Marriage Defined by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=4365

Marriage Defined

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

As legislators are fighting over the legitimacy of same-sex marriages, activist judges are claiming constitutional sanction in their redefining of marriage, and the rank and file citizens of these United States are embroiled in a polarizing culture war, it is nevertheless unthinkable that the President of these United States has announced his approval of homosexuality. If God exists and the Bible is His revealed Word, then America is facing imminent peril. The evaporation of Christian principles from American civilization will lead to the extinction of civility, freedom, and morality.
In the midst of such depressing circumstances, the spiritually minded may find refreshment in the words of bygone U.S. Supreme Courts. For example, in the 1885 case of Murphy v. Ramsey that addressed the legitimacy of polygamy, the high court declared:

For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement (1885, emp. added).

Observe that the high Court insisted that the stability of a nation and its proper progress rely on the home composed of one man for one woman for life—the precise declaration of God Himself (Genesis 2:24). For most of American history, courts have had no trouble recognizing and reaffirming the idea of the family and the historic definition of marriage. Such thinking was in complete agreement with and based upon the Bible (Genesis 2:24).
In another U.S. Supreme Court case, Reynolds v. United States, after conceding the constitutional right to freedom of religion, the high court nevertheless repudiated polygamy as a punishable offense against society and reaffirmed the foundational importance of monogamy: “Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built” (1879, emp. added). Those legal sentiments reflected the views of the vast majority of Americans for the first 180+ years of American history. Departure from that social norm—one man and one woman—results in the destabilization of society.
No wonder in 1848, the Supreme Court of South Carolina articulated the sentiment of the Founders and early Americans regarding what will happen if Christian morality is abandoned:

What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There certainly is none other. Say that cannot be appealed to and...what would be good morals? The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of pagan immorality (City Council of Charleston..., emp. added).

Practitioners of unscriptural divorce, homosexuality, and other sinister behaviors are slowly but surely eroding and dissolving the moral foundations of American civilization—what the Court called “the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.” Will America awaken from this spiritual stupor? Will Christians rise up and react in time? The time has come for those who still retain their moral sensibilities to recognize that we are in a full-scale, unmistakable war—a culture war—a spiritual war of seismic proportions against the governmental authorities and cultural forces that now are openly hostile toward God, Christ, and the Bible. May we take heart and commit ourselves to this critical struggle, as we consider the words of God through Paul:

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand (Ephesians 6:10-13, emp. added).

REFERENCES

City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin (1848), 2 Strob. L. 508 (S.C. 1848).
Murphy v. Ramsey (1885), 114 U.S. 15; 5 S. Ct. 747; 29 L. Ed. 47; 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1732.
Reynolds v. United States (1879), 98 U.S. 145; 25 L. Ed. 244; 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1374; 8 Otto 145.

The RNA World Hypothesis Explained and Unexplained by Kathleen Hamrick Will Brooks, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2317

The RNA World Hypothesis Explained and Unexplained

by	Kathleen Hamrick Will Brooks, Ph.D.

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P. auxiliary staff scientist Will Brooks and one of his students. Dr. Brooks holds a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and serves as Assistant Professor of Biology at Freed-Hardeman University.]

