but the battle followed hard after them; and those who came out of the cities destroyed them in its midst.
Jdg 20:43 They surrounded the Benjamites, chased them, and trod them down at their resting place, as far as over against Gibeah toward the sunrise.
Jdg 20:44 There fell of Benjamin eighteen thousand men; all these were men of valor.
Jdg 20:45 They turned and fled toward the wilderness to the rock of Rimmon: and they gleaned of them in the highways five thousand men, and followed hard after them to Gidom, and struck of them two thousand men.
Jdg 20:46 So that all who fell that day of Benjamin were twenty-five thousand men who drew the sword; all these were men of valor.
Jdg 20:47 But six hundred men turned and fled toward the wilderness to the rock of Rimmon, and abode in the rock of Rimmon four months.
Jdg 20:48 The men of Israel turned again on the children of Benjamin, and struck them with the edge of the sword, both the entire city, and the livestock, and all that they found: moreover all the cities which they found they set on fire.

From Mark Copeland... Peter Defends His Actions (Acts 11:1-18)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                 Peter Defends His Actions (11:1-18)

INTRODUCTION

1. The news of Cornelius' conversion quickly spread...
   a. Those in Jerusalem heard of the Gentiles' reception of the Word
      - Ac 11:1
   b. But Peter's actions were soon criticized by some Jewish Christians
      - Ac 11:2-3

2. As noted previously, there are two accounts of Cornelius' 
   conversion...
   a. There is Luke's description, given as it occurred - Ac 10:1-48
   b. There is Peter's description, when he is called to defend his
      actions - Ac 11:1-18

[In this lesson, we will focus our attention to Peter's description of
the events as they occurred...]

I. PETER'S ACCOUNT OF THIS CONVERSION

   A. PETER HAS A VISION...
      1. While praying in Joppa, in a trance, Peter has a vision - Ac 11:4-9
         a. A sheet descends from heaven, containing all sorts of
            creatures
         b. A voice tells him "Rise, Peter; kill and eat"
         c. Peter objects, for he has never eaten anything common or
            unclean
         d. The voice tells him, "What God has cleansed you must not call
            common."
      2. The vision is repeated three times - Ac 11:10

   B. THE SPIRIT INSTRUCTS PETER...
      1. Three men from Caesarea arrive as Peter contemplates the vision
         - Ac 11:11
      2. The Spirit tells Peter to go with them, doubting nothing - Ac 11:12
      3. Six brethren from Joppa went with him (now with Peter in 
         Jerusalem) - Ac 11:12
      4. They entered the man's house - Ac 11:12

   C. CORNELIUS EXPLAINS WHY HE SENT FOR PETER...
      1. He had seen an angel standing in his house - Ac 11:13
      2. Who told him to send to Joppa and ask for Peter - Ac 11:13
      3. "who will tell you words by which you and all your household
         will be saved" - Ac 11:14

   D. THE SPIRIT FALLS ON THE GENTILES...
      1. "As I began to speak...as upon us at the beginning." - Ac 11:15;
         cf. Ac 2:1-4
      2. Reminded Peter of the Lord's promise to the apostles concerning
         being baptized with the Holy Spirit - Ac 11:16; cf. Ac 1:5
      3. Convinced him that if God gave Gentiles the same gift as given
         to the apostles when they believed on the Lord, who was he to 
         withstand God? - Ac 11:17 

   E. THE IMPACT ON THOSE AT JERUSALEM...
      1. They were silenced, then glorified God - Ac 11:18
      2. Saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to
         life." - ibid.

[Peter's account silenced the objectors, and led to the Gentiles
considered acceptable recipients of the gospel of Christ.  His account
also adds a few details of which we should take careful note...]

II. OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THIS CONVERSION

   A. THE ORDER IN WHICH EVENTS OCCURRED...
      1. Peter explained the events "in order from the beginning" - Ac 11:4; cf. Lk 1:3
      2. If there is any question as to the sequence of events, Peter's 
         account takes precedence
 
   B. THE MOMENT WHEN CORNELIUS WAS SAVED...
      1. Remember that Cornelius was told to send for Peter, who would 
         tell him...
         a. "what you must do." - Ac 10:6
         b. "words by which you...shall be saved." - Ac 11:14
      2. From this, and from what we see in other conversions...
         a. Cornelius was not saved until he heard the "words" (i.e.,
            after the sermon)
         b. Cornelius was not saved until he obeyed what he was told to
            do
      3. What were the words he and his household were told to do?
         a. They were told to believe, as implied in Ac 10:43
         b. They were told to be baptized, as commanded in Ac 10:48
      4. Thus Cornelius and his household were not saved until they
         believed and were baptized! - cf. Mk 16:16; Ac 8:12,13

   C. THE PURPOSE OF THE SPIRIT FALLING ON THEM...
      1. Some presume that the purpose was to save Cornelius and his
         family
         a. That therefore they were saved before obeying the command to
            be baptized
         b. But the Spirit came upon them as Peter "began to speak",
            before they could hear words by which they could be saved! 
            - Ac 11:14-15
      2. The purpose of the Spirit can be gleaned from the following...
         a. The effect it had on the Jewish brethren who were present,
            and Peter's response - Ac 10:45-47
         b. The reaction of those in Jerusalem when Peter explained what
            happened - Ac 11:17-18
         c. Peter's explanation at the council held later in Jerusalem 
            - Ac 15:7-11
      3. The purpose of the Spirit falling on Gentiles was therefore to 
         show Jewish brethren...
         a. That God was no respecter of persons - Ac 10:34-35
         b. That God was willing to grant Gentiles opportunity to repent
            and have life - Ac 11:18
         c. That Gentiles could be saved in the same way as Jews... - Ac 15:9,11; cf. Ac 2:38; 10:48

CONCLUSION

1. Peter's defense of his actions silenced those who accused him of
   impropriety...
   a. For socializing with Gentiles
   b. For sharing the gospel with them

2. But the issue of Gentiles in the church was not over...
   a. It will come up again later in Acts - cf. Ac 15:1-2
   b. It was a major issue addressed in several epistles (Romans,
      Galatians, etc.) 

