May 6, 2016

From Roy Davison... Are You on the Right Road?


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

Are You on the Right Road?
You may be on the right road or you may be on the wrong road.
What determines whether you are on the right road? How many other people are on the same road? How nice the scenery is? No, you are on the right road if it leads you to the right destination. You are on the wrong road if it takes you to the wrong destination. You are traveling on some road now. Where are you going?
Many are on the wrong road.
"Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths. The way of peace they have not known, and there is no justice in their ways; they have made themselves crooked paths; whoever takes that way shall not know peace" (Isaiah 59:7,8).
Do you think you are on the right road?
Even so you must be careful because according to the Scriptures: "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" (Proverbs 14:12). "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the hearts" (Proverbs 21:2). Jeremiah prayed: "O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps" (Jeremiah 10:23). Man needs guidance from God.
God shows people the right road: "Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls" (Jeremiah 6:16).
How can you know you are on the right road?
The Psalmist prayed: "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Psalm 119:105). You can know you are on the right road only by the word of God.
God's way is the right way.
Any other way is a wrong way because it leads to destruction. "The way of the Lord is strength for the upright, but destruction will come to the workers of iniquity" (Proverbs 10:29).
Abraham, the father of the faithful, was to "command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord" (Genesis 18:19).
The right way, God's way, leads to life; the wrong way leads to death. "I have taught you in the way of wisdom; I have led you in right paths. When you walk, your steps will not be hindered, and when you run, you will not stumble. Take firm hold of instruction, do not let go; keep her, for she is your life. Do not enter the path of the wicked, and do not walk in the way of evil. Avoid it, do not travel on it; turn away from it and pass on. For they do not sleep unless they have done evil; and their sleep is taken away unless they make someone fall. For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence. But the path of the just is like the shining sun, that shines ever brighter unto the perfect day. The way of the wicked is like darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble" (Proverbs 4:11-19).
We must be careful whom we choose to accompany. "The righteous should choose his friends carefully, for the way of the wicked leads them astray" (Proverbs 12:26).
"In the way of righteousness is life, and in its pathway there is no death" (Proverbs 12:28). "The way of life winds upward for the wise, that he may turn away from hell below" (Proverbs 15:24).
The right road is the highway of holiness.
In a prediction of the kingdom of the Messiah, God's Anointed, Isaiah said: "A highway shall be there, and a road, and it shall be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean shall not pass over it, but it shall be for others. Whoever walks the road, although a fool, shall not go astray" (Isaiah 35:8).
Christ is the way.
Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6).
There are only two roads.
Jesus said: "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matthew 7:13,14). "Then one said to Him, 'Lord, are there few who are saved?' And He said to them, 'Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able' " (Luke 13:23,24).
Have you passed through the narrow gate?
Many people think they are on the right road when they have never gone through the narrow gate.
"The way which leads to life" is the way of faithful service in Christ. Jesus admonishes His followers: "Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life" (Revelation 2:10).
"The narrow gate" represents God's conditions for salvation. One must go through this narrow gate to be saved and get on the right road.
The wrong road is broad and has a wide gate.
Some claim that everyone will be saved. Jesus said that few will find the way to life.
Some claim that good people in all religions will be saved. Peter said that salvation is only "by the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 4:10). "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
Some claim that salvation can be earned by doing good works. Paul says: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified" (Galatians 2:16).
Some claim that they can be saved by faith only. James says: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. ... For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:24,26). James says about Abraham: "Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?" (James 2:22).
Some claim that they can be saved by performing religious rituals, when their lives are full of sin and their hearts are full of pride, jealousy and hatred. But we are warned: "Pursue peace with all men, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: looking diligently lest anyone fall short of the grace of God" (Hebrews 12:14,15).
Some claim that they are on the right road because their parents had them christened when they were babies. But Philip told the Eunuch that he had to believe with all his heart before he could be baptized (Acts 8:37).
Because the way to destruction is so broad, we could go on and on telling about wrong ways people think they can be saved.
How do we go through the narrow gate so we can walk on the right road?
Jesus said: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16). Paul wrote: "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17).
The gospel of Christ "is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16). The good news is "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3,4).
We must confess our faith to pass through the narrow gate. "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation" (Romans 10:9,10).
The "good confession" (1 Timothy 6:12,13) is: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:37; Matthew 16:16).
We must also repent to pass through the narrow gate. We must be sorry for our sins, decide to turn away from sin and serve God.
When some came to John for baptism although they had not repented, he replied: "Brood of vipers! Who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance" (Matthew 3:7,8).
When we are baptized on the basis of our faith, repentance and confession, we become a part of the body of Christ and receive forgiveness of sins. We pass through the narrow gate and begin a walk in newness of life.
Peter told believers on the day of Pentecost: "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).
Paul explained to the Romans: "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3,4).
Are you on the right road?
"The way of life winds upward for the wise, that he may turn away from hell below" (Proverbs 15:24). Are you on the highway of holiness, the difficult way that leads to life?
Have you entered the narrow gate? Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, that He died on the cross for your sins and rose from the dead the third day? Have you repented of your sins and completely dedicated your life to God? Have you confessed your faith in Christ? Have you been baptized into His death so you can rise to walk in newness of life?
If so, let us walk together on the way of life that winds upward to the heavenly city where death will be no more.
If not, I urge you to obey the Lord and enter the narrow gate that leads to the way of life.
Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

From Jim McGuiggan... Can Non-Christians do what is good?


Can Non-Christians do what is good?

