Why The Abortion Industry Wants To Ban Funerals For Miscarried Babies

By Anna Paprocki 11/14/16

     Even in death, unborn infants receive no respect from an abortion industry anxious to portray such human beings as trash.

     Abortion advocates have recently released a flood of outlandish and deceptive claims intended to defeat and discredit efforts to ensure that deceased infants receive dignified and respectful treatment. Many in the media have joined the abortion industry’s hysterical crusade, castigating these infant dignity laws as clandestine abortion regulations designed to shutter clinics and deny women choices. Even in death, unborn infants receive no respect from an abortion industry anxious to portray such human beings as trash.

     In reality, these laws do not address, much less regulate, a woman’s access to abortion. Infant dignity laws give families more choices when grieving the loss of their tiniest members.

     The Need for Infant Dignity Laws

     States began considering “infant dignity” laws in response to diverse and tragic occurrences—some of which followed abortions, and many that did not. Hospitals refused to release miscarried infants’ remains to their mothers for burial, families were unable to obtain certificates of stillbirth because their infants were miscarried too early, and, not surprisingly, deceased infants’ body parts were discovered in dumpsters behind abortion clinics.

Click here to go to source

Attorney Anna Paprocki is staff counsel at Americans United for Life.

A river of lost souls runs through western Colorado

By Amy Ellis Nutt 11/6/16

     UNNATURAL CAUSES | SICK AND DYING IN SMALL-TOWN AMERICA: Since the turn of this century, death rates have risen for whites in midlife, particularly women. In this series, The Washington Post is exploring this trend and the forces driving it. Read the other stories in this series here.

     LA PLATA COUNTY, COLO. — The river gallops past ghost towns and plunges through canyons of quiet before tumbling into the old mining town of Durango. Legend has it that the Spanish christened these waters more than 300 years ago to honor a small band of conquistadors who died on its banks without receiving the sacrament of last rites. They called it El Rio de las Animas Perdidas.

     The River of Lost Souls.

     Today, some 53,000 people live in Durango and the surrounding county of La Plata. And all along the Animas, people are still dying before their time, particularly women in midlife, succumbing not to diabetes or heart disease, but to suicide.

     Two-and-a-half times as many people die by suicide as homicide in this country; among whites in 2014, it was nearly nine times as many, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although more men than women take their own lives, the rate of suicide has nearly doubled among middle-aged white women since 1999 — rising from 7 per 100,000 to 12.6 in 2014 — helping to explain a startling increase in their early mortality.

5 Myths about Teaching Apologetics to Students

By Sean McDowell 5/6/16

     Training students in apologetics is one of the most important tasks for any youth leader today. Whether through classroom teaching, speaking, personal conversation, on apologetics mission trips, or through writing, I have been training students to defend their faith for nearly two decades. While there are certainly some exceptions, in my experience, the vast majority love it.

     Nevertheless, some leaders continue to resist the need for apologetics training for students. In this post, I briefly respond to five common myths about teaching students apologetics:

     Myth 1: Students will become arrogant and argumentative if they study apologetics

     One of my favorite presentations to do at churches, camps, and conferences is my “Atheist Encounter.” I put on my “atheist glasses” and do my best to role-play the atheist worldview while taking questions from the audience. Interestingly, student groups (and really all groups) tend to become agitated, defensive, and argumentative. After the experience, I often ask groups the reason for their defensiveness. And the point I make is this: we get defensive when we don’t really know why we believe what we believe. Confident people, who have a good rationale for their beliefs, don’t tend to get defensive. Rather than making them arrogant, apologetics can actually help young people develop a calm confidence in their faith so they can engage others in thoughtful spiritual conversations.

     Myth 2: Students need information dumbed down for them

     Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, a best-selling author of over 18 books, an internationally recognized speaker, a part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.Books By Sean McDowell

Sean McDowell Books:

Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists
A New Kind of Apologist: *Adopting Fresh Strategies *Addressing the Latest Issues *Engaging the Culture
The Beauty of Intolerance: Setting a Generation Free to Know Truth and Love
Same-Sex Marriage: A Thoughtful Approach to God's Design for Marriage (Thoughtful Response)
ETHIX: Being Bold in a Whatever World
More Than a Carpenter

We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident

By Stephen C. Meyer 7/4/16

     On Independence Day, it's appropriate to review the sources of our rights as citizens. There is one source that is more basic than any other, yet that receives less than the attention it deserves. I refer to the idea that there is an intelligent creator who can be known by reason from nature, a key tenet underlying the Declaration of Independence -- as well as, curiously, the modern theory of intelligent design.

     The birth of our republic was announced in the Declaration through the pen of Thomas Jefferson. He and the other Founders based their vision on a belief in an intrinsic human dignity, bestowed by virtue of our having been made according to the design and in the image of a purposeful creator.

     As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." If we had received our rights only from the government, then the government could justifiably take them away.

     Jefferson himself thought that there was scientific evidence for design in nature. In 1823, he insisted so in a letter to John Adams:

     I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.

How Should We Analyze a Worldview?

By Bill Pratt 6/8/12

     There are many worldviews out there to choose from: Christianity, Islam, secular humanism, New Age spiritualism, and so on. Since choosing a worldview is perhaps one of the most important things a person must do, it is highly important that we have a trustworthy method to evaluate the options. Our worldview colors the way we see almost everything around us, so we must choose wisely.