But we who are Gentiles today can be thankful that God in His grace has
made it clear:  He is no respecter of persons, and that all can be
saved by the grace extended through His Son Jesus Christ...!
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

From Kyle Butt, M.A. ... Telling People What to Think




http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=941

Telling People What to Think

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

Dan Barker, the ex-preacher who deconverted to atheism, is most famous for his book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. In this treatise against God and religion, Barker discussed a book that he wrote for children that contained these words: “No one can tell you what to think. Not your teachers. Not your parents. Not your minister, priest, or rabbi. Not your friends or relatives. Not this book. You are the boss of your own mind. If you have used your own mind to find out what is true, then you should be proud! Your thoughts are free!” (1992, p. 47). Noble sentiments indeed!
But, as one digs deeper into Barker’s book, it quickly becomes clear that those sentiments do not find a willing practitioner in the person of Dan Barker. In his chapter on prayer, Barker wrote:
Don’t ask Christians if they think prayer is effective. They will think up some kind of answer that makes sense to them only. Don’t ask them, tell them: “You know that prayer doesn’t work. You know you are fooling yourself with magical conceit.” No matter how they reply, they will know in their heart of hearts that you are right (1992, p. 109, emp. in orig.).
From Barker’s statement about what should be “told” to those who believe in prayer, it is easy to see that he does not necessarily believe his previous statement that “no one can tell you what to think,” or that a person should use his own mind “to find out what is true.” In fact, what Barker is really trying to say is that a person should only think for himself if such thinking will lead him to believe that there is no God, or that prayer does not work, or that all religion is nonsense. If thinking for himself leads a person to believe in the efficacy of prayer or the existence of God, then that person should be “told” what to believe.
In truth, the Bible demands that each person weigh the evidence for himself or herself. First Thessalonians 5:21 states: “Test all things; hold fast what is good.” Among those things that should be tested are the writings of skeptics like Barker. When blatant inconsistencies pepper their pages like so many spots on a Dalmatian, then those writings should not be “held fast.”

REFERENCE

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

From Jim McGuiggan... ELECT OR ELITE

ELECT OR ELITE

One of the dangers in choosing a special group to act on behalf of a larger group is that misunderstanding and envy may arise. In choosing a special priesthood out of a nation that was, at least, priestly in calling, God was willing to risk the misunderstanding and envy of some of the people. There are numerous texts that show that envy and bitterness were indeed a problem connected with this.
The book of Numbers has this as one of its recurring themes. Chapters 12, 16 and 17 mention the problem. In twelve Aaron and Miriam are chafed by Moses' authority and in sixteen Korah and his companions are maddened by the peculiar claims of Aaron and his family.
In electing a special priesthood God was not creating an elite group but an elect group; not a 'lording it over' group but a servant group; not a 'self-chosen' class but 'an obedient to a call' class of men.
It's clear from a reading of the biblical text that God didn't make these priests paragons of virtue, he didn't work a moral miracle and make them into sinless beings. The behavior of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eli's sons, Hopni and Phineas this and the frequent denunciation of the priesthood by the prophets leave us in no doubt that priests had their character flaws. Nevertheless, though flawed like all others, these God was pleased to choose as leaders of his people.
That being the case, there was no ground for priests to act as though butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. They were chosen not because they were uniformly of wonderful character. In this they were like the nation which God reminded again and again. "I didn't choose you because of your righteousness." Israel had no more reason to look down on their neighbors than the priests had to scorn their fellow-worshipers, the Israelite nation.
But while the priests had to understand and act on that truth, Israel needed to understand that the choice of Aaron and his family was God's choice and as such, when they opposed Aaron, they were opposing God. And when God called Aaron and his family, Israel needed to understand that for Aaron to say no would have been to rebel against Yahweh.
Let me say it again, both priests and the nation needed to understand that the special priesthood was on Israel's behalf. They were called to serve Israel. Envy against the priestly representatives is out of order for many reasons but it misses the mark because it is leveled against those whose very existence was to serve them.
And the priests needed to understand that they were called to serve not to enslave. Authority in the form of representation is for others rather than over others. And this remains true even though the priests are given the authority to settle certain things, they are given decision-making power. The people in many things must submit to the instructions of the priests and are required to regard them as God's representatives to the nation as well as the nation's representatives to God.
This truth of honorable representation is embedded in the very nature of humanity as God created it. He created humans for community and so he created them as interdependent. Deuteronomy 1:9-18; Exodus 18:13-26 and Deuteronomy 16:18-20 speak of the need of honorable representation. Moses isn't able to care for all the needs and troubles of the nation so men who knew and loved God and the nation are chosen to broker peace and justice and contentment between disputing or mutually ignorant parties who differ.Once more, the choice of these judges was for the benefit of the nation and to defy them was to defy God's arrangement by which the entire Community was to be blessed—it was to defy God in the form of anarchy [Deuteronomy 18:7-13]. God-given authority is not an enemy of justice or peace or community! 
Imagine thousands who wished to offer sacrifice to God at the Tabernacle. Paint the picture as realistically as you are able. Bearing in mind that the manner of sacrificing was appointed by God, how could they have managed it without priestly representation? Imagine a sinful nation with all its inner conflicts and picture it left to the physically strong or the wickedly influential or those who can gain overwhelming power because they had the money to bribe support among the people [see the case of Absalom]. Honorable and wise representation beats anarchy and national disorder.
Social justice is viewed as profoundly serious in the OT—it's one of the fundamental requirements of Israel's existence as God's nation. When leaders [priests, prophets, judges or kings] become corrupt and in this way corrupt the entire nation God moves to deal with the situation. The authority structures he put in place are not the problem—corruption in all its forms is the problem!
Up to this point I've been dealing mainly with the individuals rights of the nation and how God's choice of authoritative representation is designed to cater to those God-given "rights". But that is only one perspective of the larger picture. Israel's business was to image God and his ways before the nations of the world! The self-disclosure of God in the story of the covenant with Abraham and his children through Jacob, the Exodus and all that is part of that self-disclosure was to shape Israel's Story and national behavior. As a People they were to be a living embodiment of that continuing self-revelation of God. That imaging of God was for the benefit of the entire human family—a Community was called to bring light to the nations and salvation to the ends of the earth. This of necessity involved the pursuit of social justice within the community [note God's "hearing" Israel's groaning under Egyptian bondage—Exodus 2:23-25].
It's clear that some structures came and went with God's appointment and/or approval because they were no longer needed or no longer served their purpose. SEE. It's also true that some laws were introduced that God did not approve or promote—he tolerated and regulated them [polygamy, concubinage, divorce "for any cause" are examples (see Matthew 19:3-9]. But the truths that underlay all these structures, truths that these structures served, truths about God as creatior and Redeemer—these truths abide despite change.
Democracy and egalitarianism can foster dangerous tendencies. In a world like ours, if we pursue equality "in every conceivable area and way" too vigorously we can destroy something more fundamental that gaining our "rights" in every conceivable way. We can destroy "community" without which "rights" can't exist or if they can they could not be enjoyed.
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

