Reasonable Atheists and Reasonable Believers Are Targeting the Same Group

By J. Warner Wallace 2/2/2018

     Portland State University philosophy professor and vocal atheist, Peter Boghossian, wrote a book entitled, A Manual for Creating Atheists. Boghossian describes the effort as “the first-ever guide not for talking people into faith–but for talking them out of it.” He hopes to teach atheists “to engage the faithful in conversations that will help them value reason and rationality, cast doubt on their religious beliefs, mistrust their faith, abandon superstition and irrationality, and ultimately embrace reason.” In a recent YouTube video, Boghossian teaches a group of atheists what he refers to as “street epistemology” and makes an interesting observation. According to Boghossian, Christians fail to process truth claims rationally; instead of assessing the evidence and drawing the most reasonable inference, they seem to rely on personal experience, emotional response and blind faith. Boghossian describes such an approach as dangerous, particularly when applied by political leaders who set public policy related to sex education, same sex marriage, assisted suicide, corporal punishment in schools, family planning and creation education. Boghossian encourages atheists to engage Christians not on the evidence but on the way Christians evaluate truth claims in the first place. As a reasonable Christian case maker, I couldn’t agree more with Boghossian’s approach. In fact, I think reasonable atheists and reasonable Christians are trying to reach the very same group.

     I’ve been traveling the country as a Christian case maker, teaching Christian groups in churches, conferences and schools. Sadly, I also find most Christians believe what they believe without assessing the evidence. In fact, I often have to make a case for case making! Many of my Christian brothers and sisters are quick to express appreciation for my visit, but are also eager to tell me they didn’t need any evidence in the first place. Some have been Christians all their lives, many believe the Holy Spirit has spoken to them, and others have simply become comfortable in the Christian community. All of these dear brothers and sisters have faithfully trusted Jesus for their salvation, but most are unable to defend what they believe (or how they came to their belief) when approached by aggressive skeptics, particularly those who have been trained by Boghossian.

     Many Christians believe true faith is independent of evidence. Who needs faith if we have enough evidence to make the case? But Jesus seemed to hold evidence in high regard. He repeatedly offered evidence of His miracles to verify His identity, and He told His observers this evidence was sufficient (see John 5:36, John 10:37-38, and John 14:11). Jesus also spent forty days after the Resurrection, providing “many convincing proofs.” Biblical faith is not blind, it is a reasonable trust in the best inference from the evidence, even when unanswered questions still exist. If you think about it, all of us, regardless of worldview, believe what we believe even though we have less than complete evidence. Every worldview requires some level of reasonable trust.

     I was a thoughtful atheist until the age of thirty-five. I first examined the claims of the Gospel authors using the investigative tools I learned as a cold-case detective. In other words, I examined the evidence and meticulously inferred to the most reasonable inference. I learned how to choose between competing explanations and use abductive reasoning to arrive at reasonable conclusions. I became familiar with the arguments for (and against) the Christian worldview. As it turns out, there’s more than enough evidence to conclude the Gospel accounts are a reliable record of history; Christians can believe what they believe because of the evidence rather than in spite of the evidence.

James "Jim" Warner Wallace (born June 16, 1961) is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has authored several books, including Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, in which he applies principles of cold case homicide investigation to apologetic concerns such as the existence of God and the reliability of the Gospels.

• Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

• God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe

• Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection

• Cold-Case Christianity for Kids: Investigate Jesus with a Real Detective

• Keeping Your Kids on God's Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith

• Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith

Twilight Musings: “Groaning Together”

By Elton Higgs 1/27/2017

     One day when I was reading the familiar passage in Rom. 8 on our hope for the final deliverance from sin through the resurrection of our bodies, I was struck with the recurrence of the verb “groan” in the space of eight verses:

(Ro 8:20–27) 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. ESV

     There is an interlinking in these uses of “groaning,” with the first occurrence referring to the whole of creation, the second referring to all of God’s people, and the third to the agency of the Holy Spirit interceding for us with God.

     This section of chapter 8 was introduced by the affirmation that as believers in Christ we have been certified by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit as children of God and heirs of His kingdom. However, our walk in the Spirit as sons and daughters of God entails suffering with Christ “in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:17). Accordingly, both of the first two occurrences of groaning in this passage are associated with a particular kind of productive human suffering, childbirth. The first, the groaning of the physical creation to be “set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (v.21), is then linked to the inward groaning of each Christian for our “adoption as sons [and daughters], the redemption of our bodies” (v.23). Our suffering with Christ is not meaningless, but like the pains of childbirth, it ends in great joy, so that, as Paul has assured us, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom. 8:18-19.