One of the goals within the discipline of biology is to define life. This goal, however, is no simple task. While we can have an intuitive understanding of what it means to be alive, forming this understanding into a precise definition of life poses a dilemma for scientists. Life comes in many shapes, sizes, colors, and forms, so placing all these variations of life into one nice definition is seemingly impossible. To circumvent this problem, scientists have defined life by stating characteristics shared by all life forms. To be considered “alive,” a system of molecules must possess each of these characteristics. Examples include (1) the ability to sense and respond to stimuli, (2) the ability to acquire and utilize materials for energy, (3) the ability to store genetic information in the form of DNA, and (4) the ability to self-replicate. All living organisms share these basic characteristics, and those systems of molecules which lack even one of these basic characteristics is not considered to be a living organism.
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the genetic material used by all living organisms to code for life. DNA can be thought of as the genetic fingerprint of each organism because it is unique to each species of organism. During the process of self-replication, this genetic code is duplicated and identical copies (discounting rare instances of mutation) are given to each progeny of an organism, maintaining the fingerprint and thus the identity of that organism. The function of DNA as the genetic material of an organism is to provide a code for the production of another group of molecules known as proteins. Proteins serve a host of functions for an organism. They are known, appropriately, as the workhorses of a cell, because they carry out the vast majority of organismal tasks, including catalysis.
A catalyst is any substance capable of increasing the speed of a chemical reaction. Within each living organism on Earth, millions of chemical reactions take place every minute. The majority of these reactions are prompted by a very large group of protein catalysts known as enzymes. These enzyme-mediated chemical reactions range from those used to synthesize various metabolites to those used to break down ingested foods. By serving as enzyme catalysts, proteins play a crucial role in all living organisms. For without enzymes, organisms would be both unable to break down the food that they ingest and unable to make the necessary metabolites needed to sustain life.
While the vast majority of functional enzymes within living organisms are proteins, scientists have discovered that another group of molecules, known as ribonucleic acids (RNAs), are also capable of catalyzing some chemical reactions (Kruger, et al., 1982). RNAs are very similar in structure to DNA, differing only in the type of sugar used to form the molecules—DNA utilizes deoxyribose and RNA utilizes ribose. While DNA is the vital genetic code that is passed down between parents and offspring, RNA also plays an important role. Ribonucleic acids are a messenger system that carries the DNA code from the cell’s nucleus, the home of DNA, to the cellular cytoplasm where proteins are synthesized. These are known as messenger RNAs (mRNA). Furthermore, another group of RNAs, known as ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs), is used along with proteins to build the cellular structure known as the ribosome, which is the cellular location at which proteins are made. So, RNA plays several related roles in the process of protein production: (1) it carries the genetic code from DNA to the ribosome, (2) it helps form the structure of the ribosome, and (3) it functions in catalysis.
While there are a few other examples (reviewed in Fedor and Williamson, 2005), the catalytic properties of RNA are best seen in the ribosome. When proteins are synthesized by an organism’s cells, small units known as amino acids are chemically linked together to form a long, linear chain. This chain of amino acids is known as a polypeptide or protein. The chemical bond that links together each amino acid in the chain is called the peptide bond. Because each of the 20 amino acids are very similar in structure, the same peptide bond is formed between every unit of the polypeptide chain. The chemical reaction that forms this peptide bond requires catalysis. The protein-rRNA complex that we know as the ribosome has long been known to serve as the site as well as the catalyst in forming the peptide bond. But, scientists were surprised to discover that the protein component only serves as a structural element of the ribosome. It is the RNA component of the ribosome that serves as the catalyst (Nissen, et al., 2000). This catalytic RNA has thus been termed a ribozyme.
Later it was discovered that yet another group of RNAs, the small nuclear RNAs (snRNA), were also capable of catalyzing a chemical reaction (Valadkhan and Manley, 2001). When produced by the cell, mRNA must undergo a series of maturation steps before it is fully functional as a genetic message (Alberts, et al., 2002, pp. 317-327). One of these steps toward maturity is the process of splicing. Newly synthesized mRNA contains large regions, spread throughout its length, that do not directly code for protein production. These non-coding regions are called introns. To make the mRNA mature and functional as a code, each intron must be removed from the mRNA and the remaining coding regions, known as exons, must be linked or spliced back together. These “cut-and-paste” events occur within the cell’s nucleus within a structure that we call the spliceosome. Like the ribosome, the spliceosome is a large complex of both protein and RNA, in this case snRNA. Amusingly, these protein-RNA complexes have been dubbed small nuclear ribonucleoproteins or “snurps.” Interestingly, scientists found that not protein, but RNAs were responsible for catalyzing the chemical reactions that take place during these splicing events. RNAs were carrying out chemical reactions on other RNAs.
Scientists were very excited by these revolutionary findings. Now, they had a single type of molecule, RNA, that possessed two very important properties. First, it was very similar in structure to DNA and thus theoretically could also store genetic information. Second, it could function as a catalyst like proteins. In 1986, Walter Gilbert coined the phrase “RNA World” and initiated what is now known as the RNA World Hypothesis (Gilbert, 1986). This hypothesis on the origin of life states simply that because RNA has the dual ability to both store genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions, it must pre-date DNA and proteins, both of which supposedly evolved after and perhaps from the RNA.
The RNA World Hypothesis is widely accepted by evolutionists, because it provides an alleged solution to a long-recognized problem in evolutionary theory. Consider how proteins are made by a cell. First, DNA which holds the genetic code is converted into RNA through a process known as transcription. This process is similar to how one would copy a letter from one piece of paper onto another sheet. The contents of the letter remain unchanged, only the medium—the paper—has changed. RNA carries this information to the ribosome, where it is read and used as a code to make a protein through a process known as translation. This process can be compared to translating the copy of the letter from one language into another. Nucleic acid (DNA and RNA) is changed into another molecule altogether: protein. This linear progression of DNA to RNA to protein is known in biology as the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (Alberts, et al., 2002, p. 301). Of the three components in the path, only DNA has the capacity to be replicated. So, while DNA stores the genetic code and can be replicated, it cannot perform any chemical reactions. And, while protein can perform chemical reactions, it cannot store genetic information. So, in evolutionary thinking, which came first—DNA or protein? Making the problem even more difficult, DNA relies upon proteins during its own replication. DNA does not self-replicate of its own accord. It must have protein enzymes to facilitate this process. So, what came first—the chicken or the egg? DNA or protein? Each relies upon the other. You should begin to see how RNA might solve this problem. If RNA can both store genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions, and if it evolved first, we have a single molecule that stores information and can catalyze its own replication, a self-replicating genetic material.
In order to prove this theory plausible, a set of conditions must be created to favor the spontaneous formation of RNA molecules without the aid of a biological catalyst. This would have had to be the starting point for an RNA world. One necessary component for RNA formation would be a steady supply of nucleotides, the building blocks of RNA. Scientists speculate these nucleotides were created from other small molecules present, or were generated in space before arriving on earth. Ribose, the sugar used in RNA, is assumed to have arisen from formaldehyde via the formose reaction. The mystery of the addition of nucleotides onto a ribose backbone remains unsolved by scientists attempting to create conditions of a primitive Earth (Müller, 2006, 63:1279-1280). Once these RNA molecules were formed completely by chance, they would have to have possessed or evolved the ability to catalyze reactions leading to self-replication. After sustaining itself through several replications, the RNA would then need to gain the ability to create a barrier between the extraneous materials surrounding it, in order to isolate the beneficial products from those proving non-functional. Thus, a membrane of sorts would have had to evolve and be maintained (Müller, 63:1285-1286). These steps are only the basics, proving the task much too complicated to occur by mere chance.
In all known organisms living today, DNA and not RNA is the genetic material. DNA has advantages over RNA which make it a more suitable molecule to store the very important genetic code. First, DNA is a double-stranded molecule while RNA is single-stranded. The double-stranded nature of DNA gives it the ability to be replicated in a much simpler series of steps. When DNA is replicated, each of the two complimentary strands serves as a template on which to build another strand. The result is that in one step, each strand of DNA is replicated to produce four total DNA strands or two identical double helices. RNA, however, is single-stranded. In order for it to be replicated, two sequential rounds of replication would be required. First, a complimentary strand would need to be synthesized from the original parental strand. Only then could that new complimentary strand be used to re-make the parental strand. As stated before, DNA and RNA differ in the sugar which makes up the molecule’s backbone. Deoxyribose, the sugar used in DNA, differs from ribose used in RNA, by lacking one organic functional group known as alcohol. The absence of this alcohol group greatly increases the stability of DNA over RNA. In ribonucleic acids, this
–OH group is capable of initiating chemical reactions which favor breakdown of the RNA molecule. For these and other reasons, DNA is a much more stable and preferable genetic material. This is made obvious by the fact that all living organisms use DNA, not RNA, as their permanent storage medium of genetic information. It also indicates that RNA would be an unsuitable medium by which to initiate life.
Evolutionists would have us to believe that non-living elements and molecules joined together and developed increasing biological capabilities. Those who believe in intelligent design reject this hypothesis, insisting that neither RNA nor living cells are able to evolve spontaneously. While some disagreement exists among those in the evolutionary community on the time frame for such alleged reactions to occur, the consensus is that, given large amounts of time, single-celled bacteria were formed. But all known biological principles militate against this notion. Even billions of years could not provide mechanisms for the reaction products to evolve advantageous characteristics and form DNA and cell proteins, let alone create strings of RNA nucleotides, arriving at just the right sequence in order to code for a functional protein. The four nucleotide bases that form RNA (adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil) can be arranged in an exponential array of combinations and lengths. For an actual, functional protein to be coded, a precise sequence of nucleotides must be obtained. Forming the code for even one protein by evolutionary means is impossible, without even considering the necessity of the number that work together in a single cell.
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that RNA is spontaneously being created and capable of forming pre-cellular life today. While some artificial ribozymes have been created in the laboratory (reviewed in Chen, et al., 2007), there are still significant holes in reproducing an RNA world to support the hypothesis. The ribozymes created artificially lack the abilities to sufficiently process themselves, and there is no evidence of them producing large quantities of advantageous nucleotide sequences. Moreover, no system has ever created cellular life. There is even significant debate among scientists over the conditions and constituents of a “prebiotic Earth” model.
The RNA World Hypothesis is simply another attempt by scientists to explain the origin of life to the exclusion of the divine Creator. Given the absolute impossibility of life originating from the reactions of non-living matter, it can be justified that RNA did not predate other biological molecules. All biological molecules were created together to work in concert. RNA was designed to be the essential intermediate between DNA and proteins, making our cells capable of sustaining life as it was created. The designer of this system must be the intelligent Designer, the God of the Bible.