May 30, 2014

From Gary... What you can't see


This sunrise (but wait, perhaps it is a sunset???) is awesome, but that is NOT what I want to occupy your attention. Notice the location; a very desolate, inhospitable place indeed. And yet, life is there and undoubtedly flourishing.   The things we experience in Life are quite often surprising, and if this is true, then what about those things beyond our perception?  Here is but one example...
Habakkuk, Chapter 1
Hab 1:5  "Look among the nations! Observe! Be astonished! Wonder! Because I am doing something in your days-- You would not believe if you were told.
God does indeed work in mysterious ways and often-times in ways beyond our understanding. So, the next time you see something beautiful like this picture, think on these things and realize that you and I are NOT the center of the world- God is!!!!

From Mark Copeland... The Conversion Of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                 The Conversion Of Cornelius (10:1-48)

INTRODUCTION

1. Up to this point, the gospel had been somewhat limited in its
   outreach...
   a. It had spread throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria - Ac 9:31
   b. Other than Samaritans (who were half Jewish), it had gone only to
      the Jews

2. With "The Conversion Of Cornelius" the first Gentile is saved...
   a. A conversion noted not only because he was the first Gentile
   b. But also for the miraculous events that accompanied his conversion

3. As with Saul of Tarsus, we have more than just one account of his
   conversion...
   a. There is Luke's description, given as it occurred - Ac 10:1-48
   b. There is Peter's description, when he is called to defend his
      actions - Ac 11:1-18

[In this lesson, we will focus our attention to Luke's description of the
events as they occurred...]

I. LUKE'S ACCOUNT OF THIS CONVERSION

   A. CORNELIUS HAS A VISION...
      1. Cornelius, a centurion, is a very religious man - Ac 10:1-2
      2. The angel appears to him - Ac 10:3-6
         a. With an announcement that his prayers and alms have been
            noticed by God
         b. With instructions to send for Peter:  "He will tell you what
            you must do."
      3. Cornelius then sends two servants and a devout soldier to Peter
         - Ac 10:7-8

   B. PETER HAS A VISION...
      1. The next day, praying, hungry, Peter has a vision - Ac 10:9-15
         a. A sheet descends from heaven, containing all sorts of 
            creatures
         b. A voice tells Peter to "kill and eat"
         c. Peter objects, for he has never eaten anything common or
            unclean
         d. The voice tells him, "What God has cleansed you must not call
            common."
      2. The vision is repeated three times - Ac 10:16

   C. THE SPIRIT INSTRUCTS PETER...
      1. The men from Cornelius arrive as Peter contemplates the vision 
         - Ac 10:17-18
      2. The Spirit tells Peter to go, "doubting nothing, for I have
         sent them" - Ac 10:19-20
      3. Peter receives the men and takes brethren with him as they go to
         Cornelius - Ac 10:21-23

   D. PETER ARRIVES AT CORNELIUS' HOUSE...
      1. Cornelius has gathered his family and close friends - Ac 10:24
      2. Peter deflects an attempt by Cornelius to worship him - Ac 10:25-26
      3. Peter explains his presence is a violation of Jewish custom, but
         now understands "I should not call any man common or unclean" -
         Ac 10:27-28
      4. To explain why Peter was called, Cornelius recounts the
         appearance and instructions of the angel - Ac 10:29-32
      5. Cornelius and household were ready "to hear all things commanded
         you by God" - Ac 10:33