The answer to the question should be straightforward,of course they can! Christ commends the faith of a pagan centurion (Matthew 8:10-12), the gratitude of a Samaritan (Luke 17:17-19), the loving devotion of a Phoenician mother for her daughter (Mark 7:24-30), the national repentance of the city of Nineveh (Matthew 12:41) and he insisted that outsiders loved their friends and families as surely as his own followers loved theirs (Matthew 5:46-47). The pre-Christian life of Cornelius was a sight to behold. (The real question is not can they be good; the real question is who enables them to be good? And the answer to that's crystal clear--God of course!)
It's a crass form of Christian imperialism that insists that the only good that's really "good" is Christian. There must be many reasons that lead us into such silly conclusions and a sinister elitism is probably one of them. We're a cut above the rest, don't you see! (That'll be the day.) But another reason for it is bad theology and bad handling of biblical texts.
Non-believers are "in the flesh" and that means (so we're told) that they can do no good, only evil. Christians are "in the Spirit" and the Spirit enables them to do what is good. So what are we supposed to do with the vast amount of good so plainly to be seen in non-Christians? We're to do what one gentleman told me we're to do--deny that it is truly "good". It's counterfeit. We stood in the street and twice read the whole of Acts 10 while he looked for some way to show Cornelius wasn't good.
Romans 7:14-25 (a discussion for another time) is used to show that a non-Christian cannot be or do good. Whoever it is that Paul is describing "delights" in God's law and inwardly is a slave to it (7:22,25) and that itself is a profound good. Galatians 5:16-26 is used for the same purpose but it is a misuse of scripture. Paul is not dealing with the question: "Can a non-Christian do good?" He is insisting that to follow and live after the Spirit will result in goodness, will result in fulfilment of the torah (law) rather than a loose moral life. The question is more like, "Will the fruit of the Christian gospel and life be immorality and wickedness?" and his answer is that it will result in the fulfilment of the torah (5:13-14,23 and compare Romans 8:4 and 13:8-10).
God not only gives food and fruitful seasons to non-believers, he gives them "everything else," grand character included (see Acts 14:15-17 and 17:25).
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

"He Opened Not His Mouth" by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1437&b=Isaiah

"He Opened Not His Mouth"