REFERENCES

Alberts, Bruce, et al. (2002), Molecular Biology of the Cell (Oxford: Garland Science).
Chen, Xi, et al. (2007), “Ribozyme Catalysis of Metabolism in the RNA World,” Chemistry and Biodiversity, 4:633-656.
Fedor, Martha and James Williamson (2005), “The Catalytic Diversity of RNAs,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 6(5):399-412.
Gilbert, Walter (1986), “The RNA World,” Nature, 319:618.
Kruger, Kelly, et al. (1982), “Self-splicing RNA: Autoexcision and Autocyclization of the Ribosomal RNA Intervening Sequence of Tetrahymena,” Cell, 31(1):147-57.
Müller, U.F. (2006), “Re-creating an RNA World,” Cellular and Molecular Life Science, 63:1278-1293.
Nissen, Poul, et al. (2000), “The Structural Basis of Ribosome Activity in Peptide Bond Synthesis,” Science, 289:920-930.
Valadkhan, Saba and James Manley (2001), “Splicing-related Catalysis by Protein-free snRNAs,” Nature, 6857:701-707.

When was “The Faith” Delivered? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=703

When was “The Faith” Delivered?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Recently we received a very interesting question from one of our readers. It is noteworthy for two reasons. First, many of us have probably never heard the question. (I have been working for more than 20 years in Bible study and teaching of various types and had never heard it.) Second, the answer is extremely simple, but might not appear that obvious at the outset.
The question is, how could the book of Jude be a part of “the faith” (meaning the body of New Testament teaching recognized as “the faith”) if the book of Jude states that the faith “was once and for all delivered to the saints” (vs. 3)? If Jude says “the faith” was “delivered” once and for all in the past, then how could his writing, being written after the fact, be part of “the faith”? Along those same lines, how could Peter state that God “has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3), if Peter was writing material after that statement was made that pertained to “life and godliness”?
The simple answer lies in the fact that when something is recorded is not necessarily when it is “delivered.” Throughout the first century, God inspired the apostles and various first century prophets to deliver “the faith” to the early church. Much of that material, however, was preached long before it was written down. For instance, God inspired Peter and the apostles to preach the Gospel on the day of Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension into heaven. That sermon was not recorded, however, until about 30 years later by the inspired writer Luke. Since that is the case, we understand that the material had been delivered to the church long before it was preserved in written form by the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts.
This fact is evident in the books of 2 Peter and Jude, the two books under discussion. Both authors made a special point to insist that they were reminding their audiences of material that was already out there and available. For instance, Peter stated, “I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know them, and are established in the present truth” (2 Peter 1:12). Later in the book he stated, “Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder)” (2 Peter 3:1). Jude made similar statements when he wrote, “But I want to remind you, though you once knew this” (vs. 5). And when he stated, “remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” These authors insist that they are reminding their readers of material that the readers had access to before they read these letters.
When we stop to consider the situation, this would have to be the case. Jesus explained that the Holy Spirit would help the apostles know what to say when they stood before rulers (Matthew 10:19). Yet we read of only a very few instances of such messages in Acts. Certainly it was the case that Matthew, Andrew, Thomas, and the other apostles preached inspired messages that we have no record of. In 1 Corinthians 14:31, we learn that certain people in the Corinthian church were prophets, but we do not have a record of their messages. The point is this: throughout the first century, the Holy Spirit was delivering “all things” (John 14:26), guiding the inspired writers into “all truth” (John 16:13), and making known “the faith” to the church in a number of ways. When we see it preserved by an inspired writer, that does not mean it had not been previously delivered in one form or another to the church prior to that.