   E. PETER'S SERMON TO THE HOUSEHOLD OF CORNELIUS...
      1. He begins with a full perception that God shows no partiality 
         - Ac 10:34-35
         a. A perception started with the vision of the sheet and unclean
            beasts
         b. A perception continued with the Spirit's instruction to go 
            with the messengers
      2. Peter then proceeds to proclaim Jesus Christ - Ac 10:36-43
         a. As Lord who was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power - Ac 10:36-38
         b. Who was killed, but then raised from the dead and seen by
            eyewitnesses who knew Him well - Ac 10:39-41
         c. Who has commanded the apostles to proclaim Him as ordained by
            God to be the Judge of the living and dead - Ac 10:42
         d. Through Whom remission of sins is offered to those who
            believe - Ac 10:43
   
   F. THE SPIRIT FALLS ON ALL WHO HEARD...
      1. While Peter was still speaking - Ac 10:44
      2. Astonishing those of the circumcision - Ac 10:45-46
         a. Jewish Christians who had come with Peter
         b. Because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on 
            Gentiles also
         c. Empowering them to speak with tongues and praise God

   G. PETER COMMANDS THEM TO BE BAPTIZED...
      1. How could anyone forbid water to those who had received the
         Spirit just as the apostles did? - Ac 10:47; cf. Ac 2:1-4
      2. So Cornelius and his household were commanded to be baptized in
         the name of the Lord - Ac 10:48; cf. Ac 2:38

[The events surrounding this conversion are certainly remarkable.  They
evidently were intended to convey important truths.  As we endeavor to
glean what those truths were, here are a couple of...]

II. OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THIS CONVERSION

   A. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE NEED SAVING...
      1. Many people believe that if you are religious, you will be saved
         a. That if you go to church, do good, etc., you have a hope of
            heaven
         b. That you will have earned the right to enter heaven
      2. Yet, though Cornelius was a man who...
         a. Was a devout man and feared God with his whole family - Ac 10:2
         b. Gave alms generously and prayed to God always - ibid.
         c. Still needed to be told "words by which you and all your
            household will be saved" - cf. Ac 11:14
      3. Clearly, being religious alone isn't what saves you
         a. Most examples of conversion in Acts involved religious people
         b. It is the blood of Christ that saves! - cf. Ep 1:7

   B. THE GOSPEL IS FOR ALL NATIONS...
      1. Peter perceived that God is no respecter of persons - Ac 10:34-35
      2. Indeed, God desires that ALL men be saved - cf. Jn 3:16; 1Ti 2:3-6; 2Pe 3:9
      3. Therefore He has not predestined some to be saved and others to
         be lost!

   C. THE GOSPEL CULMINATES IN BAPTISM...
      1. It begins with the need to believe in Jesus - Ac 10:42-43
      2. It ends with immersion in water - Ac 10:47-48; cf. Ac 2:38;
         8:35-38; 22:16
      3. "Baptism is here [in Ac 2:38, MAC] a part of the proclamation of
         Christ. In an Apostolic sermon it comes as its logical 
         conclusion.  An effort ought to be made to restore this note in 
         our [Baptist, MAC] preaching." - George Beasley-Murray, Baptism
         In The New Testament, p. 393

CONCLUSION

1. There are other observations to be made...
   a. Which we will consider in the next chapter
   b. As Peter is called to account for his actions

2. While miraculous events surrounded "The Conversion Of Cornelius", his
   salvation was no different from what we have already seen...
   a. He had to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ - e.g., Ac 8:35
   b. He was taught to believe and commanded to be baptized - e.g., Ac 2:36-38; 8:36-38

3. As Peter would later say, it is "through the grace of the Lord Jesus
   Christ" that both Gentiles and Jews are saved - cf. Ac 15:11
   a. We are saved by grace, not works - cf. Ep 2:5,8; Tit 3:4-5
   b. For it is not enough to be religious...
      1) Who could be more religious than Cornelius?
      2) Or the 3000 at Pentecost, the Ethiopian eunuch, Saul of Tarsus,
         Lydia of Thyatira?

4. The grace of God which saves does require a response, however...
   a. A response of faith - Ac 10:43
   b. Faith in Jesus that comes by hearing the gospel - Ac 10:42
   c. Faith which expresses itself in obedience - cf. He 5:9
      1) Particularly, repentance and baptism - cf. Ac 2:38; 3:19; 10:48
      2) Not as works of merit, but as acts of faith by which one 
         receives God's grace

Those of us who are not descended from Israel can rejoice in what God
revealed with "The Conversion of Cornelius". As properly concluded later
by Jewish brethren in Jerusalem:

  "God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life." - Ac 11:18

Have you taken advantage of this wonderful gift, by responding to the
gospel of Jesus Christ in faith, repentance, and baptism...?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