Six Things That May Change the Way You Think About Police Officers

By J. Warner Wallace 7/11/16

After the horrific events of last week, I’ve been asked repeatedly about race relations in America, the deaths of African-Americans at the hands of police officers, and the increasing violence against police officers. As a member of the law-enforcement family (and a member of the Christian community), I would like to respond by providing some insight into the training and daily practices of police officers, particularly given the number of requests I’ve received. Although most of us are familiar with police work from television dramas and news reports, few people actually understand the nature of the environment in which police officers work. Once you understand what police officers are asked to do on a daily basis, it may be easier for you to assess the current situation and respond in a more reasonable way. Here are six important things everyone should keep in mind (and prayer) when assessing the actions of police officers in our country:

     1. No one is more upset about “bad” police shootings than good police officers. | At the end of my law enforcement career, my Chief asked me to design an ethics program for our agency. I was eager to get involved. I know there are times when officers may act inappropriately. We’re all fallen human beings, and the standard for police officers is higher than just about any other profession in the country. We have to be perfect in times of crisis with little or no time to consider the options. Some are better at this than others, and a few are bound to do or say something they shouldn’t. No one is more offended when this happens than the hundreds of thousands of police officers who work hard to uphold the honor of the badge. No one hates a bad cop more than a good cop.

     Today there are over 900,000 sworn officers nationwide. These law enforcement officers aren’t nearly as popular as other first-responders, like fire or paramedic personnel. In 2014, for example, police were assaulted 15,725 times, resulting in 13,824 injuries. In 2015, 123 of these officers were killed in the line of duty. Police officers obviously don’t work in a risk-free environment, but the risk is not an excuse for bad behavior. We will not excuse the inappropriate actions of a tiny minority when they occur. Instead, we want offenders banished from our ranks when it is justified. We will not tolerate the badge being tarnished. So, as you assess each allegation leveled against a police officer, remember this: if, in the end, it’s determined that the officer did something criminal, no one will be quicker to call for his or her prosecution than the law enforcement community.

     2. Police officers are more than reactive; they are proactive. | This is incredibly important to remember. Unlike other first-responders, officers are expected to do more than simply respond. The largest division in every police agency is the Patrol Division. Fire personnel don’t patrol the street looking for the next fire, but police officers are asked to keep our communities safe by taking a proactive approach. We handle our calls for service, then we actively patrol the streets in an effort to prevent the next crime.

     This proactive nature of police work is sometimes controversial and is the source of incredible risk on the part of every officer. Think about it for a minute: it would be a lot easier (and safer) for officers to stay in the station and simply respond to take reports after the fact. But that’s not what we do. Instead, we are on the street, ever-vigilant, hoping to be near enough to the robbery or assault to actually catch the bad-guy. Better yet, we want to stop crimes before they ever occur. When I first started as a police officer, all of us recognized this preventative effort as our duty. One of my partners would start each shift by saying, “Are you ready to get out there and crush crime?”

James "Jim" Warner Wallace (born June 16, 1961) is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has authored several books, including Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, in which he applies principles of cold case homicide investigation to apologetic concerns such as the existence of God and the reliability of the Gospels.

• Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

• God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe

• Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection

• Cold-Case Christianity for Kids: Investigate Jesus with a Real Detective

• Keeping Your Kids on God's Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith

• Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith

The economic story about Sweden’s social democracy the left never tells

By James Pethokoukis 2/1/2017

While many on the left have a soft spot for Scandinavian economies, a Milken Review Institute piece by Swedish economist Andreas Bergh offers a corrective. I highlight the following since it seems to describe the Sweden — high taxes, big welfare state — as imagined by many progressives:

In the 1970s, several well-intended political reforms backfired. The desire to increase income equality through high marginal tax rates and generous welfare benefits weakened work incentives and created strong incentives for tax avoidance. Indeed, in the 1970s and 1980s, many wealthy Swedes – notably Bjorn Borg – left the country to avoid the taxman.

Meanwhile, the desire to tame the business cycle and minimize unemployment led to the subsidization of noncompetitive industries. The unions’ desire to drive wages ahead of productivity growth led to inflation, while efforts to restore Sweden’s competitiveness through repeated currency devaluations led to both a lower living standard and investment-sapping uncertainty.

Perhaps most important, the mix of subsidies and devaluations sent the signal that firms in trouble could turn to the government for help, rather than be forced to innovate in order to stay competitive. When that happens, economies inevitably pay a price.

After the crisis of the early 1990s, the Swedish economy recovered smartly. In many ways, Sweden learned from its mistakes and took measures to avoid large budget deficits and inflationary wage pressures. By the mid-1990s, these changes were institutionalized – and strikingly, often with support from Social Democrats as well as the right-wing parties. Prominent examples include a tax reform that lowered marginal rates substantially and a pension reform that balanced the risks between pensioners and taxpayers by automatically adjusting payments to demographic and economic conditions.