     Apologist Ravi Zacharias offers what he calls the 3-4-5 method of analyzing worldviews. I would like to share it with you because it will provide you a method with which to judge worldview options.

     First, there are three tests that a worldview must pass. It must be:

1. logically consistent – Its teachings cannot be self-contradictory.
2. empirically adequate – Its teachings must match what we see in reality.
3. existentially relevant – Its teachings must speak directly to how we actually live our lives.

1. origin – Where do the universe and human beings come from?
2. meaning – What is the meaning or purpose of life?
3. morality – How do we know what is right and what is wrong?
4. destiny – What happens to us after we die?

Acts 9

By Don Carson 7/22/2018

     What was Paul's perspective before he was converted (Acts 9)? Elsewhere (Acts 22:2; Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:4-6) he tells us that he was a strict Pharisee, brought up (apparently) in Jerusalem, taught by one of the most renowned rabbis of the day. For him, the notion of a crucified Messiah was a contradiction in terms. Messiahs rule, they triumph, they win. The LAW insists that those who hang on a tree are cursed by God. Surely, therefore, the insistence that Jesus is the Messiah is not only stupid, but verges on the blasphemous. It might lead to political insurrection: the fledgling church was growing, and might become a dangerous block. It had to be stopped; indeed, what was needed was a man of courage like Saul, a man like Phinehas who averted the wrath of God by his decisive action against the perverters of truth and probity (Num. 25), someone who really understood the implications of these wretched delusions and who saw where they would lead.

     But now on the Damascus Road Saul meets the resurrected, glorified Jesus. Whether he had seen him before we cannot be sure; that he sees him now, Saul cannot doubt. And a great deal of his theology, worked out and displayed in his letters, stems from that brute fact.

     If Jesus were alive and glorified, then somehow his death on the cross did not prove he was damned. Far from it: the claim of believers that God had raised him from the dead, and that they had seen him, must be true — and that could only mean that God had vindicated Jesus. Then what on earth did his death mean?

     From that vantage point, everything looked different. If Jesus was under the curse of God when he died, yet was vindicated by God himself, he must have died for others. Somehow his death absorbed the righteous curse of God that was due others and canceled it out. In that light, the entire history of the Hebrew Scriptures looked different.

     Was it not written that a Suffering Servant (see yesterday’s meditation) would be wounded for our transgressions and chastised for our iniquities? Does the death of countless lambs and bulls really take away human sin? Or do we need, as it were, a human “lamb of God,” a human “Passover Lamb”? If the tabernacle and temple rituals are read as pointing to the final solution, what does scriptural texts that promise a new covenant, a great outpouring of the Spirit in the last days (Acts 2:17-21; see Joel 2:28-32)? What place does the promise to Abraham have in the scheme of things, that in Abraham’s offspring all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 12:3)?

     Grant that Jesus is alive and vindicated, and everything changes.

Click here to go to source

Don Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and co-founder (with Tim Keller) of The Gospel Coalition. He has authored numerous books, and recently edited The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016).

Acts 10

By Don Carson 1/1/2018

     The account of the conversion of Cornelius occupies much space in the book of Acts. As the Gospel moves outward from its Jewish confines, each step is carefully charted. First it was the Samaritans, a mixed race with a peculiar view of Scripture. (They accepted only Torah, what we call the Pentateuch.) Then it was the Ethiopian eunuch, who could not be a full proselyte — but (it might be argued) perhaps he would have been one if he had not been mutilated. Then comes the conversion of the man who will be the apostle to the Gentiles (see 9:15). Here in Acts 10 is the conversion of a God-fearer, a Gentile much attached to the Scriptures and to the Jewish synagogue who had chosen not to become circumcised and thus an unqualified proselyte — a convert — to Judaism.

     The apostle whom God prepares to go to Caesarea and preach the Gospel to Cornelius and his household is Peter. Peter’s repeated vision concerns ritually unclean food. Three times he is told to kill and eat unclean creatures; three times he declines, viewing himself as under the Law’s food prohibitions. Many have asked how Peter could be so dense, considering the fact that, according to Mark 7:19, Jesus had already uttered a saying declaring all foods clean. But it is far from clear that his disciples understood the ramifications of Jesus’ utterance at the time.

Mark 7:19  since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)   ESV

     Mark is writing later, about A. D. 60, long after the Cornelius episode; and, reflecting on what Jesus said, Mark perceives the implications in Jesus’ words that were not grasped at the time. Even the commission to take the Gospel everywhere, or Jesus’ insistence that people would come from all over the world and join the patriarchs in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 8:11), had not brought the pieces together for the apostles. Small wonder, then, that Peter is at this stage still sorting things out.

Matthew 8:11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,   ESV

     So he wakes up and ponders what the vision means. Providential timing makes that point clear. Kosher Jews were always nervous in a Gentile home — but here God sends Peter not only to spend time in a non-kosher Gentile home, but to preach the Gospel there. Initially, no one is more surprised than Peter (Acts 10: 28-29, 34), but it is not long before he swings into a full-orbed presentation of the Gospel to these Gentiles. Even while Peter is speaking, the Holy Spirit descends on this Gentile household as he had descended on the Jews at Pentecost, and no one is more surprised than Peter and the Jews traveling with him (Acts 10: 45-47).

Acts 10:28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me.”