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In what many consider to be the most well-known prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah, the prophet Isaiah foretold of the sufferings that Christ would endure amid His trial and crucifixion, saying (as if it had already happened):
But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.... He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth (53:5,7, emp. added).
According to Isaiah, not only was the Messiah going to suffer cruel punishment on His way to the grave, but He also would do so without opening His mouth. He would be as silent as a sheep is before its shearers.
The problem that some have with this passage is that the gospel writers indicate that Jesus did open His mouth before His accusers, and also later while hanging on the cross. After Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, the high priest questioned Jesus, saying, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus responded, not with silence, but with two statements that infuriated the Jewish council. He said: “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62). Jesus then was sent to Pilate, where He was asked another question about His identity, “Are You the King of the Jews?” As he had done earlier that night, He did not keep silence, but answered Pilate with these words: “It is as you say” (Mark 15:2). Even while hanging on the cross a few hours later, Jesus made several statements, including, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34), and “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:34). So how could the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 be referring to Jesus, since He did, in fact, “open His mouth,” both during His trial, and while hanging on the cross?
Obviously, if the phrase, “He opened not His mouth,” meant that the Messiah would never speak one word while being oppressed and afflicted, then Jesus could not have been the prophesied suffering servant, and the inspired writers, preachers, and prophets of the first century who applied this passage to Him were mistaken (cf. Acts 8:32-33). A proper understanding of this phrase, however, reveals that it does not literally mean the accused “did not open his mouth.” First, not even the skeptic would interpret this verse to mean that the suffering servant literally kept his mouth closed—that if he ever separated his lips so as to allow air, water, or food to enter his mouth, then the prophecy would be annulled. Such would be a ridiculous interpretation of the phrase “He opened not His mouth,” because in this passage Isaiah clearly used the word “mouth” to refer to what the mouth does—it aids in speaking—a figure of speech known as metonymy (where one name or word is employed for another). Second, the phrases “open the mouth” and “do not open the mouth” are Hebrew idioms (appearing both in the Old and the New Testaments), which frequently are used to refer more to the length, freedom, and/or kind of speech, rather than whether one or more words actually are (or are not) spoken.
When Jephthah (the ninth judge of Israel listed in the book of Judges) spoke to his daughter following the victory that the Lord had given Israel over the Ammonites, He said: “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the Lord, and I cannot go back on it” (Judges 11:35, emp. added). The phrase “I have given my word to the Lord” in the New King James Version is literally “I have opened my mouth unto the Lord” (NKJV, emp. added; see ASV). Jephthah had earlier made a vow to the Lord, saying, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s and I will offer it up as a burnt offering” (Judges 11:30-31). The reason that Jephthah was so distraught after returning home from war and seeing his daughter was not simply because he “opened his mouth” and prayed to God, but because included in this prayer was a promise to God—one that caused himself and his daughter great sadness (see Miller, 2003). Jephthah could have spoken to God all day without making such a significant and life-changing statement, and it not have been described as a time in which Jephthah “opened his mouth.” The phrase “opened my (thy) mouth” (Judges 11:35-36) meant that something extremely noteworthy was stated; a promise to God was made that could not be broken.
Notice also how the idea of “opening one’s mouth” is used on occasion in the New Testament. Sometime after Philip had spoken with the eunuch from Ethiopia about the passage of Scripture from which he was reading (Isaiah 53 ironically enough—see Acts 8:30-33), the text states: “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to Him” (Acts 8:35, emp. added). Notice that Philip already had been speaking with the eunuch (8:30), and most likely had made other introductory comments to this stranger that are not recorded by Luke in the book of Acts. However, it was not until Philip began to speak at length to the eunuch, and to preach to him the good news of Jesus, that Philip was described as one who “opened his mouth.”
In chapter ten of the book of Acts, Luke recorded Peter’s visit with a Gentile named Cornelius. After being summoned by the Spirit of God (10:19-20) to travel to the city of Cornelius (i.e., Caesarea), Peter departed on the next day. Upon his arrival, Peter spoke to Cornelius about several things (Acts 10:25-29). He first rebuked Cornelius for worshipping him, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man” (10:26). He proceeded to speak with him about other things not specifically mentioned in the text (10:27). And then he revealed to Cornelius and his household that God had shown him (a Jew) that Gentiles should no longer be considered unclean. After several minutes (or perhaps even a few hours) of conversation between Peter and Cornelius (10:24-33), Luke then recorded that “Peter opened his mouth” (10:34) and gave a defense of the Christ and the Christian faith. Had Peter’s mouth been “open” before this time? Yes. Had he already spoken to Cornelius about several things? Certainly. Now Peter really begins to speak. He had already been speaking, but now he “opens his mouth.” Now hepreaches the Gospel of Christ.
In writing to the church at Corinth, Paul once made the comment: “Our mouth is open unto you, O Corinthians” (2 Corinthians 6:11, ASV, emp. added). This statement obviously carries more meaning than simply, “Paul spoke to the Corinthians.” Certain modern versions translate this verse using such words as “openly” (NKJV) or “freely” (NIV) to describe how Paul and Timothy spoke to the Corinthians. Rather than suppressing various truths that would be beneficial to the church at Corinth (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:2-3), they spoke openly and without restraint. They unreservedly commended themselves and their ministry to the Corinthians in order that they might accept their message (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:1-2; see Jamieson, et al., 1997). This is how Paul used the phrase “to open the mouth.”
When the prophet Isaiah wrote that the suffering Servant “opened not His mouth” while being oppressed and afflicted (Isaiah 53:7), he did not mean that Jesus never uttered a word from the time He was arrested in the garden until His death on the cross. The thought behind this phrase is that the Jesus would not speak freely and unreservedly in defense of Himself. Whereas Jesus could have responded to His accusers with “an open mouth” and given a strong, lengthy defense of His innocence (similar to how Philip, Peter, and Paul testified of both Christ and their own ministry with “an open mouth”), Jesus chose to restrain Himself before His accusers and tormentors. Rather than calling twelve legions of angels to fight this battle for Him (cf. Matthew 26:53), Jesus humbly submitted to His enemies. Rather than performing some notable miracle before Herod so as to gain His freedom (cf. Luke 23:8), and instead of striking the high priest with blindness in an attempt to convince the Sanhedrin that He truly was the Son of God, Jesus suppressed His powers. Less than twenty-four hours earlier, Jesus had healed Malchus’ severed ear, yet Jesus did nothing to lighten His own affliction during His trial and crucifixion—not even mentioning this miracle so as to defend His deity. In light of what Christ could have done to His accusers and what oral defense He could have given before them on His own behalf, Christ’s passive submission before them is remarkable. Truly, “[w]hen He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously” (1 Peter 2:23).
To prophesy that the Suffering Servant “opened not His mouth,” is to use a Hebrew idiom and hyperbolic expression which means that Jesus refrained from giving an exhaustive legal defense on His own behalf. During much of His affliction and oppression He was completely silent (cf. Matthew 26:62-63; 27:12-14). At other times He spoke only a few words—none of which comes close to being the kind of defense He could have offered on His own behalf had He been trying to avoid persecution and crucifixion.
REFERENCES
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Jephthah’s Daughter,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2320.

How Could the Lawless Work Miracles? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=745&b=Matthew