James Pethokoukis is a columnist and blogger at the American Enterprise Institute. Previously, he was the Washington columnist for Reuters Breakingviews, the opinion and commentary wing of Thomson Reuters.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 18

13 The LORD also thundered in the heavens,
and the Most High uttered his voice,
hailstones and coals of fire.
14 And he sent out his arrows and scattered them;
he flashed forth lightnings and routed them.
15 Then the channels of the sea were seen,
and the foundations of the world were laid bare
at your rebuke, O LORD,
at the blast of the breath of your nostrils.

16 He sent from on high, he took me;
he drew me out of many waters.
17 He rescued me from my strong enemy
and from those who hated me,
for they were too mighty for me.
18 They confronted me in the day of my calamity,
but the LORD was my support.
19 He brought me out into a broad place;
he rescued me, because he delighted in me.

The truth of Romans 8:28

By Alistair Begg from The Hand of God: Finding His Care in All Circumstances

     The truth of Romans 8:28 is far more than just what I call kitchen-verse theology. Now let me explain what I mean by that.

     Kitchen-verse theology is when we take a plaque with a verse on it and stick it above the kitchen sink, with the idea that when we say it over and over again as a sort of Christian mantra, it will somehow start working for us. This is often accompanied by the notion that working for “our good” will mean an abundance of sunshine and the absence of rain. But the idea that Romans 8:28 is only “at work” in the sunshine and not the storm produces a theology of triumphalism.

     Such a perspective fails to reckon with life when the clouds come and the wheels fall off. We need to learn that God’s providential hand is at work in the hard times. And that He works for the good of those who love Him in all things — not just in the triumphs and successes, but in the dungeon. The “good” of those who love Him is ultimately our conformity to Christ and our sanctification.

     We need also to recognize that when God in His providence shines His light into our darkness, as He did in the dungeon for Joseph, He’s not doing it because we have merited His favor. You see, some of us have got it right about the doctrine of justification. We understand that we cannot earn salvation, which is a gift of God’s free grace. But that’s true not only of coming to Christ, but also of living for Christ. We don’t merit His favor. He doesn’t repay us for the good things we’ve done by making the sun shine on us. If Joseph had anticipated that, how would we explain what happened to him?

     Joseph responded to temptation with absolute integrity and purity, and what was his reward? A trip to the dungeon. But then, suddenly, in the midst of that experience, the clouds parted and the sun shone upon him in the person of the warden.

     God chose to do this out of His own goodness, motivated by nothing in Joseph and driven by nothing in the circumstances, but only by His sovereign plan and purpose. John Calvin says, “Since we are unworthy that He should grant us his help, the cause of its communication must be in Himself, seeing that He is merciful.”

     Some of us are still living with a form of cause-and-effect Christianity. But think about the way we parents love our children. We say no to them in certain things. The kids don’t understand, and they complain. But we do it anyway, because it’s for their good.

     And sometimes, when they are least deserving, we lavish our attention upon them so as to move their hearts to repentance at the awareness of our unconditional favor. We do so because we love them with a passion.

     God is far more willing to bless us than we are to take the time to even ask Him for blessings. And when He shines the sun of His providence into the life of His servant, it is not because the servant has merited God’s favor, which is induced by nothing other than God’s goodness.

     So when we sing, “God is so good, He’s so good to me,” we have to acknowledge that this remains true even in the dungeon — because our good God is working all things out in conformity with the purpose of His will.

     Our problem is that we have a limited perspective. All we can see is Earth, not what God is doing from heaven’s side to bring about His good purpose in us and in others.

     If we could see all that God is doing, we would say, “Oh, this is fabulous!” But, instead, we’re tempted to declare, “I don’t think I should be in this dark dungeon. This shouldn’t be happening to me. This isn’t fair.”

     That’s why we need a theology. We can’t live wisely without biblical doctrine. We can live only as silly people.

     But once we begin to understand the great truths that underpin our faith, we can say with John Wesley,

Commit thy ways to Him
Thy works into His hands;
And rest in His unchanging Word
Who heaven and earth commands.

Through waves and clouds and storms
His power will clear thy way;
Wait thou His time; the darkest night
Shall end in brightest day.

Leave to His sovereign sway
To choose and to command;
So shalt thou, wondering, own His way
How wise, how strong His hand.

Mr. President: Don’t Cave to Liberal Fearmongering. Protect Religious Freedom

By Ryan T. Anderson 2/2/2017

     Liberals are up in arms over a possible executive order from President Donald Trump protecting religious freedom.

     A draft copy of the executive order was leaked to LGBT groups and liberal media outlets in an attempt to prevent the president from issuing it.

     But the president should not cave. He should stand up to the liberal outrage and hostility to ordinary American values that fueled his rise in the first place.

     The executive order is good, lawful public policy. And it makes good on several promises then-candidate Trump made to his supporters.

     Indeed, just this morning at the National Prayer Breakfast, Trump pledged, “My administration will do everything in its power to defend and protect religious liberty.” This executive order is the place to start.

     Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation, and the Founder and Editor of Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, NJ. A Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude graduate of Princeton University, he earned his Ph.D. in political philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. Anderson’s research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two Supreme Court cases.