Acts 10:34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: “ Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,

Acts 10:45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”   ESV

     The initial impetus to cross lines of race and heritage with the Gospel of Jesus Christ arose not from a committee planning world evangelization, but from God himself.

Click here to go to source

Don Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and co-founder (with Tim Keller) of The Gospel Coalition. He has authored numerous books, and recently edited The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016).

What Is Civil Disobedience?

By Charles C. Ryrie     1970

     If disobedience is a “violation of a command or prohibition,” then civil disobedience is that in respect to the laws of the State. In view of today’s scene, we would probably wish to elaborate on this definition by noting some qualifying characteristics of the disobedience and suggesting some motives for it. Thus a more elaborate definition as suggested by one philosopher is that it is public, illegal action designed to protest, frustrate, and influence the repeal, enactment, reinterpretation or alteration of any law or policy of the State. Whether one agrees or not with that description, there are several points to underscore about civil disobedience. First, acts of civil disobedience are illegal actions. They are crimes. Second, civil disobedience is public. Concealment is not a characteristic of it as it is of other crimes. Third, it is aimed at some sort of p 98 change in the existing code of laws. These features would probably be minimal in describing civil disobedience.

The Justification of Civil Disobedience on Philosophical Grounds

     Various philosophical criteria have been offered to justify instances of civil disobedience. The first that is often heard is that no laws are to be broken other than clearly unconstitutional ones. The obvious fallacy in this is the question of what is clearly unconstitutional? The tendency of the Supreme Court in recent years  ( This was written in 1970 ) to interpret the Constitution liberally makes it difficult to establish with certainty the constitutionality of any law. No one can meet the criterion of certainty of the unconstitutionality of a law in order to justify civil disobedience simply because certainty cannot be established. When there is doubt a citizen may become deliberately disobedient in order to test the law in relation to the Constitution. This was done, for instance, in testing the validity of the “Monkey Law” in Arkansas. However, it must be remembered that the one who breaks the law must submit to the penalty of the law if the case is lost. It may be observed, too, that under our legal system testing a law in court does not require mass violations of it in order to bring it to that test.

     A second proposed criterion for justifying civil disobedience is that it must be used only as a last resort after all available grievance procedures have been exhausted. But, again, who is to decide when we have arrived at that last resort which will justify an act of civil disobedience? Furthermore, someone might well decide that normal legal procedures for expressing grievances would consume too much time and therefore he cannot wait until the matter comes to a last resort. The physician may need to make an immediate decision concerning an abortion without waiting for legal procedures to justify his act. He may do the right thing medically by not waiting, but not legally nor justifiably according to this criterion.

     A third possibility, and one that is heard loudly today, is that disobedience is justifiable if done conscientiously. “Justification is by appeal to the incompatibility between political circumstances and moral convictions.” In other words, self-interest or personal gain is supposedly absent as a motive for the disobedience while appeals to morality and conscience are the bases. The obvious problem with this criterion is the difficulty of judging the conscientiousness of an action. Such judgment is in all instances subjective. Furthermore, as ex-Justice Abe Fortas put it: “But good motives do not excuse action which will injure others. The individual’s conscience does not give him license to indulge individual conviction without regard to the rights of others.”

     A fourth suggested criterion is that civil disobedience in order to be justified must be accompanied by complete submission to arrest and punishment. “Law presents a clear alternative: obey this law or suffer this penalty. It is a precious right to be able to say to government: ‘I will not obey this law, but I will accept the punishment connected with that disobedience. I will endure your penalty rather than commit an injustice.’ … The law cannot say simply ‘do this or do not do this.’ It must say, ‘do this or do not do this — or else.’ And the ‘or else’ provides an essential alternative within the structure of law … The man who acts in defiance of law with the intent to escape both the command and the punishment is acting outside the law. The man who says ‘NO’ to the law’s command and stands still for the law’s ‘or else’ is operating within the law.”

     The problem with this viewpoint, though seemingly incontrovertible, is simply that it can be made to justify any act of civil disobedience whether or not constitutionality seems to be involved, whether or not it is as a last resort, and whether or not it stems from a moral judgment about the matter. Punishment for breaking the law is commonly regarded as a moral retribution, not as a perfectly respectable choice freely open to everyone.

     It is significant that all of these philosophical criteria involve a large measure of subjective judgment in using them. Who decides what is clearly unconstitutional? When have we come to the last resort? Whose conscience is to be trusted as right in a matter? Who can decree that willingness to accept punishment justifies breaking the law? In other words, philosophy offers no authoritative working basis that is not subject to whatever amount of flexibility the person trying to relate to that basis wants to use.

The Biblical Teaching on Civil Disobedience

     Some may insist that the biblical teaching is open to subjective interpretation too. To the philosopher we point out that at the most it could be no more subjective than these philosophical bases. But there is a very major difference between philosophic bases and the biblical basis. However one interprets or interacts with the biblical teaching, it has the authority of God behind it, whereas all other criteria are man-made and thus authoritative only to the extent that any one or any group chooses to make them so. Christian doctrine has an existential dimension to it, but it is in the use of that doctrine, and not in its content which is God-given.

     1. Didactic data. Our Lord clearly taught that His followers are citizens of two worlds and that they must discharge responsibilities in both realms. His classic statement on the subject was: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” ( Mark 12:17 ). In relation to the spiritual kingdom, God’s servants do not fight ( John 18:36 ); but soldiers, even repentant ones, are a legitimate part of the order of this world’s kingdoms ( Luke 3:14 ).