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

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=1552

The Quran and the Trinity

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

When reading the Quran, one is surprised time and time again with the fact that the Allah of the Quran conducts himself quite differently from the God of the Bible. Of course, “Allah” is simply the Arabic word for “God,” like its equivalent Old Testament Hebrew term elohim—a general term for deity that was used by the Jews to refer both to the one true God, as well as to the false deities of their pagan neighbors (e.g., Genesis 35:2; Deuteronomy 29:18; Daniel 3:25). So the term “God” in whatever language (English, Arabic, or Hebrew) is a generic term to refer to deity. Muslims claim that the Allah they worship is the same God that Abraham and the Jews worshipped. Nevertheless, it is possible for one to pay lip service to following the God of the Bible, and yet so recast Him that He ceases to be the same Being about which one reads on the pages of the Bible. The meaning and identity that each culture or religion attaches to the word may differ radically.
Many current Christian authors do this very thing when they claim to be writing about the Jesus of the New Testament. They misrepresent Jesus, recasting and refashioning the Jesus of the Bible into essentially a different Being than the One depicted on the pages of the New Testament—one who is unconcerned about obedience, and whose grace forgives just about everybody unconditionally (e.g., Lucado, 1996). But that is not the Jesus of the New Testament. They have so misrepresented the person, nature, and conduct of Jesus that for all practical purposes, their writings depict a different Jesus.
In like fashion, the Quran has Allah saying and doing things that the God of the Bible simply would not say or do. Actions and attitudes are attributed to Allah that stand in stark contradistinction to the character of the God of the Bible. Though Allah is claimed by Muslims to be the same God as the God of the Old Testament, the Quran’s depiction of deity is nevertheless sufficiently redefined as to make Allah distinct from the God of the Bible. This stark contrast is particularly evident in the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
The Bible depicts deity as singular, i.e., there is one and only one divine essence or Being (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19). However, the Bible also clearly depicts God as a triune Being—three distinct persons within the one essence—with a triune nature. For example, during the Creation week, God stated: “Let us...” (Genesis 1:26, emp. added). Both the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2) and Christ (John 1:1-3) were present and active at the Creation with God the Father. The New Testament alludes to the “Godhead” (Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9). At the baptism of Jesus while He was in human form, the Father spoke audibly from heaven, and the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17). All three are sometimes noted together (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). Each person of the Godhead is fully God, fully deity, fully divine. Jesus is repeatedly referred to as God (Matthew 1:22-23; John 1:1-3,14; 8:58; 20:28; Micah 5:2). The Holy Spirit is also divine (John 14:26; 15:26; Romans 15:19; 1 Corinthians 2:10-11; Ephesians 4:4; Hebrews 9:14).
In contrast to the biblical portrait, the Quran goes out of its way to denounce the notion of Trinity:

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three”—Cease! (it is) better for you!—Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendant majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him (Surah 4:171-172, emp. added).
They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden Paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil‑doers there will be no helpers. They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 5:72-74, emp. added).

The Christian is surely startled to read such forthright denunciations on those who believe in the Godhead as depicted in the Bible. The Quran declares in unmistakable terms that those who do believe in the Trinity will be excluded from paradise, and will experience a “painful doom” by burning in the fire of hell.
Regarding the third person of the Godhead, Muslims insist that the Quran knows nothing of the Holy Spirit—all seeming references simply being, in the words of Muslim scholar Mohammed Pickthall, “a term for the angel of Revelation, Gabriel (on whom be peace)” (Pickthall, p. 40). Thus the Quran denies the person of the Holy Spirit, acknowledges the existence of Jesus while denying His divinity, and insists that the person of Allah is singular in nature. The Quran and the Bible are in dire contradiction with each other on the doctrine of the Trinity.

REFERENCES

Lucado, Max (1996), In the Grip of Grace (Dallas, TX: Word).
Pickthall, Mohammed M. (n.d.), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

"THE BOOK OF ACTS" Conflict Over Circumcision (15:1-35) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                 Conflict Over Circumcision (15:1-35)

INTRODUCTION

1. During his first missionary journey, Paul saw that God "opened a door
   of faith to the Gentiles" - Ac 14:27
   a. The conversion of Sergius Paulus - Ac 13:6-12
   b. The conversion of many Gentiles in Antioch of Pisidia - Ac 13:42-49
   c. The conversion of Greeks in Iconium - Ac 14:1

2. It wasn't long before the question of Gentiles in the church became an issue...
   a. Should the Gentiles be accepted without first converting to Judaism?
   b. Should they be required to be circumcised, and keep the Law of Moses?

[After a "long time" in Antioch of Syria, Paul and the church were
faced with a crisis regarding the issue of the Gentiles...]

I. THE CONFLICT

   A. SOME CAME FROM JUDEA...
      1. Teaching that Gentiles could not be saved without circumcision - Ac 15:1
      2. With whom Paul and Barnabas strongly disagreed - Ac 15:2
      3. This conflict might have involved Peter - Ga 2:11-16 (some
         think this was during Ac 15:1-2; others think it was later)

   B. PAUL AND BARNABAS SENT TO JERUSALEM...
      1. Accompanied by "certain others" (such as Titus) - Ac 15:2; Ga 2:1
      2. To talk to the apostles and elders, which Paul did "by
         revelation" - Ac 15:2; Ga 2:2
      3. On the way, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria - Ac 15:3
         a. Describing the conversion of the Gentiles
         b. Causing great joy among the brethren

[Since the men causing disturbance came from Judea, Paul and his 
companions went to Jerusalem, to locate the actual origin of this
problem.  This led to...]

II. THE CONFERENCE

   A. PRELIMINARY MEETINGS...
      1. Formal reception by the church
         a. Paul's party was received by the church, the apostles, and the elders - Ac 15:4
         b. To whom Paul reported all that God had done with them 

              - Ac 15:4; cf. Ac 14:27
         c. Some of the sect of the Pharisees objected - Ac 15:5
            1) Likely Jewish Christians who had been Pharisees
            2) Demanding Gentiles be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses
      2. Private meeting with some who were "of reputation"
         a. In which Paul explained the gospel which he preached - Ga 2:1-2
         b. Where some false brethren tried to compel Titus (a Gentile)
            to be circumcised, which Paul refused - Ga 2:3-6
         c. James, Peter, and John commended Paul for his work among the
            Gentiles - Ga 2:7-10
            1) Extending to him the right hand of fellowship
            2) Asking only that he remember the poor (something he was 
               careful do on his remaining missionary journeys)

   B. PUBLIC MEETING...
      1. The speech of Peter - Ac 15:6-11
         a. How God selected him to be the first to preach to the Gentiles

               - cf. Ac 10:1-43
         b. How God bore witness to their acceptability by giving them
            the Spirit - cf. Ac 10:44-48; 11:15-18
         c. That God purified them through faith, just as He did the Jews
         d. That they should not test God, by placing a burden on the
            Gentiles which they themselves could not bear
         e. That God will save the Jews in the same way, through the
            grace of the Lord Jesus - cf. Ac 2:38 (Jews) with Ac 10:48 (Gentiles)
      2. The testimony of Paul and Barnabas - Ac 15:12 
         a. How God did many miracles and wonders through them among the Gentiles
         b. Which the multitude listened to quietly
      3. The counsel of James - Ac 15:13-21
         a. Reminding them of what Simon (Peter) had just said
         b. Reminding them of the Old Testament prophecy of Amos - Am 9:11-12
         c. Offering his judgment:
            1) Not to trouble the Gentiles who were turning to God
            2) But write to them, asking them to abstain from:
               a) Things polluted by idols (i.e., meats offered to idols)
               b) Sexual immorality
               c) Things strangled
               d) Blood 
         d. This would go a long way in keeping peace between Jewish and Gentile converts

[With the testimony of Paul and Barnabas, Peter, and James, supported by
God's approval through miraculous signs and prophetic scriptures, the 
conflict came to a quick resolution (for the time being)...]

III. THE CONCLUSION

   A. DELEGATION AND LETTER...
      1. The apostles, elders, and the whole church agree to send a delegation - Ac 15:22
      2. Judas and Silas, selected to accompany Paul and Barnabas along
         with the letter - Ac 15:22
      3. A copy of this letter is preserved by Luke - Ac 15:23-29
      4. Note:  those who caused the trouble are identified as having
         done so without any authority from those in Jerusalem - Ac 15:24

   B. RETURN AND RECEPTION...
      1. Paul and the delegation return to Antioch, and deliver the letter - Ac 15:30
      2. The multitude rejoice over its encouragement - Ac 15:31
      3. Judas and Silas exhort the brethren with many words - Ac 15:32-34
         a. Judas eventually returned to the apostles in Jerusalem
         b. Silas stayed in Antioch, later to join Paul on his travels - cf. Ac 15:40
      4. Paul and Barnabas remain in Antioch, teaching and preaching- Ac 15:35

CONCLUSION

1. The conflict over circumcision and the Law illustrates the challenges
   faced by the early church...
   a. The challenge of transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant
   b. The challenge of accepting into the church those who were considered "unclean"
 
2. But the challenges were overcome, in large part due to the apostle Paul...
   a. A Hebrew of the Hebrews, but also an apostle to the Gentiles
   b. Whom God used to help bridge Jew and Gentile together

To fulfill what Jesus died to accomplish on the cross, to bring peace
between Jew and Gentile, making one new body (Ep 2:11-16).  This ought
to remind us who are Gentiles how blessed we are to be able to come
into the fellowship with God and His people.  

Have we let Jesus add us to His one new body, the church...? - cf. Ac 2:41,47

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

"THE BOOK OF ACTS" Division Over John Mark (15:36-41) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                  Division Over John Mark (15:36-41)

INTRODUCTION

1. After the controversy over circumcision, (Ac 15:1-35), another conflict soon arose...
   a. As Paul and Barnabas prepared for another journey - Ac 15:36
   b. Over whether to take John Mark with them - Ac 15:37-38

2. The contention between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp...
   a. They went their separate ways - Ac 15:39
   b. With Barnabas taking John Mark, and Paul taking Silas - Ac 15:39-41

[It may seem at first that this event would hinder the cause of Christ.
But the saying "Alls well that ends well" certainly applies here as we 
consider all that is eventually revealed in the Scriptures...]

I. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

   A. WHO WAS JOHN MARK...?
      1. Son of Mary - Ac 12:12
         a. Who owned a house in Jerusalem where many gathered to pray for Peter
         b. Some scholars believe that it may have been where the Last Supper was observed
      2. Cousin of Barnabas - Col 4:10
         a. Identified as such by Paul in his epistle
         b. KJV calls him the "sister's son to Barnabas" (i.e., nephew)
      3. Assistant to Barnabas and Saul - Ac 12:25; 13:5
         a. Joining them as they as returned from Jerusalem to Antioch
         b. Going with them as they set out on their first journey

   B. WHAT DID HE DO...?
      1. Left Paul and Barnabas mid-journey - Ac 13:13
         a. Many scholars speculate as to the reason why
         b. Luke does not give the reason why
      2. Which later caused a rift - Ac 15:36-41
         a. Paul did not John Mark to join them on the second journey
         b. Barnabas was adamant about taking him with them
         c. So Paul (with Silas) and Barnabas (with John Mark) went their separate ways

   C. WHAT EVENTUALLY HAPPENED...?
      1. Paul and John Mark eventually reconciled
         a. Paul instructs the church at Colossae to receive him - Col 4:10
         b. Together with others, Paul says that he "proved to be a comfort to me" 

              - Col 4:11
         c. Paul tells Philemon that Mark and others are "fellow-laborers" - Phm 24
         d. In his last epistle, Paul tells Timothy "Get Mark and bring
            him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry." - 2Ti 4:11
      2. Mark became close to Peter, who called Mark "my son" - 1Pe 5:13
      3. Mark is considered to be the author of the Gospel of Mark

[Whatever the reason John Mark returned to Jerusalem, no matter how it 
divided Paul and Barnabas, things turned out well in the end.  As we 
contemplate these things, here are some...]

II. OBSERVATIONS TO CONSIDER

   A. UPHOLD THE WEAK, BE PATIENT WITH ALL...
      1. Barnabas was determined to give John Mark another chance - Ac 15:37
      2. Perhaps it was because John Mark was his cousin (or nephew) - Col 4:10
      3. But Barnabas was also a man known for his encouragement - Ac  4:36
      4. He even gave encouragement to Paul earlier - cf. Ac 9:26-29; 11:25-26
      5. Barnabas put into practice what Paul later enjoined - 1Th 5:14
      -- Barnabas was inclined to give people a second chance

   B. THE LORD'S WORK COMES FIRST...
      1. Paul and Barnabas were unwilling to let their contention affect
         their service to the Lord
      2. They could not agree, but they both continued to serve the Lord
      3. Barnabas (and Mark) went to Cyprus (where he was from); Paul
         (and Silas) went to Syria and Cilicia (where he was from) 
         strengthening the churches - Ac 15:39-41
      -- A "falling out" with brethren is no reason to stop serving the Lord!

   C. NEVER GIVE UP TRYING...
      1. John Mark could have let his initial failure discourage him
      2. But he did not let failure stop his own service to the Lord - Ac 15:39
      3. He took advantage of another opportunity to serve the Lord
      -- Making a mistake is no reason to give up trying again to serve the Lord

   D. NOT HOLDING A GRUDGE...
      1. Paul was willing to acknowledge Mark's later usefulness 

          - Col 4:10-11; Phm 24; 2Ti 4:11
      2. Some refuse to forgive those who disappoint them; not Paul!
      -- Give credit where credit is due; praise those who turn themselves around

   E. THE END IS BETTER THAN THE BEGINNING...
      1. Mark grew to become useful to the apostles Paul and Peter 
      2. He even became useful to us today (in writing the Gospel of Mark!)
      3. "The end of a thing is better than its beginning" - Ec 7:8
      -- Success is measured by how we finish, not how we start!

CONCLUSION

1. Things certainly turned out well for John Mark, despite...
   a. Disappointing the apostle Paul
   b. Driving a wedge between Paul and Barnabas

2. But in the end, the story of the division over John Mark is one of encouragement...
   a. How failure can be turned into success
   b. How nothing should keep us from trying to serve the Lord

Don't let your failures in the past keep you from serving the Lord and
His church in the present...!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

“Belief” As Used In the Book of Acts By Wayne Jackson

http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/1999/sep/page7.shtml

“Belief” As Used
In the Book of Acts

By Wayne Jackson

The Greek noun for faith is pistis; the corresponding verb is pisteuo.  Combined, these forms are employed some 243 times in the New Testament.  There is a great deal of confusion and controversy in the community of “Christendom” as to the meaning of these terms.  Unfortunately, sectarian bias has clouded the understanding of many on this important biblical theme. Depending on the context in which the words are found, their meanings can vary.  (1) Belief may involve merely being exposed to certain data and acknowledging such as reliable.  When Paul heard of divisions within the church at Corinth, he said:  “I partly believe it” (1 Corinthians 11:18).  He accepted the report as fairly credible.
(2) Believing can go a step further, though, suggesting the idea of trust. Knowing the temperament of men, Jesus did not “trust” (pisteuo) himself to the Jews of Jerusalem (John 2:24).  God did “trust” Paul, however, and so committed the Gospel unto this apostle, to be proclaimed in a ministry to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7).
(3) Belief can be used – and frequently is – in the full sense of being obedient.  Jesus taught:  “He who believes (pisteuo) on the Son has eternal life; but he who obeys not (apeitho) the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36 ASV).  [Note:  The King James translators did not favor us by rendering two different Greek terms by the same English word.  An important distinction was obscured.  Cf. Hebrews 3:18-19 ASV.]  In the ultimate sense, therefore, to believe the Lord is to do what he says, and a refusal to obey his will is an expression of disbelief.  This is a sobering thought.
The main focus of this study will be to consider how the verb pisteuo is used in the Book of Acts.  Pisteuo is found some thirty-nine times in Acts.  In the ASV, it is rendered by such English terms as believe, believed and believers (a present participle in Acts 5:14, i.e., believing ones).  A careful study of the use of this verb in the Book of Acts will reveal that in many instances “believing” is a summary term that embraces all of the conditions inherent in the divine plan of salvation, including the command to be immersed in water.  This is a crucial point since most denominationalists absolutely repudiate the idea that baptism is a requisite to forgiveness.  Let us, therefore, give consideration to the following cases.
(1) Following Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, certain devout Jews inquired:  “What shall we do?”  The apostle commanded them to repent of their sins and be baptized for the remission thereof (2:38).  Those who “received his word were baptized” (41).  Luke then says:  “And all that believed were together” (44).  “Believed” sums up the obedience described previously.
(2) On the initial day of its existence, the church consisted of at least 3,000 souls.  Later, Luke records that many others heard the Word and “believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand” (4:4).  It is obvious that the 5,000 mentioned here included the 3,000 referenced earlier, and that the “believed” of this passage means precisely what it did in 2:44.
(3) After the baptism of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, Peter went to Jerusalem to defend his actions before a rather hostile Jewish audience (cf. 11:2).  He argued that God had authenticated the Gentiles’ acceptance by giving them the Holy Spirit.  The apostle then said:  “If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we [Jews] believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God?”  (11:17).  Note that the entire conversion process of the Jews (cf. 2:38) is simply referred to as “when we believed.”
(4) In the course of his first missionary journey, Paul, together with Barnabas, came to the city of Iconium.  They entered into a synagogue of the Jews and proclaimed the Gospel of Christ.  There was encouraging response for Luke says that “a great multitude both of Jews and Greeks believed” (14:1).  Note the sentence that follows.  “But the Jews that were disobedient stirred up the souls of the Gentiles, and made them evil affected against the brethren” (ASV).  The term rendered “disobedient” in the ASV is apeitheo, which carries the idea of refusing to be persuaded, a failure to comply (Thayer, 55).  Moulton and Milligan, prominent experts in the Greek papyri, cite numerous examples of where apeitheo means “to disobey.”  In conclusion they stated:  “We have not sought for more instances, but it has seemed desirable to give rather plentiful illustrations to prove a case which is very important for doctrine” (55).  Also review “(3) Belief can be used . . .” in the fourth paragraph of this article.
(5) On his second missionary journey, Paul, along with Silas, was imprisoned in Philippi.  After a dramatic earthquake, by means of which God opened the prison doors and loosed the inmates’ bonds, the jailer pled for the knowledge of salvation.  The brothers instructed him.  His penitent faith was evidenced as he washed the blood from their backs and, near the midnight hour, he and his household were immersed into Christ.  But look at how Luke describes the whole process, “. . . having believed in God” (16:34).  The perfect participle depicts the state at which they arrived as a consequence of their obedience.
(6) When Paul came to Ephesus on his third missionary trip, he encountered certain sincere students who had been immersed with the baptism that was a part of the teaching of John, the forerunner of Christ (Acts 19:1ff; cf. 3:1ff).  Perhaps something alerted the apostle to a deficiency in their earlier instruction; he thus asked:  “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”  They replied in the negative.  Paul then asked “Into what then were you baptized?”  He was not framing a new question on an entirely different theme.  Rather, baptism was a part of the belief process, concerning which he had just inquired.
The examples cited above are but a sampling of those in Acts which elucidate the nature of the faith required to be a Christian.  For the reader who wants to explore this matter further, we would suggest that he take a look at some of the following passages (4:32; 8:12; 9:42; 10:45; 13:12, 48; 14:23; 15:5; 16:1; 17:12, 34; 18:8, 27; 19:18; 21:20, 25; 22:19).  Belief, because it is the foundation of one’s surrender to Christ, and because it is the motivating factor for further obedience, is employed by Luke to reflect the entire process in becoming a Christian – including repentance, acknowledgment of Jesus as the Son of God and immersion in water.  How can anyone contend that the sole mental act “believing” in Christ represents the entire plan of salvation?