     His writings have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, the Harvard Health Policy Review, the Weekly Standard, and National Review. Anderson has appeared on ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and the Fox News Channel. In addition to a memorable 2013 debate about marriage on CNN's Piers Morgan Live, his news interviews include appearances on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, CNN's New Day with Chris Cuomo, MSNBC's The Ed Show with Ed Schultz, and Fox News' Hannity.

Ryan T. Anderson Books:

• 1     Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom
• 2     When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment
• 3     What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense
• 4     Liberalism Safe for Catholicism?, A: Perspectives from The Review of Politics (THE REVIEW OF POLITICS Series)

The Problem Of The Old Testament

By James Orr 1907

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VI - PRIESTS AND LEVITES

DR. DRIVER gives a reason for rejecting the view of the relation of priests and Levites indicated in the text, which, if it were valid, would be fatal; but which, as it stands, seems to us, we confess, an example of that overstraining which plays so large a part in these discussions. He writes: “The terms used in [ Deut. 18 ] to describe the Levite services are those used regularly of priestly duties. To minister in the name, as  18:5 (of the priest; cf.  17:12; 21:5); to stand before — i.e., to wait on (see, e.g.,  1 Kings 10:8) — Jehovah, as  Ezek. 44:15; Judg. 20:28; cf.  Deut. 17:12; 18:5. (The Levites ‘stand before’ — i.e., wait upon—the congregation,  Num. 16:9; Ezek. 44:11b. In  2 Chron. 29:11, priests are present; see 5:4).” We should not, of course, presume to differ from Dr. Driver on a question of philology or grammar; but this is a question of palpable fact, and invites examination. All Hebrew scholars, besides, are far from agreeing with Dr. Driver in the above dicta. The statement made, we venture to think, needs much qualification. It is not denied that the terms employed are appropriate to priestly duties; the question is whether they are used of these duties “regularly” and only. And this it is difficult to admit. The exact phrase “to minister in the name” is, so far as we know, found nowhere else than in vers.  5, 7, of this passage; but the verb itself, “minister” (sharēth) is used constantly in the law and in Chronicles of Levitical as well as of priestly service. The Levites, we read, shall be appointed over the tabernacle of the testimony, “and they shall minister to it”; aged Levites “shall minister with their brethren in the tent of meeting.” but shall do no service; the Levites “are chosen to carry the ark of God and to minister unto Him for ever”; they “minister before the ark of the covenant of Jehovah,” etc. In fact, the only use of the word “minister” in the Book of  Numbers, if we are not mistaken, is with reference to the service of the Levites. With this may be compared Dr. Driver’s own note in his  Deuteronomy, where the facts are stated more fully, but still, as we think, onesidedly. “To minister,” he there says, “is a less distinctive term, being used not only of priests, but also of Levites ( Num. 8:26), and other subordinate attendants, as in  1 Sam. 2:11, 18; 3:1 (of  Samuel).” [We gather from this that Dr. Driver does not adopt Wellhausen’s theory that Samuel was a “priest.”] But then, what becomes of its peculiar force in  Deuteronomy? For Samuel also ministered “to Jehovah”; so in  1 Chron. 15:2, etc. It does not fare better with the expression “to stand before Jehovah.” Apart from the passage quoted, it is used in  Deuteronomy once of the tribe of Levi, and once of the Levitical priest. In the Levitical law it does not occur at all — a curious instance of “regularly.” On the other hand, in Chronicles, the Levites “stand every morning to thank and praise Jehovah, and likewise at even,” and “priests and Levites” are addressed together as “chosen to stand before Jehovah.”  In Nehemiah also “priests and Levites” are spoken of together as those who “stood.” Can it be claimed that the case is made out?

CHAPTER VII - Difficulties and Perplexities of the Critical Hypothesis: I. The JE Analysis

“He His fabric of the Heavens
Hath left to their disputes; perhaps to move
His laughter at their quaint opinions wide
Hereafter, when they come to model Heaven
And calculate the stars; how they will wield
The mighty frame;—how build, contrive
To save appearances;—how gird the sphere
With centrick and eccentrick scribbled o’er,
Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb.”—MILTON.

The Problem of the Old Testament

Prosperity and the Camp Fire 2006

By Richard S. Adams

     I remember Lily and I listening to a very popular preacher teaching on the blessings of God from Deuteronomy. We could hear his listeners applauding and voicing their approval. We all want to be blessed, but this reminded me of the real estate infomercials that used to be on television late at night. That was years ago. Maybe they are still on, but I’m older now so we try to be in bed by ten.

     I believe God wants to bless us, but equating God’s blessings to Abraham’s land and wealth strikes me as short sighted. Truthfully, it is way off base. We are here for God's purpose, not our own. It has taken me a long long time to learn that life is not about me. We should desire with all our heart to bring God glory and honor. THAT is the prime directive! Blessings flow from giving God honor and glory. Yes, Abraham's land and wealth is indeed part of the story, but when I hear a cheer leading message like this I am reminded of a message I heard Dr. Chuck Conniry give to a class of graduating MBA’s and PhD’s.