     It is the apostles, however, who gave more detail concerning the believer’s responsibility to the government under which he lives. Paul commanded submission to the government ( Rom 13:1–7 ) because authority is ordained of God (v.  1 ) (notice that nothing is said about only certain forms of government being ordained of God), because resistance to government is ultimately resistance to God (v.  2 ), because government opposes evil (v.  4 ) and because conscience tells us to be subject (v.  5 ). Interestingly, no exceptions are given to these four reasons for obeying government that would justify civil disobedience. On the contrary, ways are spelled out to show obedience; and they are dues (personal taxes), tribute (probably export and import taxes), fear and honor.

     Eight or nine years later, after having had much personal involvement with the Roman government under which he lived (including several imprisonments), Paul had not changed his mind about the teaching he had written before in  Romans. He said again essentially the same thing: “Put them in mind to be subject [this is the same verb as in  Rom 13:1 ] to principalities and powers [this is also the same word as in the previous passage], to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” ( Titus 3:1 ). Maltreatment at the hands of the Roman government had evidently not provided Paul sufficient existential grounds for changing his teaching (cf.  1 Thess 2:2 ).

     About the same time as Paul was writing to Titus, Peter wrote a similar word on submitting to government ( 1 Pet 2:13–17 ). The reasons he lists for obeying are: in order to show by obeying God - ordained government our obedience to God Himself (v.  13 ), because it is the will of God (v.  15 ), and it is a part of a good testimony to the unsaved (v.  15 ). This obedience, according to Peter, should extend to every ordinance and to all rulers. Again no exceptions are indicated either because of the type of government or the conscience of the believer. Actually the principle underlying this concept of civil obedience is the believer’s position as a servant of God (v.  16 ). In summary, the didactic data of Scripture teaches complete civil obedience on the part of Christians and does not indicate any exceptions to this principle.

     2. Historical data. Both the Pauline and Petrine teaching were written under the reign of the Emperor Nero (54–68).  Romans was written during the first period of his reign, the celebrated quinquennium, which was characterized by good government and popularity. It is reported that Seneca said of Nero that he was incapable of learning cruelty. Royal intrigue, however led by his mother, resulted in her death in A.D. 60 and in a definite change of pattern of life and government on the part of Nero. He plunged deeper and deeper into personal dissipation and brought the empire into bankruptcy. On July 18, 64, Rome began to burn, and whatever Nero’s part may or may not have been in this, the populace wanted a scapegoat and suspicion surrounded Nero. To divert this from himself he attempted to lay the blame on the Christians. Tacitus described the process in this way:

     “Wherefore in order to allay the rumor he [Nero] put forward as guilty, and afflicted with the most exquisite punishments those who were hated for their abominations and called ‘Christians’ by the populace … Therefore first of all those who confessed [to being Christians] were arrested, and then as a result of their information to a large number were implicated, not so much on the charge of incendiarism as for hatred of the human race. They died by methods of mockery; some were covered with the skins of wild beasts and then torn by dogs, some were crucified, some were burned as torches to give light at night … Men felt that their destruction was not on account of the public welfare but to gratify the cruelty of one [Nero]” (Annals, xv. 44).

     Though not unquestioned, many place the writing of  1 Peter shortly after the beginning of this Neronian persecution. If Peter was in Rome at this time (which may be likely from  1 Peter 5:13 ), this makes his teaching about civil obedience even more significant.

     3. Illustrative evidence. Thus far we have discovered no grounds for civil disobedience in the didactic or historical data. Are there illustrations which would give guidelines for possible exceptions to the principle of submission?

     Peter’s responses to the Sanhedrin ( Acts 4:19, 5:29 ) are usually cited as examples of proper civil disobedience on the part of the believers. They are not the best because the disobedience was not directed against the civil power, Rome, but against the religious authority of the Jewish Sanhedrin. And yet, in a certain sense these are good examples, for the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin was rather wide at the time of Christ. It had authority to order arrests by its own officers and to judge cases which did not involve capital punishment. Nevertheless, the area of jurisdiction an the cases judged were, as far as New Testament examples are concerned, in the realm of religious and not strictly civil matters. But from these instances in  Acts a principle does emerge:  disobedience of higher authority seems justified when the authority requires a believer to disobey the laws of God. 

     Failure to distinguish between civil and religious authority in the time of Christ has led some to picture our Lord as an example of civil disobedience. One underground newspaper caricature recently described Him as “a serious threat to established law and order” while another pictured Him as “conspiring to overthrow the established government.” It is true that our Lord was a threat to the religious establishment, but He Himself stated that He was not concerned about the kingdom of Rome, and Pilate understood Him clearly ( John 18:33–38 ). This is a most interesting dialog, for when Pilate asked the Lord if He were King of the Jews, the Lord immediately countered by asking Pilate from whose viewpoint he asked the question. From a Jewish viewpoint He admitted to the claim, but from the Roman viewpoint He had no designs to be king. And the Roman context was all that concerned Pilate; thus he declared Him innocent. This shows that our Lord was not an anarchist trying to overthrow the Roman government.