How Could the Lawless Work Miracles?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Near the close of Jesus’ masterful Sermon on the Mount, He reminded His hearers that they must be more than hearers of the Word of God (Matthew 7:21-27); they must be “doers” of God’s Word (cf. James 1:22). Jesus said: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). Jesus then went on to say, “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matthew 7:22-23, emp. added). Recently, a gentleman wrote our offices wondering how someone whom Jesus “never knew” could work miracles such as prophesying and casting demons out of the possessed. How could these individuals do such things without Jesus’ knowledge or authorization?
First, we must keep in mind that the biblical phrase “to know” frequently means more than a mere awareness of something (cf. 1 Samuel 2:18,26; 3:1,7; Lyons, 2006). As Deity (John 1:1-5; 20:28), Jesus certainly “knows” all men (cf. 1 John 3:20). Thus, when He said, “I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you,’” He obviously did not mean that He literally does not know (or will not know) who someone is. Jesus was referring to knowing spiritually those “who are His” (2 Timothy 2:19) and are not His. That is, Jesus knows those who are saved and those who are not. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus “was asserting that the accused had never had a saved relationship with Him. They had not followed Him and His teachings, but had refused to commit their lives to Him as Master and Lord” (Roper, 2003, 1:262).
But how could people who were never actually saved work miracles such as curing the demon-possessed? First, simply because God has used a person to work one or more miracles in the past to accomplish His will, does not mean that every one of those individuals were always (or perhaps ever) right with God. Though God gave the apostles power to “heal the sick” and “cast out demons” (Matthew 10:8; 17:21), one of them was a hypocrite (John 6:64-71). God used Balaam to prophesy (Numbers 22:5-24:25) even though he “loved the wages of unrighteousness” (2 Peter 2:15; cf. Numbers 31:16; Jude 11). Though divination was condemned under the Law of Moses (Leviticus 19:31; Deuteronomy 18:11), God allowed a medium from En Dor to see Samuel’s “spirit ascending out of the earth” (1 Samuel 28:11,13). The fact is, just as God providentially used wicked nations to accomplish His will (cf. Habakkuk 1:5-13), and similar to how He can use insincere and improperly motivated preachers to teach the Gospel (Philippians 1:15-18), God sometimes carried out His will by giving wicked people the ability to perform one or more miracles. Other than Jesus, no accountable human being has ever been perfect (Romans 3:10,23; Ecclesiastes 7:20), and yet God has continually used human beings to accomplish His will. Therefore, just because a person may have worked one or more miracles in Bible times (cf. Miller, 2003), does not mean that that person was ever “known” (i.e., saved) by Christ.
Another explanation exists, however, for Matthew 7:22. Jesus said, “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’” (emp. added). Notice that Jesus never said that these lawless individuals (7:23) were working legitimate miracles in His name. He merely quoted what the lawless will say at the Judgment in their own defense. Many of the scribes and Pharisees were “great pretenders.” They acted as if they were sincere in their devotion to God, when they were actually very deceitful (cf. Matthew 6:1-18; 7:15-20). It may very well be that one of their many deceptions was claiming to work miracles, and even acting as if they cast demons out of the possessed (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:9, NIV, RSV). In reality, however, they were frauds, just as there are many frauds today who are so hypocritical and delusional that one day they may stand before Jesus and attempt to rationalize their wicked behavior, yet to no avail.
“Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5).

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric  (2006), “Did the Patriarchs Know Jehovah by Name?” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1051.
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—Extended Version,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1399.
Roper, David (2003), The Life of Christ (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).

Can a Person Live in Adultery? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4181

Can a Person Live in Adultery?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Confusion exists in the mind of some concerning the status of those who commit the sin of adultery. It is generally recognized that a couple becomes guilty of adultery when they form a sexual relationship in violation of Christ’s teaching in Matthew 19:9. But what is a church to do when one or both of those marriage partners present themselves for church membership, expressing their regret for their sin, but their intention to continue their relationship? Some argue that the couple can be forgiven, if they say they are sorry, on the grounds that people cannot live in adultery. They were guilty of committing adultery when they first came together, but they cannot be guilty of living (in an ongoing state) in adultery, and so may continue their marriage without being guilty of further sin.
Meanwhile, the church tends to shy away from dealing with the matter, permitting the couple fellowship but, amid vague feelings of uncertainty, keeping them at arm’s length. In the midst of this inconsistency, the church unwittingly brings itself under the same indictment leveled at the churches in Pergamum (Revelation 2:14) and Thyatira (Revelation 2:20-22) for their unholy “tolerance.” We must permit God’s words to give us guidance rather than be influenced by our human inclinations, sympathies, or emotions. God’s Word speaks very clearly to this matter.
It is true that sin may be viewed as the practice of isolated acts that are contrary to God’s will. But it does not follow that individuals cannot live in sin. A “liar” is one who is involved in separate acts of lying. What makes him a liar, and therefore guilty of living a life of lying, is his refusal to cease telling lies. A person is a “murderer” if he has killed one or more persons and continues to entertain the possibility of repeating such behavior. A person is an “adulterer” because he has formed a sexual relationship which violates God’s law and refuses to cease that illicit relationship. Simply saying he is sorry for the existence of this adulterous union will not and cannot alter what, in God’s sight, is “not lawful” (Matthew 14:4). As long as that marriage is continued, the parties involved are adulterers (Romans 7:3). Only by terminating that relationship can the parties involved put an end to their adultery. Otherwise, they “continue to commit adultery” (Matthew 19:9—the present tense continuous action), “live in fornication” (Colossians 3:5-7), and “live in [sin]” (Romans 6:2). When Paul reminded Christians at Corinth of their conversion day, he noted that some had previously been fornicators, adulterers, and homosexuals (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Who could possibly doubt the fact that their salvation would have been impossible unless these sexual unions were terminated? Indeed, how could they “that are dead to sin, live any longer therein” (Romans 6:2)?

Atheism and Liberal, Missouri by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1447