     It was a time of jubilation; celebrating several years of hard work and sacrifice on the student’s part, but it had also been a time of sacrifice for their loved ones. Wives, children, parents and friends were gathered for this rite of passage. This would be a great time to deliver a message on the blessings of God, but instead, Chuck talked about what Jesus said to his disciples. “Pick up your cross and follow me.”

(Mt 16:24) 24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. ESV

     Chuck reminded the audience what kind of world these young and old pastors were entering. The October 2006 news was filled with the story of the Pennsylvania milk truck driver who shot eleven people and killed five girls.

     Most of us don’t need an explanation of what Jesus meant by pick up your cross and follow me, certainly these graduating seminary students understood the theological, spiritual and personal meaning of these words. Jesus did not say, jump in your Lexus and follow me or even put on your backpack and follow me. No, he was quite clear when he said pick up your cross

     Reality is sobering, but we have become masters of distraction. We come up with all kinds of ways to look the other way, put space between us and what we should be doing and worst of all, we intentionally put space between ourselves and others. It takes more and more to interrupt us from our daily entertainment and the gadgets that distract us. It breaks my heart that so many people would rather watch a funny YouTube video than pay close attention to a John MacArthur or Jon Courson teaching on YouTube.

     We are quite delusional if we think an armful of wood will keep our camp fire burning all night. Whether the wood burns slowly or quickly, it still burns. Sooner or later those shadows just beyond the light of the camp fire will be upon us. What then?

     Jesus told us we will have trouble. He spoke to any who would listen, but mostly it was those who had plenty of trouble who listened. When I think of the parable of the tares I wonder, did only one in four believe Jesus? If only one in four believed Him how many believe the shepherds God has provided for today?

(Jn 16:33) I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” ESV

     Jesus said to love the Lord with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. That’s trouble right there. Love the person who did this to me, said that about me, is always rude to me! Jesus said that all the law and all the commandments rest on loving the Lord and your neighbor with all your strength. Besides the pain in the neck I mentioned, it includes your in-laws and family members who always take advantage of you.

(Mt 22:37–40) 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” ESV

     Joel Osteen’s message, despite all the cheering in the background, is as hollow as the real estate infomercials that may or may not still be peddling their wares on television.

     Jesus said that to whoever would and will listen. He also said the way is narrow and few would, will find it. All the cheers, pep rallies, and promises of abundance won’t stop the camp fire from finally burning out. What then?

(Ho 4:6) My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;
because you have rejected knowledge,
I reject you from being a priest to me.
And since you have forgotten the law of your God,
I also will forget your children.

Articles

     Richard S. Adams | Lover of Christ, husband of Lily, father of four, grandfather of eleven, Masters in Divinity and Certificate in Spiritual Direction. On staff at George Fox Evangelical Seminary 1/2009 to 7/2018.

• Jan 23     Potholes (2021)
• Jan 24     The Hornet
• Jan 26     Dealing With Disappointment
• Jan 27     Lost (2014)
• Jan 28     Life Support, A Non-Stop Flight
• Feb 5     Prosperity and the Camp Fire
• Feb 7     Job 6:14-23
• Feb 10     Spontaneous Generation
• Feb 14     Hindsight
• Feb 18     The Cure For Despair
• Feb 22     RE: Job's Friends
• Feb 23     Job 23:14
• Feb 25     No Time To Text
• Mar 5     Polemics and Caricature
• Mar 6     Ecclesiastes 3:14 | Grace
• Mar 17     A Walk In The Rain
• Mar 25     The Corona Virus
• Apr 20     Death and My Master's Voice
• Apr 26     The Unexpected Blessing Returns
• May 10     Ruth | Relationships
• May 25     Jesus and the Passover
• June 2     Extension Cords
• June 18     Lincoln City 6/2/18
• July 14     Tom - Gen andRevelation
• July 15     Knowledge and World Peace
• July 16     The Church as Lobbyist
• Aug 3     Have You Noticed
• Sept 1     Branches Ran Over The Wall
• Sept 2     1 Cor 9:1-2
• Sept 2     Many Young Folks Get This
• Sept 13     Reading God's Word
• Nov 27     The Way The World Is
• Nov 30     The Renewal Of Israel
• Dec 09     December 22
• Dec 11     Open Door
• Dec 20     Replacement Theology

The Pilgrim's Progress From This World To That Which Is To Come;
Delivered Under The Similitude Of A Dream

By John Bunyan 1678

THE FIFTH STAGE

TALK. Nay, my part is not now to object, but to hear; let me, therefore, have your second question.