From Bert Thompson, Ph.D. ... The Anthropic Principle




The Anthropic Principle

by  Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

On more than one occasion, evolutionary scientists, while diligently struggling to banish God from His own Universe, have inadvertently accomplished exactly the opposite, and in so doing, have come face-to-face with evidence so powerful, and so astonishing, that it enshrines Him all the more as Creator. However, rather than simply admitting that their findings confirm both a creation and a Creator, they have gone to great lengths to “explain away” the data, or their implications, so that evolution can persist as the most popular explanation for origins. The literature provides multiple instances of this kind of thinking.
For example, Stephen Hawking, in his book, A Brief History of Time, observed: “The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired” (1988, p. 122). But, after acknowledging the “underlying order” in nature, Dr. Hawking quickly dispensed with it, and throughout his book extolled the rich virtues of evolution as “the way it happened.” Paul Davies, the eminent British physicist, has written a book in which the beauty, structure, and extreme complexity of both the Universe and the Earth are examined in depth. Yet Dr. Davies says we exist because of “apparent numerical accidents” and “many more apparent accidents of fortune” (1982, p. 111). Not surprisingly, then, do we discover that he titled his book The Accidental Universe. In that volume, we find this amazing statement:
Many of the rather basic features of the Universe are determined in essence by the values that are assigned to the fundamental constants of nature,...and these features would be drastically altered if the constants assumed even moderately different values. It is clear that for nature to produce a cosmos even remotely resembling our own, many apparently unconnected branches of physics have to cooperate to a remarkable degree (1982, p. 111).
John Gribbin, the renowned evolutionary cosmologist, has voiced his belief that “our form of life depends, in delicate and subtle ways, on several apparent ‘coincidences’ in the fundamental laws of nature which make the Universe tick. Without those coincidences, we would not be here to puzzle over the problem of their existence.... What does this mean? One possibility is that the Universe we know is a highly improbable accident, ‘just one of those things’ ” (1981, pp. 307,309). In the May, 1983 issue of Science Digest, Dr. Gribbin penned an article that discussed in clear terms the design which is apparent in every aspect of the creation. The article concentrated specifically on the Earth, noting how it had exactly the right distance from the Sun, exactly the right distance from the Moon, exactly the right tilt, exactly the right mass, exactly the right atmosphere, and so on. Ironically, the article was titled “Earth’s Lucky Break” (p. 36).

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

Perennially, evolutionists have busied themselves with avoiding the obvious design in nature, and the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from such design: there must be a designer. Realizing that design demands a designer, they have spent considerable time and effort attempting to ignore, explain away, or otherwise weaken the implications of the data. Valiant attempts have been made to give their distorted views respectability. Various “principles” of science have been elucidated to confer such respectability. For example, there is the Copernican Principle, which holds that no part of the Universe is more privileged than any other part. The Principle of Mediocrity holds that life on Earth is nothing special and that because of this, the galaxies are likely filled with other civilizations. The Perfect Cosmological Principle states that the Universe should be identical at all times. And so on.
It is, then, astonishing indeed to learn of the naming and development of one of the newest principle in science—the Anthropic Principle. As its name (from the Greek anthropos, meaning “man”) implies, this principle hinges on man’s part in the existence of the Universe. To quote Gribbin: “The ‘Anthropic Principle’ says that our Universe seems to be tailor-made for us because people like us can only evolve in this kind of Universe” (1981, p. 309).
Did Dr. Gribbin say “tailor-made”? Yes, and Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, explained why:
Thus, according to the physicist and the astronomer, it appears that the Universe was constructed within very narrow limits, in such a way that man could dwell in it. This result is called the anthropic principle. It is the most theistic result ever to come out of science, in my view.... I really do not know what to make of this result—the Anthropic Principle (1984, pp. 21,22, emp. in orig.).
Dr. Jastrow hardly is alone in his consternation over these latest findings in science. The obvious implications of a “tailor-made” Universe have not escaped many of his colleagues. Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton commented: “As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known we were coming” (1971, p. 50). Sir Fred Hoyle of Great Britain has stronger feelings on the matter. In speaking of the precise requirements needed in nature to synthesize the proper carbon and hydrogen atoms necessary to life, Dr. Hoyle observed:
If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are actually found to be.... A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature (1954, p. 121).
Paul Davies also is troubled over these events.
A clear inspection shows that the Earth is endowed with still more amazing “conveniences.” Without the layer of ozone above the atmosphere, deadly ultraviolet radiation from the sun would destroy us, and in the absence of a magnetic field, cosmic subatomic particles would deluge the Earth’s surface. Considering that the Universe is full of violence and cataclysms, our own little corner of the cosmos enjoys a benign tranquility. To those who believe that God made the world for mankind, it must seem that all these conditions are in no way a random or haphazard arrangement of circumstances, but reflect a carefully prepared environment in which humans can live comfortably, a pre-ordained ecosystem into which life slots naturally and inevitably—a tailor-made world (1980, p. 143).
What is the origin of this novel and controversial position? While the words “anthropic principle” are not new, their use in this respect is. They were first applied to these matters by Brandon Carter in 1974 in a lecture to the International Astronomical Union. Dr. Carter, then at Cambridge and now at the Paris Observatory, published his comments in an article titled “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology.” In his lecture, Dr. Carter observed: “What we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers” (1974, p. 291). In other words, the conditions that we observe in the Universe must include those necessary to give rise to intelligent life, or else we would not be here to observe them.
Stephen Hawking paraphrased Carter’s point like this: “We see the Universe the way it is because we exist.” He elaborates as follows: “The idea is that there are certain conditions which are necessary for the development of intelligent life: out of all conceivable universes, only in those in which these conditions occur will there be beings to observe the Universe. Thus our existence requires the Universe to have certain properties...” (1974, pp. 285-286). In his lecture, and subsequent scientific articles, Dr. Carter set forth what he called the Weak Anthropic Principle, as opposed to what he called the Strong Anthropic Principle. Here is the difference.