GOD & HELEN & HARRY by Jim McGuiggan

https://jimmcguiggan.wordpress.com/2017/03/

GOD & HELEN & HARRY

If we’re talking about persons, our English word “reconcile” serves our purpose well when we wish to get the basic idea of the Greek words the NT uses to speak of reconciliation. We’re told it derives directly from the Latin through French with related senses such as “to bring together again” or “regain” or “to make friendly.” There’s nothing difficult about that.
Words aren’t the realities they speak of, of course—the realities are the “things” the words refer to.
What follows is too simple—life and reality are always more complex than our words but there’s little point in pretending we are completely in the dark. I don’t care that the piece is repetitive.
We look at two people (Helen and Harry) noting certain characteristic attitudes, behavioral and verbal patterns we call them “friends”. If they are clearly “hostile” to each other that will show in characteristic patterns of behavior we won’t call them “friends”.
If at one point they were indeed “friends” and something happened that led to a radical and sustained change in Harry’s’ view of Helen that changed his behavior toward her the “friendship” has been destroyed. If Helen maintains the attitude and expressions of a “friend” and Harry insists on being hostile and completely indifferent to Helen’s approach we rightly say they aren’t “friends” despite Helen’s desire for friendship and her attempts to overcome the current alienation. We rightly say that Helen offers friendship and Harry refuses it.
Helen purposes to and works at destroying the alienation. The means and methods by which she goes about this can only express her own heart toward Harry and they must have an effect on Harry’s heart if friendship is to be regained. Helen’s heart in this matter needs no change but Harry’s does. Once more, if Harry rejects all Helen’s various approaches there is and can be no reconciliation.
Helen knows that she has done nothing that warrants Harry’s hostility. Repeat: Helen knows this and holds it to be true, nevertheless she wants reconciliation.
Harry’s wrong does not change Helen but her desire for reconciliation is not reconciliation—the desire for alienation lies totally in Harry even though it affects Helen—she experiences the loss.
She is not sulking, she is not unwilling to be friends. That she is being wronged is true but that doesn’t alter her heart’s desire. There is nothing within her that is an obstacle to restore friendship—the alienation has been generated by and remains in place because Harry wills it to be that way.
There are some who think that Helen cannot be reconciled to Harry because her honor has been offended.
It is true that Harry has despised her and if there is to be reconciliation and a return to friendship that will have to be acknowledged. Regret would exist, of course, but a commitment to be a friend must also be in place.
But, and this is an important but, whether Harry moves that way or not, Helen’s heart’s desire remains unchanged; though dishonored she wants Harry back. Her “honor” is not the fundamental drive in Helen. She cannot and will not deny that she has been dishonored but she will not let that truth be the final truth.
She will not say, “I have been dishonored therefore I want nothing more to do with Harry.” The reality is, she wants very much to have something to do with Harry who is even now dishonoring her!
Harry must change! But all change must be from Harry’s side!
Helen’s sense of her honorable personhood is well grounded but it’s no obstacle within her that generated or maintains the alienation. She knows she is honorable and still wants Harry back. The truth is that Harry has said “no” to Helen and not to some one thing about Helen and it’s not the honor of Helen that requires appeasement. Helen’s honor doesn’t exist in isolation—it’s Helen that has been dishonored and it is Helen (not parts of her) that wants Harry back as a friend!
Someone could say, “They can’t be friends because Harry has offended Helen’s honor and her honor needs to be appeased or she cannot move to bring about friendship.” We’d probably think that a strange way to speak. We’d probably think that Helen needs to be appeased (if she needed to be appeased) rather than an isolated part of her.
In any case, someone might respond, “I don’t think that’s true. I saw her come to him and humble herself in his presence again and again and again and I know she keeps on doing it. Her honor can’t mean that much to her in this matter. If there’s a conflict between her honor and her love for Harry her love has overcome her sense of her honor. But I don’t think there is a conflict in her heart and mind. I think her honor is part of why she maintains her commitment to him as a friend even though he will not have it.”
There were some who said much about Harry breaking the “law of friendship” and said the law must be satisfied if there is to be restored friendship. Helen thought it interesting that “the law” of friendship entered the discussion. She even thought it interesting that the word “satisfied/satisfaction” entered the discussion.
She thought that it was a person that had been horribly mistreated and not a law. She thought that what she had with Harry was not a legal agreement based on some law but a personal relationship between a friend and a friend.
Helen thought there was no law against truly and honorably loving someone and so it could not be a law that stood between her and Harry.
She didn’t feel there was some “law” outside herself and her heart’s desire that got in the way of having a restored friendship with dishonorable Harry. She wanted him back. Did the fact that he lied about her keep her from wanting him back? Did the fact that he coldly ignored her or openly sneered at her on every occasion they met keep her from wanting him back? Was there some “law” out there beyond her own heart and mind, some law-giver, that she had to submit to before she could have restored friendship with Harry?
She didn’t know of one! The reason she wanted to have Harry back was because she wanted Harry back.
So why weren’t they friends again?
Because Harry didn’t want to be friends!
Why does Helen continue to love Harry this way?
Some say her kind of love leaves her no choice.
She might make an effort so astonishing that many would be mesmerized by it; something so wonderful and selfless they they couldn’t believe it for joy.
And though they have seen so many wondrous examples of such love the love of Helen seems even more remarkable and it affects all who come to know if it.
(Holy Father, help us to know You and honor you for who and what You. are. This fervent prayer in Jesus name.)

This entry was posted in REFLECTIONS ON THIS AND THAT on March 20, 2017.

Coincidence by Gary Rose

Just a couple of cats standing next to one another, but as they move about- they form a "heart". Coincidence? Absolutely! But, are there times when things happen and you find yourself asking- Is something going on here that is more than just a coincidence?

I wonder what the man in this passage from the book of Acts thought about his encounter with Philip, the evangelist....

Acts, Chapter 8 (World English Bible)

 ²⁶ But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Arise, and go toward the south to the way that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza. This is a desert.” 

  ²⁷ He arose and went; and behold, there was a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem to worship.  ²⁸ He was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. 

  ²⁹ The Spirit said to Philip, “Go near, and join yourself to this chariot.” 

  ³⁰ Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 

  ³¹ He said, “How can I, unless someone explains it to me?” He begged Philip to come up and sit with him.  ³² Now the passage of the Scripture which he was reading was this, 

“He was led as a sheep to the slaughter. As a lamb before his shearer is silent, 
so he doesn’t open his mouth. 

  ³³ In his humiliation, his judgment was taken away. 
Who will declare His generation? 
For his life is taken from the earth.”

  ³⁴ The eunuch answered Philip, “Who is the prophet talking about? About himself, or about someone else?” 

  ³⁵ Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preached to him about Jesus.  ³⁶ As they went on the way, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Behold, here is water. What is keeping me from being baptized?” 

  ³⁷ TR adds “Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ He answered, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”  ³⁸ He commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 

  ³⁹ When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, and the eunuch didn’t see him any more, for he went on his way rejoicing. 

The Ethiopian eunuch was somebody important; we know this because a queen put him in charge of her MONEY. He was returning from Jerusalem worship and was reading the book of Isaiah in his chariot. And along comes Philip and answers his question. Philip responds by seeking to be baptized and then Philip is whisked away.

Coincidence? Not hardly!  An angel of the Lord sent Philip to him (vs. 26) and the Spirit of the Lord took him away (vs. 39).  God works in mysterious ways, both with nations and with individuals. As I reflect upon my own life, I can see numerous instances where individuals "just happened" to be there and by being there, my life was changed- forever! Coincidence? I don't think so!!! 

If you think something is missing from your life and are looking for an answer, ask God, he will help!!! Perhaps, HE might even send you someone to help? And the thing is- you might not even realize what is going on until long after.

Coincidence? I might believe it with cats, but not with God!!!