     FAITH. It is this: Do you experience this first part of the description of it; and doth your life and conversation testify the same? Or standeth your religion in word or tongue, and not in deed and truth? Pray, if you incline to answer me in this, say no more than you know the God above will say Amen to, and also nothing but what your conscience can justify you in; for not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth. Besides, to say I am thus and thus, when my conversation, and all my neighbors, tell me I lie, is great wickedness.

     Then Talkative at first began to blush; but, recovering himself, thus he replied: You come now to experience, to conscience, and to God; and to appeal to him for justification of what is spoken. This kind of discourse I did not expect; nor am I disposed to give an answer to such questions, because I count not myself bound thereto, unless you take upon you to be a catechiser; and though you should so do, yet I may refuse to make you my judge. But I pray, will you tell me why you ask me such questions?

     FAITH. Because I saw you forward to talk, and because I knew not that you had aught else but notion. Besides, to tell you all the truth, I have heard of you that you are a man whose religion lies in talk, and that your conversation gives this your mouth-profession the lie. They say you are a spot among Christians, and that religion fareth the worse for your ungodly conversation; that some have already stumbled at your wicked ways, and that more are in danger of being destroyed thereby: your religion, and an ale-house, and covetousness, and uncleanness, and swearing, and lying, and vain company-keeping, etc., will stand together. The proverb is true of you which is said of a harlot, to wit, “That she is a shame to all women:” so are you a shame to all professors.

     TALK. Since you are so ready to take up reports, and to judge so rashly as you do, I cannot but conclude you are some peevish or melancholy man, not fit to be discoursed with; and so adieu.

     Then up came Christian, and said to his brother, I told you how it would happen; your words and his lusts could not agree. He had rather leave your company than reform his life. But he is gone, as I said: let him go; the loss is no man’s but his own. He has saved us the trouble of going from him; for he continuing (as I suppose he will do) as he is, would have been but a blot in our company: besides, the apostle says, “From such withdraw thyself.”

     FAITH. But I am glad we had this little discourse with him; it may happen that he will think of it again: however, I have dealt plainly with him, and so am clear of his blood if he perisheth.

     CHR. You did well to talk so plainly to him as you did. There is but little of this faithful dealing with men now-a-days, and that makes religion to stink so in the nostrils of many as it doth; for they are these talkative fools, whose religion is only in word, and who are debauched and vain in their conversation, that (being so much admitted into the fellowship of the godly) do puzzle the world, blemish Christianity, and grieve the sincere. I wish that all men would deal with such as you have done; then should they either be made more conformable to religion, or the company of saints would be too hot for them. Then did Faithful say,

“How Talkative at first lifts up his plumes!
How bravely doth he speak! How he presumes
To drive down all before him! But so soon
As Faithful talks of heart-work, like the moon
That’s past the full, into the wane he goes;
And so will all but he that heart-work know.”

     Thus they went on, talking of what they had seen by the way, and so made that way easy, which would otherwise no doubt have been tedious to them, for now they went through a wilderness.

     Pilgrim's Progress (Illustrated): Updated, Modern English. More than 100 Illustrations.

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

February 5

Stand not in fear, thy adversaries counting,
Dare every peril, save to disobey;
Thou shalt march on, all obstacles surmounting,
For I, the Strong, will open up the way.

Wherefore go gladly to the task assigned thee.
Having My promise, needing nothing more
Than just to know, where’er the future find thee,
In all thy journeying I go before.
--- Frank J. Exley

The Witness Of The Scriptures To Moses’ Authorship

By Gleason Archer Jr.

     1. The Pentateuch itself testifies to Moses as having composed it. We find these explicit statements (ASV): Exodus 17:14: “And Jehovah said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book … that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek.”   Exodus 24:4: “And Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah”; and verse 7: “And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people.” Exodus 34:27: “And Jehovah said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.” Numbers 33:1–2: “These are the journeys of the children of Israel.… And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys.” Deuteronomy 31:9: “And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests”; and verse 11: “When all Israel is come to appear before Jehovah thy God … thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.” It is interesting to observe that Wellhausen, in his Prolegomena, nowhere (according to the index to the English edition, at least) discusses any of these five explicit references in the Torah to Moses’ writing of these portions of the Pentateuch. Where passages are found that conflict with Wellhausen’s theory, he simply passes them over in silence. Apparently he never even entertained the possibility of Moses contributing a single word to the Pentateuch; certainly not the Ten Commandments nor Moses’ fashioning of the brazen serpent in Num. 21:9 (Prolegomena, p. 439), which for Wellhausen proved Moses was idolatrous.