The Weak Anthropic Principle

Carter said that there was a “biological selection effect” in operation. These were his words, but the idea for them, and thus the idea for the Weak Anthropic Principle (which is based on the concept of “biological selection”) actually were presented thirteen years earlier in a paper in Nature by Robert Dicke (1961, 192:440). Here, using Dicke’s illustration, is how the Weak Anthropic Principle would work. Dicke (as an evolutionist) was attempting to answer the question, “Why do we observe the Universe to be approximately 10 billion years old?” One response, of course (from a strictly evolutionary viewpoint) might be that it is merely a coincidence that we see a Universe that is 10 billion years old. Tony Rothman, writing in the popular science magazine Discover, explained how this problem was solved.
But Dicke reasoned that the Universe must be at least old enough to have generated elements as heavy as carbon because “it is well known that carbon is required to make physicists”—at least physicists as we know them.
Carbon, as it happens, was not created in the Big Bang. Rather it was first synthesized in the earliest stars, and then scattered through space when the stars exploded in supernova, a process that continues today. The cooking time for carbon depends on the mass of a star, but averages a billion years or so. Thus, said Dicke, it would be impossible to observe a Universe younger than the shortest-lived stars, because the very elements we’re composed of wouldn’t exist. On the other hand, if the Universe were much older than it is, most stars would already have collapsed into white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes, rendering our type of life impossible for many reasons. Dicke concluded that the fact that we see the Universe to be about ten billion years old is no accident but a necessary result of the biological selection effect. The Universe’s observed age, he said, “is limited by the criteria for the existence of physicists” (1987, 8[5]:91-92).
This is an example of the weak anthropic principle, and is a good illustration of what Carter meant when he said, “What we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers.” The observed values of physical quantities are restricted by the requirement that they be compatible with the development of Homo sapiens.
Stephen Hawking, in his book, A Brief History of Time, provided a simple explanation of what this means:
The weak anthropic principle states that in a Universe that is large or infinite in space and/or time, the conditions necessary for the development of intelligent life will be met only in certain regions that are limited in space and time. The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the Universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty (1988, p. 124).
And, said Dr. Hawking, “Few people would quarrel with the validity or utility of the weak anthropic principle” (1988, p. 124).
Of course, creationists would agree, but for different reasons. We accept the fact that the Universe is intricately designed so that it supports life as we know it. We accept the fact that if this were not the case, we wouldn’t be here to observe it (for how, pray tell, could we exist in a Universe that would not support our existence?). We accept Dr. Dyson’s conclusion that the Universe looks as if it “knew we were coming.” We accept Dr. Hoyle’s assessment that a superintellect has “monkeyed with” the physics, chemistry, and biology of the Universe, and that “there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” We even would gladly accept Dr. Davies’ suggestion that our Universe appears to be “tailor-made.” And we concur with all these statements because: (a) The scientific evidence is in agreement with them; and (b) We know the Tailor!

The Strong Anthropic Principle

What, then, is the Strong Anthropic Principle? Carter stated it as follows: “The Universe must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.” Most scientists interpret this strong version of the Anthropic Principle to mean that the Universe must be nearly as we know it, or life could not exist. Conversely, if life did not exist, neither, then, would the Universe.
But some scientists, while passively content to accept the Weak Anthropic Principle, are visibly upset over the implications of the strong version. There is good reason for their discomfiture. Paul Davies explained why.
Now clearly the strong anthropic principle is founded on a quite different philosophical basis from the weak principle. Indeed, it represents a radical departure from the conventional concept of scientific explanation. In essence, it claims that the Universe is tailor-made for habitation, and that both the laws of physics and the initial conditions obligingly arrange themselves in such a way that living organisms are subsequently assured of existence. In this respect the strong anthropic principle is akin to the traditional religious explanation of the world: that God made the world for mankind to inhabit (1982, pp. 120-121).
Astronomers, physicists, astrophysicists, biologists, and many others of an evolutionary bent have seen the serious implications of the Strong Anthropic Principle. Dr. Hawking thus observed:
The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. We cannot, at the moment at least, predict the values of these numbers from theory—we have to find them by observation. It may be that one day we shall discover a complete unified theory that predicts them all, but it is also possible that some or all of them vary from Universe to Universe or within a single Universe. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. Of course, there might be other forms of intelligent life, not dreamed of even by writers of science fiction, that did not require the light of a star like the Sun or the heavier chemical elements that are made in stars and are flung back into space when the stars explode. Nevertheless, it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to Universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty. One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science or as support for the strong anthropic principle (1988, p. 125, emp. added).
Dr. Davies similarly stated: “If we believe in only one Universe then the remarkable uniform arrangement of cosmic matter, and the consequent coolness of space, are almost miraculous, a conclusion which strongly resembles the traditional religious concept of a world which was purpose-built by God for subsequent habitation by mankind” (1980, p. 162). Dr. Rothman was quite blunt in his remarks about where acceptance of the Strong Anthropic Principle will lead.
It’s not a big step from the SAP to the Argument from Design. You know the Argument from Design: it says that the Universe was made very precisely, and were it ever so slightly different, man wouldn’t be here. Therefore, Someone must have made it.
Even as I write these words my pen balks, because as a twentieth century physicist I know that the last step is a leap of faith, not a logical conclusion.
When confronted with the order and beauty of the Universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it (1987, p. 99).
Realizing the obvious implications of the scientific evidence supporting both the weak and strong versions of the Anthropic Principle, many evolutionary scientists have rebelled at even the mere mention of it in the halls of science. Yet, in their more candid moments, even these evolutionists are hard pressed to avoid the clear implications of their findings. Listen to Dr. Hawking’s admission on this very topic.
In the hot big bang model described above, there was not enough time in the early Universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that the initial state of the Universe would have to have had exactly the same temperature everywhere in order to account for the fact that the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look. The initial rate of expansion also would have had to be chosen very precisely for the rate of expansion still to be so close to the critical rate needed to avoid recollapse. This means that the initial state of the Universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the Universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us (1988, pp. 126-127, emp. added).
Little wonder, then, that Dr. Jastrow referred to the Anthropic Principle as “the most theistic result ever to come out of science.” And, it hardly is surprising to hear Dr. Davies state: “Many people of a religious persuasion will no doubt find support from these ideas for the belief that the Creator did not aim the cosmic pin at random, but did so with finely computed precision, with the express purpose of selecting a Universe that would be suitable for habitation” (1982, p. 123). That is exactly what the creationists have said all along! It is comforting to see that certain evolutionary scientists finally understand why.

REFERENCES

Carter, Brandon (1974), “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology,” Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, ed. M.S. Longair (Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel).
Davies, Paul (1980), Other Worlds (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Davies, Paul (1982), The Accidental Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Dyson, Freeman (1971), Scientific American, September.
Gribbin, John (1981), Genesis: The Origins of Man and the Universe (New York: Delacorte Press).
Gribbin, John (1983), “Earth’s Lucky Break,” Science Digest, 91[5]:36,37,40,102, May.
Hawking, Stephen (1974), “The Anisotropy of the Universe at Large Times,” Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, ed. M.S. Longair (Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel).
Hawking, Stephen (1988), A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam).
Hoyle, Fred (1954), in Astrophysics Journal Supplement, Vol. I; see also Hoyle, Fred (1964), Galaxies, Nuclei and Quasars (New York: Harper & Row).
Jastrow, Robert (1984), “The Astronomer and God,” The Intellectuals Speak Out About God,” ed. Abraham Varghese (New York: Regnery Gateway).
Rothman, Tony (1987), “A ‘What You See Is What You Beget’ Theory,” Discover, 8[5]:90-99, May.
[AUTHOR’S NOTE: Probably the most definitive book yet written on the subject of the Anthropic Principle is the 706-page volume, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, co-authored by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler (1986, Oxford University Press). Those interested in additional information on this topic may wish to examine this book for further insight.]

Originally published in Reason & Revelation, December 1990, 10[12]:49-52. Copyright © 1990 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

From Jim McGuiggan... CHRISTIAN ADVANTAGE [7]


CHRISTIAN ADVANTAGE [7]