     When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were brought into direct conflict with Nebauchadnezzar’s decree to worship the golden image because of their God-given religion, they disobeyed. In this case, God vindicated their actions by delivering them from the fiery furnace punishment. The same was true for Daniel who disobeyed the unalterable law of the Medes and Persians and who also was delivered from the den-of-lion punishment. In neither of these cases was there any possibility of changing the law of the land. But the principle illustrated is the same as in  Acts:  subjection to the law of God takes priority in a believer’s life over obedience to the laws of man.

     It should not be assumed, however, that the path of disobedience in the name of obedience to God will always result in divine intervention for deliverance. “Others were tortured … others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings … of bonds and imprisonments; they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented” ( Heb 11:35–37 ). When civil law are in opposition, the biblical illustrations seem to sanction, if not oblige, the believer to disobey.

     Indeed, our Lord’s words concerning rendering to Caesar the things that are his and to God the things that are God’s in effect deny to the state control over man’s relations with God.  Whenever a believer feels obliged to disobey his government, he must be sure it is not because the government has denied him his rights but because it has denied him God’s rights.

The Contemporary Ramification of The Doctrine of Obedience

     The doctrine of civil obedience is but a part of the larger teaching of Scripture on subjection to constituted authority. Angelic beings are subject to Christ ( 1 Pet 3:22 ); believers are to be subject to one another ( 1 Pet 5:5 ); the church is subject to Christ ( Eph 5:24 ); the Son shall be subject to the Father ( 1 Cor 15:28 ); servants are subject to their masters ( 1 Pet 2:18 ); children are under their parents ( 1 Tim 3:4 ); wives are subject to their husbands ( Col 3:18 ); young people are to be subject to their elders ( 1 Pet 5:5 ); church members are to be governed by their leaders ( Heb 13:7, 17 ); and believers are to be subject to their government. It is part of a total doctrine of obedience.

     At least one educator has recognized the integral relationship between all these facets of life. Dr. Max Rafferty lays the blame for the present disorder on misdirected ministers, soft judges, permissive psychologists, but mostly on parents who have abdicated their parental authority.  ( and again, this was written in 1970 ) Whether or not one agrees with his analysis, it is difficult to deny the fact that many areas of obedience to authority are interrelated in the Scriptures. Therefore, breakdown in one will likely involve breakdowns in the others, and that is exactly what is happening in our contemporary society. Civil disobedience is only a public display of ecclesiastical disobedience which in turn is the fruit of disobedience in the home, and so on. If this is true, then the Christian should demonstrate orderliness within the various spheres to which he is related. When he is under authority he should submit obediently; when he is in authority he should lead decisively. It is nothing short of hypocrisy for a Christian to decry public acts of disobedience while he perpetrates private ones.

The Eschatological Ramification of Disobedience

     But the world seems to be plunging rapidly down the path of increasing lawlessness in many areas of life. Where will it all end? The Bible answers that question quite plainly and vividly in  2 Timothy 3:1–5. There are listed eighteen characteristics of the hard times of the last days, and many of them reflect lawlessness. Blasphemy is lawlessness against God; disobedience to parents is lawlessness in the family; without natural affection is lawlessness against one’s own body; truce-breaking is lawlessness with others; fierce means untamed which speaks for itself; despisers of those that are good is lawlessness in respect to the established order; heady means reckless, and so it goes. No city, country, no class, no institution is exempt from this rampant lawlessness.

     I can think of no better situation into which a dictator could more easily move than into this state of lawlessness. Perhaps you read or saw The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. The pieces of that picture should never have fit together. There was the unknown fanatic who was disliked and distrusted by almost everyone except his small band of followers; there were intelligent, civilized, and cultured people who should have seen what was happening, and there was a democratic government that should have prevented such a takeover. The pieces would not have fit together except for one ingredient which was present in the situation and that was lawlessness. In the wake of lawlessness Hitler was swept to power. The impossible happened, and the lawless situation was replaced by the law of a lawless dictator. And this is exactly what will happen on a worldwide scale before long. The lawlessness of our day is ripening the world for a takeover by some who will promise to bring order, even by the use of force, out of this chaos. Such a one will arise — to be sure after the church has gone to meet the Lord in the air — and, paradoxically, he is called the lawless one ( 2 Thess 2:8 ). History will repeat itself, only this time on a much larger scale. Christians today must be certain they are not contributing to this climate of lawlessness in any sphere of life.

     Is not the Christian to take leadership in trying to correct the ills of society and will not this responsibility sometimes involve and justify acts of civil disobedience? Certainly the believer has a social responsibility and in a word it is to do good to all men and especially to other believers. But he also has a civic responsibility and that is to be an obedient citizen. If the government under which he lives allows for means of legitimate protest and change, he surely may use them. But to take the law into his own hands finds no support in the Scriptures. The only exception seems to be if the government forbids his worshipping God. To serve Caesar and even fight for him, the Christian must do; to worship Caesar, he must not do. It is well to remember that the New Testament writers did not crusade against one of the worst social ills of their day — slavery. Paul advised Christian slaves not to let it matter to them ( 1 Cor 7:22 ). He did not advise them to become martyrs in the cause of liberation. Indeed even when writing to a Christian master about a runaway slave who had become a believer, he only suggested that he be taken back and not punished. He never even hinted that the master should free his slaves because this was the Christian thing to do ( Philemon 17 ).

     The Christian’s primary responsibilities are evangelism and godly living. Through witnessing he changes men; through righteous living he affects society; through private and public obedience he honors God.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 120

120:1 In my distress I called to the LORD,
and he answered me.
2 Deliver me, O LORD,
from lying lips,
from a deceitful tongue.

3 What shall be given to you,
and what more shall be done to you,
you deceitful tongue?
4 A warrior’s sharp arrows,
with glowing coals of the broom tree!

5 Woe to me, that I sojourn in Meshech,
that I dwell among the tents of Kedar!
6 Too long have I had my dwelling
among those who hate peace.
7 I am for peace,
but when I speak, they are for war!

Fox's Book Of Martyrs

By John Foxe 1563

CHAPTER XII | The Life and Story of the True Servant and Martyr of God,

William Tyndale

The Continual Burnt Offering (1 Timothy 4:4)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

November 16

Ten thousand thousand precious gifts
My daily thanks employ;
Nor is the least a cheerful heart,
That tastes those gifts with joy.
Through every period of my life
Thy goodness I’ll pursue;
And after death, in distant worlds,
The glorious theme renew.
Through all eternity, to Thee
A joyful song I’ll raise;
For oh, eternity’s too short
To utter all Thy praise!
--- Joseph Addison

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     Introduction by The Rev. John Murray, M.A., Th.M.

     The publication in English of another edition of the opus magnum of Christian theology is an event fraught with much encouragement. Notwithstanding the decadence so patent in our present-day world and particularly in the realm of Christian thought and life, the publishers have confidence that there is sufficient interest to warrant such an undertaking. If this faith is justified we have reason for thanksgiving to God. For what would be a better harbinger of another Reformation than widespread recourse to the earnest and sober study of the Word of God which would be evinced by the readiness carefully to peruse The Institutes of the Christian Religion.

     Dr. B. B. Warfield in his admirable article, "On the Literary History of the Institutes," has condensed for us the appraisal accorded Calvin's work by the critics who have been most competent to judge. Among these tributes none expresses more adequately, and none with comparable terseness, the appraisal which is Calvin's due than that of the learned Joseph Scaliger, "Solus inter theologos Calvinus."

     It would be a presumptuous undertaking to try to set forth all the reasons why Calvin holds that position of eminence in the history of Christian theology. By the grace and in the overruling providence of God there was the convergence of multiple factors, and all of these it would be impossible to trace in their various interrelations and interactions. One of these, however, calls for special mention. Calvin was an exegete and biblical theologian of the first rank. No other one factor comparably served to equip Calvin for the successful prosecution of his greatest work which in 1559 received its definitive edition.

     The attitude to Scripture entertained by Calvin and the principles which guided him in its exposition are nowhere stated with more simplicity and fervor than in the Epistle Dedicatory to his first commentary, the commentary on the epistle to the Romans. "Such veneration," he says, "we ought indeed to entertain for the Word of God, that we ought not to pervert it in the least degree by varying expositions; for its majesty is diminished, I know not how much, especially when not expounded with great discretion and with great sobriety. And if it be deemed a great wickedness to contaminate any thing that is dedicated to God, he surely cannot be endured, who, with impure, or even with unprepared hands, will handle that very thing, which of all things is the most sacred on earth. It is therefore an audacity, closely allied to a sacrilege, rashly to turn Scripture in any way we please, and to indulge our fancies as in sport; which has been done by many in former times" (English Translation, Grand Rapids, 1947, p. 27).

     It was Calvin preeminently who set the pattern for the exercise of that sobriety which guards the science of exegesis against those distortions and perversions to which allegorizing methods are ever prone to subject the interpretation and application of Scripture. The debt we owe to Calvin in establishing sound canons of interpretation and in thus directing the future course of exegetical study is incalculable. It is only to be lamented that too frequently the preaching of Protestant and even Reformed communions has not been sufficiently grounded in the hermeneutical principles which Calvin so nobly exemplified.

     One feature of Calvin's exegetical work is his concern for the analogy of Scripture. He is always careful to take account of the unity and harmony of Scripture teaching. His expositions are not therefore afflicted with the vice of expounding particular passages without respect to the teaching of Scripture elsewhere and without respect to the system of truth set forth in the Word of God. His exegesis, in a word, is theologically oriented. It is this quality that lies close to that which was par excellence his genius.

     However highly we assess Calvin's exegetical talent and product, his eminence as an exegete must not be allowed to overshadow what was, after all, his greatest gift. He was par excellence a theologian. It was his systematizing genius preeminently that equipped him for the prosecution and completion of his masterpiece.

     When we say that he was par excellence a theologian we must dissociate from our use of this word every notion that is suggestive of the purely speculative. No one has ever fulminated with more passion and eloquence against "vacuous and meteoric speculation" than has Calvin. And no one has ever been more keenly conscious that the theologian's task was the humble and, at the same time, truly noble one of being a disciple of the Scripture. "No man," he declares, "can have the least knowledge of true and sound doctrine without having been a disciple of the Scripture. Hence originates all true wisdom, when we embrace with reverence the testimony which God hath been pleased therein to deliver concerning himself. For obedience is the source, not only of an absolutely perfect and complete faith, but of all right knowledge of God" (Inst. 1, 6, 2). In the words of William Cunningham: "In theology there is, of course, no room for originality properly so called, for its whole materials are contained in the actual statements of God's word; and he is the greatest and best theologian who has most accurately apprehended the meaning of the statements of Scripture--who, by comparing and combining them, has most fully and correctly brought out the whole mind of God on all the topics on which the Scriptures give us information--who classifies and digests the truths of Scripture in the way best fitted to commend them to the apprehension and acceptance of men--and who can most clearly and forcibly bring out their scriptural evidence, and most skillfully and effectively defend them against the assaults of adversaries . . . Calvin was far above the weakness of aiming at the invention of novelties in theology, or of wishing to be regarded as the discoverer of new opinions" (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, Edinburgh, 1866, p. 296). As we bring even elementary understanding to bear upon our reading of the Institutes we shall immediately discover the profound sense of the majesty of God, veneration for the Word of God, and the jealous care for faithful exposition and systematization which were marked features of the author. And because of this we shall find the Institutes to be suffused with the warmth of godly fear. The Institutes is not only the classic of Christian theology; it is also a model of Christian devotion. For what Calvin sought to foster was that "pure and genuine religion" which consists in "faith united with the serious fear of God, such fear as may embrace voluntary reverence and draw along with it legitimate worship such as is prescribed in the law" (Inst. 1, 2, 2).

     The present edition is from the translation made by Henry Beveridge in 1845 for the Calvin Translation Society. The reader may be assured that the translation faithfully reflects the teaching of Calvin but must also bear in mind that no translation can perfectly convey the thought of the original. It may also be added that a more adequate translation of Calvin's Institutes into English is a real desideratum. In fulfilling this need the translator or translators would perform the greatest service if the work of translation were supplemented by footnotes in which at crucial points, where translation is difficult or most accurate translation impossible, the Latin text would be reproduced and comment made on its more exact import. Furthermore, footnotes which would supply the reader with references to other places in Calvin's writings where he deals with the same subject would be an invaluable help to students of Calvin and to the cause of truth. Admittedly such work requires linguistic skill of the highest order, thorough knowledge of Calvin's writings, and deep sympathy with his theology. It would also involve prodigious labour. We may hope that the seed being sown by the present venture may bear fruit some day in such a harvest.

     John Murray, Professor of Systematic Theology, Westminster Theological Seminary. | Philadelphia, Penna.

     The Original Translator’s Preface | PREFIXED TO THE FOURTH EDITION 1581 AND REPRINTED VERBATIM IN ALL THE SUBSEQUENT EDITIONS.

     THOMAS NORTON, THE TRANSLATOR TO THE READER.

     Good reader, here is now offered you, the fourth time printed in English, M. Calvin's book of the Institution of Christian Religion; a book of great labour to the author, and of great profit to the Church of God. M. Calvin first wrote it when he was a young man, a book of small volume, and since that season he has at sundry times published it with new increases, still protesting at every edition himself to be one of those qui scribendo proficiunt, et proficiendo scribunt, which with their writing do grow in profiting, and with their profiting do proceed in writing. At length having, in many [of] his other works, traveled about exposition of sundry books of the Scriptures, and in the same finding occasion to discourse of sundry common-places and matters of doctrine, which being handled according to the occasions of the text that were offered him, and not in any other method, were not so ready for the reader's use, he therefore entered into this purpose to enlarge this book of Institutions, and therein to treat of all those titles and commonplaces largely, with this intent, that whensoever any occasion fell in his other books to treat of any such cause, he would not newly amplify his books of commentaries and expositions therewith, but refer his reader wholly to this storehouse and treasure of that sort of divine learning. As age and weakness grew upon him, so he hastened his labour; and, according to his petition to God, he in manner ended his life with his work, for he lived not long after.

     So great a jewel was meet to be made most beneficial, that is to say, applied to most common use. Therefore, in the very beginning of the Queen's Majesty's most blessed reign, I translated it out of Latin into English for the commodity of the Church of Christ, at the special request of my dear friends of worthy memory, Reginald Wolfe and Edward Whitchurch, the one her Majesty's printer for the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin tongues, the other her Highness' printer of the books of Common Prayer. I performed my work in the house of my said friend, Edward Whitchurch, a man well known of upright heart and dealing, an ancient zealous gospeller, as plain and true a friend as ever I knew living, and as desirous to do anything to common good, especially by the advancement of true religion.

     At my said first edition of this book, I considered how the author thereof had of long time purposely laboured to write the same most exactly, and to pack great plenty of matter in small room of words; yea, and those so circumspectly and precisely ordered, to avoid the cavillations of such as for enmity to the truth therein contained would gladly seek and abuse all advantages which might be found by any oversight in penning of it, that the sentences were thereby become so full as nothing might well be added without idle superfluity, and again so highly pared, that nothing could be diminished without taking away some necessary substance of matter therein expressed. This manner of writing, beside the peculiar terms of arts and figures, and the difficulty of the matters themselves, being throughout interlaced with the school men's controversies, made a great hardness in the author's own book, in that tongue wherein otherwise he is both plentiful and easy, insomuch that it sufficeth not to read him once, unless you can be content to read in vain. This consideration encumbered me with great doubtfulness for the whole order and frame of my translation. If I should follow the words, I saw that of necessity the hardness in the translation must needs be greater than was in the tongue wherein it was originally written. If I should leave the course of words, and grant myself liberty after the natural manner of my own tongue, to say that in English which I conceived to be his meaning in Latin, I plainly perceived how hardly I might escape error, and on the other side, in this matter of faith and religion, how perilous it was to err. For I durst not presume to warrant myself to have his meaning without his words. And they that wet what it is to translate well and faithfully, especially in matters of religion, do know that not the only grammatical construction of words sufficeth, but the very building and order to observe all advantages of vehemence or grace, by placing or accent of words, maketh much to the true setting forth of a writer's mind.

     In the end, I rested upon this determination, to follow the words so near as the phrase of the English tongue would suffer me. Which purpose I so performed, that if the English book were printed in such paper and letter as the Latin is, it should not exceed the Latin in quantity. Whereby, beside all other commodities that a faithful translation of so good a work may bring, this one benefit is moreover provided for such as are desirous to attain some knowledge of the Latin tongue (which is, at this time, to be wished in many of those men for whose profession this book most fitly serveth), that they shall not find any more English than shall suffice to construe the Latin withal, except in such few places where the great difference of the phrases of the languages enforced me: so that, comparing the one with the other, they shall both profit in good matter, and furnish themselves with understanding of that speech, wherein the greatest treasures of knowledge are disclosed.

     In the doing hereof, I did not only trust mine own wit or ability, but examined my whole doing from sentence to sentence throughout the whole book with conference and overlooking of such learned men, as my translation being allowed by their Judgment, I did both satisfy mine own conscience that I had done truly, and their approving of it might be a good warrant to the reader that nothing should herein be delivered him but sound, unmingled, and uncorrupted doctrine, even in such sort as the author himself had first framed it. All that I wrote, the grave, learned, and virtuous man, M. David Whitehead (whom I name with honourable remembrance), did, among others, compare with the Latin, examining every sentence throughout the whole book. Beside all this, I privately required many, and generally all men with whom I ever had any talk of this matter, that if they found anything either not truly translated, or not plainly Englished, they would inform me thereof, promising either to satisfy them or to amend it. Since which time, I have not been advertised by any man of anything which they would require to be altered. Neither had I myself, by reason of my profession, being otherwise occupied, any leisure to peruse it. And that is the cause, why not only at the second and third time, but also at this impression, you have no change at all in the work, but altogether as it was before.

      Indeed, I perceived many men well-minded and studious of this book, to require a table for their ease and furtherance. Their honest desire I have fulfilled in the second edition, and have added thereto a plentiful table, which is also here inserted, which I have translated out of the Latin, wherein the principal matters discoursed in this book are named by their due titles in order of alphabet, and under every title is set forth a brief sum of the whole doctrine taught in this book concerning the matter belonging to that title or common-place; and therewith is added the book, chapter, and section or division of the chapter, where the same doctrine is more largely expressed and proved. And for the readier finding thereof, I have caused the number of the chapters to be set upon every leaf in the book, and quoted the sections also by their due numbers with the usual figures of algorism. And now at this last publishing, my friends, by whose charge it is now newly imprinted in a Roman letter and smaller volume, with divers other Tables which, since my second edition, were gathered by M. Marlorate, to be translated and here added for your benefit.

     Moreover, whereas in the first edition the evil manner of my scribbling hand, the interlining of my copy, and some other causes well known among workmen of that faculty, made very many faults to pass the printer, I have, in the second impression, caused the book to be composed by the printed copy, and corrected by the written; whereby it must needs be that it was much more truly done than the other was, as I myself do know above three hundred faults amended. And now at this last printing, the composing after a printed copy bringeth some ease, and the diligence used about the correction having been right faithfully looked unto, it cannot be but much more truly set forth. This also is performed, that the volume being smaller, with a letter fair and legible, it is of more easy price, that it may be of more common use, and so to more large communicating of so great a treasure to those that desire Christian knowledge for instruction of their faith, and guiding of their duties. Thus, on the printer's behalf and mine, your ease and commodity (good readers) provided for. Now resteth your own diligence, for your own profit, in studying it.

     To spend many words in commending the work itself were needless; yet thus much I think, I may both not unruly and not vainly say, that though many great learned men have written books of common-places of our religion, as Melancthon, Sarcerius, and others, whose works are very good and profitable to the Church of God, yet by the consenting Judgment of those that understand the same, there is none to be compared to this work of Calvin, both for his substantial sufficiency of doctrine, the sound declaration of truth in articles of our religion, the large and learned confirmation of the same, and the most deep and strong confutation of all old and new heresies; so that (the Holy Scriptures excepted) this is one of the most profitable books for all students of Christian divinity. Wherein (good readers), as I am glad for the glory of God, and for your benefit, that you may have this profit of my travel, so I beseech you let me have this use of your gentleness, that my doings may be construed to such good end as I have meant them; and that if any thing mislike you by reason of hardness, or any other cause that may seem to be my default, you will not forthwith condemn the work, but read it after; in which doing you will find (as many have confessed to me that they have found by experience) that those things which at the first reading shall displease you for hardness, shall be found so easy as so hard matter would suffer, and, for the most part, more easy than some other phrase which should with greater looseness and smoother sliding away deceive your understanding. I confess, indeed, it is not finely and pleasantly written, nor carrieth with it such delightful grace of speech as some great wise men have bestowed upon some foolisher things, yet it containeth sound truth set forth with faithful plainness, without wrong done to the author's meaning; and so, if you accept and use it, you shall not fail to have great profit thereby, and I shall think my labour very well employed.

     Thomas Norton.