     2. In other Old Testament books we find such references as these: Joshua 1:8: “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate thereon … that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.” (In v. 7 this was described as “the law which Moses my servant commanded thee.”)   Joshua 8:31: “As it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of unhewn stones—” (i.e.,   Ex. 20:25 ). In verse   32: “And he [Joshua] wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses.”  1 Kings 2:3: “And keep the charge of Jehovah … according to that which is written in the law of Moses” (David being the speaker here).  2 Kings 14:6 (referring to King Amaziah): “But the children of the murderers he put not to death; according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as Jehovah commanded” (quoting  Deut. 24:16). (The date of this episode was ca. 796 B.C.)  2 Kings 21:8 (referring to the reign of Manasseh, 696–642 B.C.): “If only they will observe to do … according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them.” Other references are found in the Old Testament record from the time of Josiah onward (when, of course,  Deuteronomy had been published, and possibly also JE, according to the Wellhausen hypothesis). The authorship of the Torah is always attributed personally to Moses. Such references are:  Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1; Dan. 9:11–13; Mal. 4:4.

     3. The New Testament also strongly affirms Mosaic authorship. Apart from the numerous references to the Torah as “Moses,” we select the following quotations which emphasize the personality of the historical Moses.  Matthew 19:8: “Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives.”  John 5:46–47: “For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”  John 7:19: “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law?”   Acts 3:22: “Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you” (quoting from  Deut. 18:15).  Romans 10:5: “For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness” (quoting  Lev. 18:5). It is hard to see how anyone can embrace the Documentary Theory (that Moses wrote not a word of the law) without attributing either falsehood or error to Christ and the apostles.  Mark 12:26 states that God uttered to the historical Moses the words of  Ex. 3:6.

Other Internal Evidences

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     CHAPTER 11.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO TESTAMENTS.

This chapter consists principally of three parts. I. Five points of difference between the Old and the New Testament, sec. 1-11. II. The last of these points being, that the Old Testament belonged to the Jews only, whereas the New Testament belongs to all; the calling of the Gentiles is shortly considered, sec. 12. III. A reply to two objections usually taken to what is here taught concerning the difference between the Old and the New Testaments, sec. 13, 14.

Sections.

1. Five points of difference between the Old and the New Testaments. These belong to the mode of administration rather than the substance. First difference. In the Old Testament the heavenly inheritance is exhibited under temporal blessings; in the New, aids of this description are not employed.

2. Proof of this first difference from the simile of an heir in pupillarity, as in Gal. 4:1.

3. This the reason why the Patriarchs, under the Law, set a higher value on this life and the blessings of it, and dreaded the punishments, these being even more striking. Why severe and sudden punishments existed under the Law.

4. A second difference. The Old Testament typified Christ under ceremonies. The New exhibits the immediate truth and the whole body. The scope of the Epistle to the Hebrews in explaining this difference. Definition of the Old Testament.

5. Hence the Law our Schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.

6. Notwithstanding, among those under the Law, some of the strongest examples of faith are exhibited, their equals being scarcely to be found in the Christian Church. The ordinary method of the divine dispensation to be here attended to. These excellent individuals placed under the Law, and aided by ceremonies, that they might behold and hail Christ afar off.

7. Third difference. The Old Testament is literal, the New spiritual. This difference considered first generally.

8. Next treated specially, on a careful examination of the Apostle's text. A threefold antithesis. The Old Testament is literal, deadly, temporary. The New is spiritual, quickening, eternal. Difference between the letter and the spirit.

9. Fourth difference. The Old Testament belongs to bondage, the New to liberty. This confirmed by three passages of Scripture. Two objections answered.

10. Distinction between the three last differences and the first. Confirmation of the above from Augustine. Condition of the patriarchs under the Old Testament.

11. Fifth difference. The Old Testament belonged to one people only, the New to all.

12. The second part of the chapter depending on the preceding section. Of the calling of the Gentiles. Why the calling of the Gentiles scented to the Apostles so strange and new.

13. The last part of the chapter. Two objections considered. 1. God being immutable, cannot consistently disapprove what he once ordered. Answer confirmed by a passage of Scripture.

14. Objections. 2. God could at first have transacted with the Jews as he now does with Christians. Answer, showing the absurdity of this objection. Another answer founded on a just consideration of the divine will and the dispensation of grace.