Atheism and Liberal, Missouri

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the summer of 1880, George H. Walser founded the town of Liberal in southwest Missouri. Named after the Liberal League in Lamar, Missouri (to which the town’s organizer belonged), Walser’s objective was “to found a town without a church, [w]here unbelievers could bring up their children without religious training,” and where Christians were not allowed (Thompson, 1895; Becker, 1895). “His idea was to build up a town that should exclusively be the home of Infidels...a town that should have neither God, Hell, Church, nor Saloon” (Brand, 1895). Some of the early inhabitants of Liberal even encouraged other infidels to move to their town by publishing an advertisement which boasted that Liberal “is the only town of its size in the United States without a priest, preacher, church, saloon, God, Jesus, hell or devil” (Keller, 1885, p. 5). Walser and his “freethinking” associates were openly optimistic about their new town. Excitement was in the air, and atheism was at its core. They believed that their godless town of “sober, trustworthy and industrious” individuals would thrive for years on end. But, as one young resident of that town, Bessie Thompson, wrote about Liberal in 1895, “...like all other unworthy causes, it had its day and passed away.” Bessie did not mean that the actual town of Liberal ceased to exist, but that the idea of having a “good, godless” city is a contradiction in terms. A town built upon “trustworthy” atheistic ideals eventually will reek of the rotten, immoral fruits of infidelity. Such fruits were witnessed and reported firsthand by Clark Braden in 1885.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Saturday, May 2, 1885
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Saturday, May 2, 1885
Braden was an experienced preacher, debater, and author. In his lifetime, he presented more than 3,000 lectures, and held more than 130 regular debates—eighteen of which were with the Mormons (Carpenter, 1909, pp. 324-325). In 1872, Braden even challenged the renowned agnostic Robert Ingersoll to debate, to which Ingersoll reportedly responded, “I am not such a fool as to debate. He would wear me out” (Haynes, 1915, pp. 481-482). Although Braden was despised by some, his skills in writing and public speaking were widely known and acknowledged. In February 1885, Clark Braden introduced himself to the townspeople of Liberal (Keller, 1885, p. 5; Moore, 1963, p. 38), and soon thereafter he wrote about what he had seen.
In an article that appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, titled “An Infidel Experiment,” Braden reported the following.
The boast about the sobriety of the town is false. But few of the infidels are total abstainers. Liquor can be obtained at three different places in this town of 300 inhabitants. More drunken infidels can be seen in a year in Liberal than drunken Christians among one hundred times as many church members during the same time. Swearing is the common form of speech in Liberal, and nearly every inhabitant, old and young, swears habitually. Girls and boys swear on the streets, playground, and at home. Fully half of the females will swear, and a large number swear habitually.... Lack of reverence for parents and of obedience to them is the rule. There are more grass widows, grass widowers and people living together, who have former companions living, than in any other town of ten times the population.... A good portion of the few books that are read are of the class that decency keeps under lock and key....
These infidels...can spend for dances and shows ten times as much as they spend on their liberalism. These dances are corrupting the youth of the surrounding country with infidelity and immorality. There is no lack of loose women at these dances.
Since Liberal was started there has not been an average of one birth per year of infidel parents. Feticide is universal. The physicians of the place say that a large portion of their practice has been trying to save females from consequences of feticide. In no town is slander more prevalent, or the charges more vile. If one were to accept what the inhabitants say of each other, he would conclude that there is a hell, including all Liberal, and that its inhabitants are the devils (as quoted in Keller, 1885, p. 5).
According to Braden, “[s]uch are the facts concerning this infidel paradise.... Every one who has visited Liberal, and knows the facts, knows that such is the case” (p. 5).
As one can imagine, Braden’s comments did not sit well with some of the townspeople of Liberal. In fact, a few days after Braden’s observations appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he was arrested for criminal libel and tried on May 18, 1885. According to Braden, “After the prosecution had presented their evidence, the case was submitted to the jury without any rebutting evidence by the defence (sic), and the jury speedily brought in a verdict of ‘No cause for action’ ” (as quoted in Mouton, n.d., pp. 36-37). Unfortunately for Braden, however, the controversy was not over. On the following day (May 19, 1885), a civil suit was filed by one of the townsmen—S.C. Thayer, a hotel operator in Liberal. The petition for damages of $25,000 alleged that Clark Braden and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an article in which they had made false, malicious, and libelous statements against the National Hotel in Liberal, managed by Mr. Thayer. He claimed that Braden’s remarks, published in the St. Louise Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, “greatly and irreparably injured and ruined” his business (Thayer v. Braden). However, when the prosecution learned that the defense was thoroughly prepared to prove that Liberal was a den of infamy, and that its hotels were little more than houses of prostitution, the suit was dismissed on September 17, 1886 by the plaintiff at his own cost (Thayer v. Braden). Braden was exonerated in everything he had written. Indeed, the details Braden originally reported about Liberal, Missouri, on May 2, 1885 were found to be completely factual.
It took only a few short years for Liberal’s unattractiveness and inconsistency to be exposed. People cannot exclude God from the equation, and expect to remain a “sober, trustworthy” town. Godlessness equals unruliness, which in turn makes a repugnant, immoral people. The town of Liberal was a failure. Only five years after its establishment, Braden indicated that “[n]ine-tenths of those now in town would leave if they could sell their property. More property has been lost by locating in the town than has been made in it.... Hundreds have been deceived and injured and ruined financially” (Keller, p. 5). Apparently, “doing business with the devil” did not pay the kind of dividends George Walser (the town’s founder) and the early inhabitants of Liberal desired. It appears that even committed atheists found living in Liberal in the early days intolerable. Truly, as has been observed in the past, “An infidel surrounded by Christians may spout his infidelity and be able to endure it, but a whole town of atheists is too horrible to contemplate.” It is one thing to espouse a desire to live in a place where there is no God, but it is an entirely different thing for such a place actually to exist. For it to become a reality is more than the atheist can handle. Adolf Hitler took atheism to its logical conclusion in Nazi Germany, and created a world that even most atheists detested. Although atheists want no part of living according to the standards set out by Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament, the real fruits of evolutionary atheism also are too horrible for them to contemplate.
Although the town of Liberal still exists today (with a population of about 800 people), and although vestiges of its atheistic heritage are readily apparent, it is not the same town it was in 1895. At present, at least seven religious groups associated with Christianity exist within this city that once banned Christianity and all that it represents. Numerous other churches meet in the surrounding areas. According to one of the religious leaders in the town, “a survey of Liberal recently indicated that 50% of the people are actively involved with some church” (Abbott, 2003)—a far cry from where Liberal began.
There is no doubt that the moral, legal, and educational systems of Liberal, Missouri, in the twenty-first century are the fruits of biblical teaching, not atheism. When Christianity and all of the ideals that the New Testament teaches are effectively put into action, people will value human life, honor their parents, respect their neighbors, and live within the moral guidelines given by God in the Bible. A city comprised of faithful Christians would be mostly void of such horrors as sexually transmitted diseases, murder, drunken fathers who beat their wives and children, drunk drivers who turn automobiles into lethal weapons, and heartache caused by such things as divorce, adultery, and covetousness. (Only those who broke God’s commandments intended for man’s benefit would cause undesirable fruit to be reaped.)
On the other hand, when atheism and all of its tenets are taken to their logical conclusion, people will reap some of the same miserable fruit once harvested by the early citizens of Liberal, Missouri (and sadly, some of the same fruit being reaped by many cities in the world today). Men and women will attempt to cover up sexual sins by aborting babies, children will disrespect their parents, students will “run wild” at home and in school because of the lack of discipline, and “sexual freedom” (which leads to sexually transmitted diseases) will be valued, whereas human life will be devalued. Such are the fruits of atheism: a society in which everyone does that which is right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6)—a society in which no sensible person wants to live.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Phil (2003), Christian Church, Liberal, Missouri, telephone conversation, April 7.
Barnes, Pamela (2003), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, telephone conversation, March 12.
Becker, Hathe (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.
Brand, Ida (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.
Carpenter, L.L. (1909), “The President’s Address,” in Centennial Convention Report, ed. W.R. Warren, (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), pp. 317-332. [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/wwarren/ccr/CCR15B.HTM.
Haynes, Nathaniel S. (1915), History of the Disciples of Christ in Illinois 1819-1914 (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/nhaynes/hdcib/braden01.htm, 1996.
Keller, Samuel (1885), “An Infidel Experiment,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Special Correspondence with Clark Braden, May 2, p. 5.
Moore, J.P. (1963), This Strange Town—Liberal, Missouri (Liberal, MO: The Liberal News).
Mouton, Boyce (no date), George H. Walser and Liberal, Missouri: An Historical Overview.
Thayer, S.C. v. Clark Braden, et. al. Filed on May 19, 1885 in Barton County Missouri. Dismissed September 10, 1886.
Thompson, Bessie (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Was Jesus Unkind to the Syrophoenician Woman? by Eric Lyons, M.Min. Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=3797

Was Jesus Unkind to the Syrophoenician Woman?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Testing, proving, or trying someone can be a very effective teaching technique. A teacher might effectively test the honesty of her students by giving them a difficult closed-book exam over a chapter they had not yet studied. Those who took their “F” without cheating would pass the test. Those who opened up their books when the teacher left the room and copied all of the answers word for word, would fail the test, and learn the valuable lesson that honesty is always the best (and right) policy, even when it might appear that it means failure.
Teachers test their students in a variety of ways. Good parents prove their children early on in life in hopes that they learn the virtues of honesty, compassion, and obedience. Coaches may try their players in attempts to instill in them the value of being disciplined in all phases of their game. Bosses test and challenge their employees in hopes of assembling the best team of workers who put out the best products possible. Indeed, mankind has understood the value of tests for millennia.
It should come as no surprise that God has used this same teaching technique various times throughout history. He tested Abraham on Mount Moriah (Genesis 22:1-2; Hebrews 11:17), and hundreds of years later He repeatedly tested the Israelites in the wilderness (Exodus 20:20; Deuteronomy 8:2; Psalm 81:7). King David declared how the Lord “tested” and “tried” him (Psalm 17:3), while his son Solomon wrote: “The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, but the Lord tests the hearts” (Proverbs 17:3). Roughly 1,000 years later, the apostle Paul declared the same inspired truth—“God…tests our hearts” (1 Thessalonians 2:4). Even when God revealed Himself in the person of Jesus, He tested man. For example, once when Jesus saw “a great multitude coming toward Him, He said to Philip, ‘Where shall we buy bread, that these may eat?’” John revealed, however, that Jesus asked this question to “test” Philip (John 6:5-6).
There are certain tests administered by God that some find cold and heartless, partly because they fail to recognize that a test is underway. One such event is recorded in Matthew 15:21-28.
Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” But He [Jesus] answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
In this passage, the reader learns that Jesus: (1) initially remained silent when a Canaanite woman cried out for mercy (vss. 22-23); (2) informed her that He was “not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (vs. 24); and (3) told her that it was not fitting to take that which was meant for the “children” and give it to the “little dogs” (vs. 26). In addition, Jesus’ disciples urged Him to “send her away, for she cries out after us” (vs. 23).
Although Jesus eventually healed the Canaanite woman’s demon-possessed daughter, some believe that Jesus’ overall encounter with the woman indicates that He was unkind and intolerant. For example, the prolific infidel Steve Wells documented hundreds of cases of allegedintolerance in the biblical text. Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician women is number 529 on his list. Of the episode, Wells wrote: “Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, calling the woman a ‘dog’. After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil” (2010).
Even many religious writers and speakers view Jesus’ statements to the woman as unkind, intolerant, offensive, or a racial slur. Dean Breidenthal, in a sermon posted under the auspices of the Princeton University Office of Religious Life, said concerning Jesus’ comment: “I suspect we wouldnot be so bothered by Jesus’ unkind words to the Syrophoenician woman if they were not directed against the Gentile community. Those of us who are Gentile Christians have less trouble with Jesus’ invectives when they are directed against the Jewish leadership of his day” (2003, emp. added). Please do not miss the implication of Breidenthal’s comment. If the statement made by Jesus actually could be construed as unkind, then Jesus would be guilty of violating one of the primary characteristics of love, since love “suffers long and is kind” (1 Corinthians 13:4). Any unkindness on Jesus’ part would cast doubt on His deity. Is it true that Jesus exhibited an unkind attitude in His treatment of the Syrophoenician woman?

TO THE JEW FIRST AND ALSO TO THE GREEKS

In order to understand properly Jesus’ statement, one must recognize the divinely appointed order in which the Gospel would spread. Jesus was passing through the land of the Gentiles (Greeks) and was approached by a woman who was not a Jew. While Jesus’ message would eventually reach the Gentile world, it is evident from the Scriptures that the Jewish nation would be the initial recipient of that message. In his account of Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, Matthew recorded that Jesus said: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). When Jesus sent the twelve apostles on the “limited commission,” He told them: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6).
Just before Jesus ascended to heaven after His resurrection, He informed the apostles: “[A]nd you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The sequence of places where the apostles would witness manifests the order in which the Gospel would be preached (i.e., the Jews first and then the Gentiles). In addition, in his epistle to the church at Rome, the apostle Paul stated: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (1:16). Jesus’ statement to the Syrophoenician woman indicated that the Jewish nation was Jesus’ primary target for evangelism during His earthly ministry.

HOW FAR CAN AN ANIMAL ILLUSTRATION BE TAKEN?

To our 21st-century ears, the idea that Jesus would refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” has the potential to sound belittling and unkind. When we consider how we often use animal terms in illustrative or idiomatic ways, however, Jesus’ comments are much more benign. For instance, suppose a particular lawyer exhibits unyielding tenacity. We might say he is a “bulldog” when he deals with the evidence. Or we might say that a person is “as cute as a puppy” or has “puppy-dog eyes.” If someone has a lucky day, we might say something like “every dog has its day.” Or if an adult refuses to learn to use new technology, we might say that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” In addition, one might say that a person “works like a dog,” is the “top dog” at the office, or is “dog tired.” Obviously, to call someone “top dog” would convey no derogatory connotation.
For Jesus’ statement to be construed as unkind or wrong in some way, a person would be forced to prove that the illustration or idiom He used to refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” must be taken in a derogatory fashion. Such cannot be proved. In fact, the term Jesus used for “little dogs” could easily be taken in an illustrative way without any type of unkind insinuation. In his commentary on Mark, renowned commentator R.C.H. Lenski translated the Greek term used by Jesus (kunaria) as “little pet dogs.” Lenski further noted concerning Jesus statement: “In the Orient dogs have no owners but run wild and serve as scavengers for all garbage and offal.... It is an entirely different conception when Jesus speaks of ‘little pet dogs’ in referring to the Gentiles. These have owners who keep them even in the house and feed them by throwing them bits from the table” (1961, p. 304). Lenski goes on to write concerning Jesus’ statement: “All that Jesus does is to ask the disciples and the woman to accept the divine plan that Jesus must work out his mission among the Jews.... Any share of Gentile individuals in any of these blessings can only be incidental during Jesus’ ministry in Israel” (pp. 304-305). In regard to the non-derogatory nature of Jesus’ comment to the Gentile woman, Allen Black wrote: “The form of his statement is proverbial. And the basis of the proverb is not an antipathy for Gentiles, but the necessary Jewish focus of Jesus’ earthly ministry” (1995, p. 137).

A TEST OF FAITH

Given other information in Matthew’s gospel account as well as the overall context of Matthew chapter 15, it appears that more was going on in these verses than Jesus simply wanting the Gentile woman to understand that He was “not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). Consider that Matthew had earlier recorded how a Roman centurion approached Jesus on behalf of his paralyzed servant. Jesus did not respond in that instance as He did with the Syrophoenician woman. He simply stated: “I will come and heal him” (8:7). After witnessing the centurion’s refreshing humility and great faith (pleading for Christ to “only speak a word” and his servant would be healed—vss. 8-9), Jesus responded: “I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel” (vs. 10, emp. added).
If Jesus so willingly responded to a Gentile in Matthew chapter eight by miraculously healing his servant of paralysis, why did He initially resist healing the Gentile woman’s demon-possessed daughter in Matthew chapter 15? Consider the immediate context of the chapter. The scribes and Pharisees had once again come to criticize and badger Jesus (15:1-2). The Son of God responded with a hard-hitting truth: that His enemies were hypocrites who treasured tradition more than the Word of God, and whose religion was heartless (vss. 3-9). What was the reaction of the Pharisees? Matthew gives no indication that their hearts were pricked by the Truth. Instead, Jesus’ disciples reported to Him that “the Pharisees were offended” by Jesus’ teachings (vs. 12, emp. added), to which Jesus responded: “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch” (vss. 13-14). Unlike many modern-day preachers who water down the Gospel and apologize for the Truth, Jesus did not sugar coat it. It may be a difficult pill to swallow, but sincere truth-seekers will respond in all humility, regardless of being offended.
Being offended is exactly what many people would have been had they initially been turned down by Jesus as was the Canaanite woman. While she pled for mercy, at first Jesus remained silent. Then, after being informed that Jesus “was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (vs. 24), she worshiped Him and begged Him for help (vs. 25). Even after being told, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs” (vs. 26), this persistent, humble woman did not allow potentially offensive remarks to harden her heart. Unlike the hypocritical Jewish scribes and Pharisees who responded to Jesus with hard-heartedness, this Gentile acknowledged her unworthiness, while persistently pursuing the Holy One for help (15:27). Ultimately, her faith resulted in the healing of her daughter and served as an admonition to those witnessing the event about the nature of true faith.
What many people miss in this story is what is so evident in other parts of Scripture: Jesus was testing this Canaanite woman, while at the same time teaching His disciples how the tenderhearted respond to possibly offensive truths. The fact is, the truth can hurt (cf. Acts 2:36-37). However, we must remember to respond to God’s tests and teachings of truth with all humility, rather than haughtiness (James 4:6,10).
Before people “dog” Jesus for the way He used an animal illustration, they might need to reconsider that “their bark is much worse than their bite” when it comes to insinuating that Jesus was unkind and intolerant. In truth, they are simply “barking up the wrong tree” by attempting to call Jesus’ character into question. They need to “call off the dogs” on this one and “let sleeping dogs lie.”

REFERENCES

Black, Allen (1995), The Book of Mark (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Breidenthal, Dean (2003), “The Children’s Bread,” http://web.princeton.edu/sites/chapel/Sermon%20Files/2003_sermons/090703.htm.
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Wells, Steve (2010), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html.

Different Views of Death by Wayne Jackson, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=237

Different Views of Death

by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

None of us enjoys contemplating the prospect of losing a loved one to death. It is a horrible experience. Yet, if the deceased is a child of God, the pain is lessened considerably. This is why the apostle Paul could say, in his letter to the saints at Thessalonica, that we “sorrow not, even as the rest [non-Christians], who have no hope” (1 Thessalonians 4:13). When a dear one in Christ leaves this life, we sorrow—not for the one who has gone to be with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8), but for our own temporal loss. And it is temporal, because eventually there will be happy reunions (Genesis 25:8; Matthew 8:11).
I recently read of a case that illustrates the bleakness faced by the unbeliever when he is forced to face the prospect of death’s separations.
Marie Curie was undoubtedly the most prominent woman scientist of all time. She was twice awarded the Nobel Prize. She was married to Pierre Curie, a prominent scientist in his own right. On April 19, 1906, Pierre was run over by a galloping team of horses pulling a heavy wagon. His head was crushed by one of the wheels and he died instantly.
In a biography about her mother, Eve Curie describes how Marie was devastated by the accident. She clung to Pierre’s corpse as he was dressed for the funeral. She kissed him repeatedly. From that day, Eve says, she became “a pitiful and incurably lonely woman” (p. 247). For a long time she wrote notes to him each day in her diary. Here is one of those notations: “Your coffin was closed and I could see you no more.... We saw you go down into the deep, big hole.... They filled the grave and put sheaves of flowers on it, everything is over. Pierre is sleeping his last sleep beneath the earth; it is the end of everything, everything, everything” (p. 249).
Obviously Madame Curie had utterly no hope of ever seeing her beloved husband again. Years before, Marie had abandoned whatever faith she had. Eve writes that her mother “gave her [daughters] no sort of pious education. She felt herself incapable of teaching them dogmas in which she no longer believed: above all she feared for them the distress she had known when she lost her faith” (p. 268).
How very sad. Death is not the end of everything. Rather, it is the beginning. It is the beginning of eternity. May we so bind our families together in service to God that when our parting comes, it will be a “sweet sorrow.”

REFERENCES

Curie, Eve (1937), Madame Curie: A Biography (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).

Following the Toucan’s Nose to a Designer by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2053

Following the Toucan’s Nose to a Designer

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The writers and editors of National Geographic are notoriously guilty of saturating their articles with evolution. That is why it is almost humorous to read articles in the periodical that seem to slip by the editors—articles that, if read in a straightforward manner, defy evolution. For instance, in the December, 2006 issue, the editors included a tiny, one-page article titled “Power Beak.” This article discusses the beak of the toucan. John Eliot, the author of the article, interviewed Marc André Meyers, “a materials scientist at the University of California, San Diego.” Meyers believes the unique design of the toucan beak could be used to produce strong, lightweight materials used in vehicles.
Meyers describes the toucan beak as a beautiful structure. He then goes into some engineering detail:
The surface is made of keratin, the same material in fingernails and hair. But the outer layer isn’t a solid structure. It’s actually many layers of tiny hexagonal plates, overlapping like shingles on a roof. The interior is different from the shell, made of bone. It consists of a light yet rigid foam made of little beams and membranes. And some areas of the beak are hollow (Eliot, 2006, p. 30).
On the same page, to the right of Meyers’ comments, the reader can see two pictures from a microscope—one of the hard foam inside the beak and the other of the “shingle” layers of keratin. To the left of the comments there is a toucan head and beak, in which the layers are shown in a cross-section-like diagram. The combined pictures look like they are straight out of an engineer’s portfolio.
What is Eliot’s assessment of the toucan’s beak? In a simple, yet oh-so-telling, sentence, Eliot said: “[T]he toucan’s beak is ingeniously designed to be both strong and light weight.” Look closely at the wording. He says the beak is “ingeniously designed.” The American HeritageDictionary defines the word “ingenious” as: “Marked by inventive skill and imagination. 2. Having or arising from an inventive or cunning mind; clever” (2000, p. 900, emp. added). Notice that the word “ingenious” implies an inventive or cunning mind. What inventive or cunning mind engineered the beautiful design of the toucan beak? It could not have been the evolutionary process, since evolutionists themselves admit that the process has no ultimate goals and no creative mind powering the system. The only logical answer is the supernatural mind of God. If the editors of National Geographic would only follow the nose of the toucan, they would find the ingenious Designer—and they would stop writing false, evolutionary propaganda.

REFERENCES

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
Eliot, John L. (2006), “Power Beak,” National Geographic, 210[6], December 12.