These “Christian Advantage” pieces are supposed to address the question of Christian empowerment. Let me see if I can make myself clear about what I’m working with.
The NT expressly says that the Spirit of God that indwells Christians strengthens them [see]. This is not to be denied.
The pieces I’m working with are not aimed at denying that truth or robbing Christians of the power given to them by the indwelling Spirit. Presuming that my present understanding of the Scriptures in this matter is correct [limited as it is] I just want to contribute to the Christian’s empowerment. I’d like to remove some worry that gnaws at the hearts of many sensitive Christians, give them peace and free them to rejoice in some of what the Holy Spirit does in, through and for them.
I want to help them not to be at all disappointed in God or overly disappointed in themselves. I’d like them to shift their gaze to God’s purpose in them rather than a constant checking of their spiritual/moral pulse and temperature.
My own experience [if I can judge by a huge number of people I’ve known down the years and the many letters I get] is the experience of a vast number of Christians. And what is that?
For more than one reason their experience of the biblical promises of empowerment fall short of their personal moral experience—the promises are not fulfilled and there’s always some fine print that explains why.
“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me,” Paul says in Philippians 4:13 and Christians who find themselves defeated by Sin and sins—not just now and then but year after year after—wonder why they haven’t morally matured and experienced that blessing despite the truth of Philippians 4.
One of the worst fruits of this sense of defeat is this—they begin to doubt the truth of Philippians 4:13. Another is this— they begin to wonder if they truly belong to the Lord Jesus because, if they did, they would surely have the strength to become the devoted and morally mature Christians they long to be and aren’t. But I would suppose that the most commonly experienced bad fruit is that they think there is some fine print they aren’t seeing.
“Fine print” like, “One day but not in this lifetime you will be able to do ‘all things’ through Christ who strengthens you.” [It’s true that the passage doesn’t read like that but maybe that’s the unstated “fine print”.]
“Fine print” like, “Of course the strength of the Lord is offered to you but you have to have the strength to grasp and use it.” [That sounds plausible because the Lord doesn’t turns us into puppets, we must accept what he offers. Still, we wonder what good the offer of the Lord’s strength is if we have to have our own strength to get it. What if we don’t have the strength to get his strength?]
The trouble with these “explanations” as to why we don’t have Christ’s strength to do all these lovely things [like defeat recurring sins, grow in the lovely ways we long for and such]—the trouble with these “explanations” is that they confirm that we lack the strength the passage speaks of.
Two things make matters entirely worse. There are smug and self-righteous Christians who insist we should have already become as morally mature and lovely as they are. [Smugness is a fourth bad fruit that develops in this area.] And if the self-righteous ones are subtle about their “accusation” and confident about their own success the very sensitive tend to believe them—“We should be successful like them.”
The second thing is the realization that countless people who have made no commitment to Jesus as Lord live moral lives at least as morally upright and fine as these disappointed-in-themselves Christians. Setting aside the question: where do these non-Christians get the power? the disappointed follower of Christ wonders why his/her moral life with Christ doesn’t compare favorably with the moral life of those without Christ.
All this and more leads to other bad fruit. “Spiritual depression” and dismay deepen in the defeated and so does impatience in the mature and untroubled believers who can’t understand why no marked growth is seen in the “weaklings”. From pulpits, lecterns and bulletins verses are directed at the weaklings. Passages from the book of Hebrews, for example, which were written to people in danger of apostasy, are used to rebuke people who have no desire whatever to leave the Lord. In truth they hunger for the opposite—they want to please him more, they want his strength to help them to please him.
The concerns of the weak aren’t dealt with. Passages such as Philippians 4 or Ephesians 3 or James 4:7 are quoted as though they were self-explanatory and as though the speakers knew by experience what these passages were talking about. If the preachers, teachers and writers have already “arrived” at great moral power everyone else should have or soon should. If others are not devoted, not truly involved or not morally mature it can only be that they don’t want to be. After all, there’s Philippians 4:13 and Ephesians 1:13, 19 and 3:16.
When believers who cannot and do not want to turn from the Lord Jesus come to believe that the promises are in some definite way beyond their grasp they’re tempted to settle for less. The leaders who see this end up offering the banal and the status quo as teaching/preaching because they have tried constant rebuke or cajoling and it didn't work. It's either that or turf the "weaklings" out.
That’s what these pieces are about.
For clarity’s sake let me just spell out some points and if you choose to pursue me on them DO write me, please.
1. God is at work and always has been at work in the hearts and lives of humans down the centuries. It doesn’t matter who or what they are or where they live. God’s truth though it has been suppressed by the human family as a family has had lovely effects on countless souls though they are all sinners.
2. The Spirit of God did not begin his moral work on Christians only when they became Christians. He was already at work in them long before they came to Christ. Cornelius is a perfect illustration of that truth.
3. The same is true about talents and giftedness [in Christians and non-Christians]—they are gifts from God that develop variously in us in light of our nature and nurture. The idea that the Spirit’s gifts are newly created as if by magic when we become Christians is simply not true. People don’t become Christians and all of a sudden have administrative ability, medical brilliance, patience and other various virtues.
4. The same is true about the baggage we bring with us when we become Christians. Unhealthy fears, ingrained evil habits, ugly attitudes, cruel tendencies and such, these don’t appear by magic—nature and nurture, played on by the “world-spirit” result in our sinfulness and our choosing to sin. These are aspects of who we are when we come to the Lord Jesus for salvation, rescue and the privilege of being his companions [see].
5. The level and nature of our “bentness” differs depending on so many things that there’s no getting to the bottom of an individual profile. We have much in common as humans, of course, but no one’s life runs on the same tracks and while some of the more obvious things about us are predictable [concerning our evil or our moral decency] it’s almost humorous to listen to the gurus who know everything about everyone.
6. The same thing that happens to me and to you is not the same thing that happens to you and me. Part of “the event” is the person to whom it happens. Your father dies and my father dies—same thing! No, not the same thing! I am fragile and you are strong. My marriage falls apart and your marriage falls apart—same thing. No, not the same thing! I have a strong support network and you have no one. The “burden” is never the same because the ones bearing the burden are not the same.
7. What is true about sadness and tragedy is true about blessing and joy. Last year I was capable of "seeing" well; this year [due to trouble] I lack that good vision. It’s true about moral strength and weakness. Children raised in lovely homes with warmth, healthy authority, acceptance and such, have an advantage over children raised in homes of abuse, hyper-criticism and apathy. This is true whether the warm authoritative parents are Christians, Muslims, Jews or Hindus or agnostics.
8. People aren’t shaped by magic, not even divine magic. You want magic? Go to the movies! People are shaped by the Spirit of God but not by his working magic. People are also shaped by an invisible [but real] power of evil that the Scriptures would call satanic or demonic, but not by demonic magic.
9. All this, and more, means that when people come to the Lord Jesus they are people who enter the new creation with different weaknesses or strengths, out of different environments, with different personality traits and different support networks [or none], with different susceptibilities to different forms of sin and different sensitivity to different virtues. All these strengths and weaknesses they bring and they lay them, as part of their very selves, at Jesus’ feet.
10. Since God won’t work magic we shouldn’t expect everyone to be healed in the same way, at the same speed and to the same degree. We shouldn’t even expect to know how to judge such matters. We don’t know enough nor are we pure enough to make such judgments. We certainly know what the obvious evils are but we don’t know the strength of the currents against which people are swimming. You aren’t me! I’m not you! Judge the deed with care and truth but don’t overestimate what you know and don’t overestimate your ability to know!
11. So what’s the difference between the Christian and the non-Christian if the non-Christian is as morally upright as the Christian? So what advantage does the Christian have if God’s Spirit is at work at the moral level in the lives of both non-Christians and Christians?
12.  Paul severely critiques the Jewish nation in Romans 2:17-29 and uses circumcision and the Torah to rebuke the nation. This leads to the question [3:1], “What advantage then has the Jew?” Some scholars think the answer should have been, “None at all!” But Paul says [3:2], “Much in everyway! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.”
13. But how was that an “advantage” if the nation as a nation proved itself faithless to God? The scriptures, the promises were “entrusted” to the Jews but it’s patently obvious from Israel’s history as a nation that the scriptures and promises didn’t transform them into paragons of moral uprightness or faithfulness.
14. The modern scholars I’ve read [I’ve read quite a few] tell us that Israel didn’t have the Holy Spirit so they couldn’t be faithful. Their story is that Christians now have the Holy Spirit so that they can do what Israel could not do because, as they say, Israel didn’t have the Holy Spirit to empower them to keep the law. I think this is nonsense but it’s a discussion for another time [see this and also note the list of faithful heroes in Hebrews 11 whose faith Christians are called to emulate].
15. Passing that by for now, Paul says that the Jews had all kinds of advantage and in particular they had been entrusted with God’s scriptures. Yes, but again, how was that an advantage if i they didn’t morally transform them into devoted followers of God? Well, since Paul said they were advantaged and since it's true that the advantages didn’t morally transform them we need to take a close look at advantage. Since it is true that Christians have been entrusted with God’s scriptures and they haven’t been transformed into moral exemplars and are no better or worse than the decent and upright non-Christian people what advantage do they have, what is the power the Spirit gives?
16. What power do Christians have that non-Christians don’t have? Since OT Israel did have the Holy Spirit’s help what is it that NT believers have that they didn’t? What does the Holy Spirit do for Christians that he doesn’t do for non-Christians?
God enabling I’d like to take that up in part 8.
If you choose, please pursue me on what I’ve said already.