1. What, then? you will say, Is there no difference between the Old and the New Testaments? What is to become of the many passages of Scripture in which they are contrasted as things differing most widely from each other? I readily admit the differences which are pointed out in Scripture, but still hold that they derogate in no respect from their established unity, as will be seen after we have considered them in their order. These differences (so far as I have been able to observe them and can remember) seem to be chiefly four, or, if you choose to add a fifth, I have no objections. I hold and think I will be able to show, that they all belong to the mode of administration rather than to the substance. In this way, there is nothing in them to prevent the promises of the Old and New Testament from remaining the same, Christ being the foundation of both. The first difference then is, that though, in old time, the Lord was pleased to direct the thoughts of his people, and raise their minds to the heavenly inheritance, yet, that their hope of it might be the better maintained, he held it forth, and, in a manner, gave a foretaste of it under earthly blessings, whereas the gift of future life, now more clearly and lucidly revealed by the Gospel, leads our minds directly to meditate upon it, the inferior mode of exercise formerly employed in regard to the Jews being now laid aside. Those who attend not to the divine purpose in this respect, suppose that God's ancient people ascended no higher than the blessings which were promised to the body. They hear the land of Canaan so often named as the special, and as it were the only, reward of the Divine Law to its worshipers; they hear that the severest punishment which the Lord denounces against the transgressors of the Law is expulsion from the possession of that land and dispersion into other countries; they see that this forms almost the sum of the blessings and curses declared by Moses; and from these things they confidently conclude that the Jews were separated from other nations not on their own account, but for another reason--viz. that the Christian Church might have an emblem in whose outward shape might be seen an evidence of spiritual things. But since the Scripture sometimes demonstrates that the earthly blessings thus bestowed were intended by God himself to guide them to a heavenly hope, it shows great unskilfulness, not to say dullness, not to attend to this mode of dispensation. The ground of controversy is this: our opponents hold that the land of Canaan was considered by the Israelites as supreme and final happiness, and now, since Christ was manifested, typifies to us the heavenly inheritance; whereas we maintain that, in the earthly possession which the Israelites enjoyed, they beheld, as in a mirror, the future inheritance which they believed to be reserved for them in heaven.

2. This will better appear from the similitude which Paul uses in Galatians (Gal. 4:1). He compares the Jewish nation to an heir in pupillarity, who, as yet unfit to govern himself, follows the direction of a tutor or guide to whose charge he has been committed. Though this simile refers especially to ceremonies, there is nothing to prevent us from applying it most appropriately here also. The same inheritance was destined to them as to us, but from nonage they were incapable of entering to it, and managing it. They had the same Church, though it was still in puerility. The Lord, therefore kept them under this tutelage, giving them spiritual promises, not clear and simple, but typified by earthly objects. Hence, when he chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their posterity, to the hope of immortality, he promised them the land of Canaan for an inheritance, not that it might be the limit of their hopes, but that the view of it might train and confirm them in the hope of that true inheritance, which, as yet, appeared not. And, to guard against delusion, they received a better promise, which attested that this earth was not the highest measure of the divine kindness. Thus, Abraham is not allowed to keep down his thoughts to the promised land: by a greater promise his views are carried upward to the Lord. He is thus addressed, "Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward," (Gen. 15:1). Here we see that the Lord is the final reward promised to Abraham that he might not seek a fleeting and evanescent reward in the elements of this world, but look to one which was incorruptible. A promise of the land is afterwards added for no other reason than that it might be a symbol of the divine benevolence, and a type of the heavenly inheritance, as the saints declare their understanding to have been. Thus David rises from temporal blessings to the last and highest of all, "My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever." "My heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God," (Ps. 73:26; 84:2). Again, "The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot," (Ps. 16:5). Again "I cried unto thee O Lord: I said Thou art my refuge and my portion in the land of the living," (Ps. 142:5). Those who can venture to speak thus, assuredly declare that their hope rises beyond the world and worldly blessings. This future blessedness, however, the prophets often describe under a type which the Lord had taught them. In this way are to be understood the many passages in Job (Job 18:17) and Isaiah, to the effect, That the righteous shall inherit the earth, that the wicked shall be driven out of it, that Jerusalem will abound in all kinds of riches, and Sion overflow with every species at abundance. In strict propriety, all these things obviously apply not to the land of our pilgrimage, nor to the earthly Jerusalem, but to the true country, the heavenly city of believers, in which the Lord has commanded blessing and life for evermore (Ps. 133:3).

3. Hence the reason why the saints under the Old Testament set a higher value on this mortal life and its blessings than would now be meet. For, though they well knew, that in their race they were not to halt at it as the goal, yet, perceiving that the Lord, in accommodation to their feebleness, had there imprinted the lineaments of his favour, it gave them greater delight than it could have done if considered only in itself. For, as the Lord, in testifying his good will towards believers by means of present blessings, then exhibited spiritual felicity under types and emblems, so, on the other hand, by temporal punishments he gave proofs of his judgment against the reprobate. Hence, by earthly objects, the favour of the Lord was displayed, as well as his punishment inflicted. The unskilful, not considering this analogy and correspondence (if I may so speak) between rewards and punishments, wonder that there is so much variance in God, that those who, in old time, were suddenly visited for their faults with severe and dreadful punishments, he now punishes much more rarely and less severely, as if he had laid aside his former anger, and, for this reason, they can scarcely help imagining, like the Manichees, that the God of the Old Testament was different from that of the New. But we shall easily disencumber ourselves of such doubts if we attend to that mode of divine administration to which I have adverted--that God was pleased to indicate and typify both the gift of future and eternal felicity by terrestrial blessings, as well as the dreadful nature of spiritual death by bodily punishments, at that time when he delivered his covenant to the Israelites as under a kind of veil.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion