The Necessity of Baptism

Many people reject the need for baptism (immersion) in water as part of the process of salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9 is often cited to support this idea.

Does this understanding of baptism - the idea that "faith alone (sola fide) is required" - match with the rest of Scripture, with what we read in the New Testament?

Jesus addressed this in John 3:5.
He also spoke of it in Mark 16:16.
Peter preached this in Acts 2:38.
He also addressed this in Acts 10:47-48.
Peter later wrote about it in 1 Peter 3:21.
Ananias instructed Saul (Paul) about it, as related in Acts 22:16.
Paul (Saul) later wrote of it in Romans 6:3.
He addressed the subject again in 1 Corinthians 12:13, and in Ephesians 4:5 and
Ephesians 5:25-26.

It is Jesus' blood that washes away our sins - that blood and its action is God's free gift to us. We can't earn it. But it is God's gift; He as Author of our salvation, also creates the conditions for receiving the gift He gives us by His grace. The gift of salvation, including forgiveness of our sins, comes free from Him, but to think that submitting to baptism is any more a "work" to "earn" salvation, is as wrong as to think that filling out and putting the entry card in the box is "work" and "earns" us the grand prize in the drawing down at the supermarket.

Indeed, if there is any "work" done in baptism, it is done by the person doing the baptizing, and the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" into whom we are baptized. Submission to baptism is the antithesis of "earning our salvation" - and expresses as nothing else can our faith and trust in the grace of the Lord.

There are those (and I am one) who argue that remission (forgiveness) of sins flows from (pun intended) the waters of baptism - as contrasted to those who claim that forgiveness precedes the immersion of the believer. I think I am taking Peter's words in Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 at face value, but I am no Greek scholar. So I try not to argue - but simply point out what the Scriptures say. It appears to me that salvation comes from God to us by means of a process: all of these things are intended to restore us to God's fellowship after WE, by sinning, have cut ourselves off from Him. I'm trying NOT to be like Naaman (2 Kings 5:1-19) who wanted to quibble over the terms of God's gift to him of healthy life. His servant could ask us the same question he did ask his master: "If the prophet had told you to do some mighty deed, would you have objected?" God wants us to be baptized, and the command is made to those who believe on Him. We need to do it, in the same way and with the same attitude that those in the First Century did.

Enough!

"Give to him who asks..."

Matthew 5:42 finishes a series of three admonitions of our Lord regarding trials and tribulations with these words: "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away."

Why is this particular command from our Lord here? It does not seem to be directly related to demonstrating a good attitude under trial. But is it not difficult, and therefore a test or trial, to have a godly attitude in parting with what we hold dear? Especially when we are dealing with people that may be difficult to deal with, for a variety of reasons, including family and brothers and sisters in Christ. The parallel in Luke 6:30 follows the pattern of the previous statements and illustrations: "Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back." Does this seem foolish? Many think that what Jesus requires here is foolish, for many reasons. Are we to give to everyone? Are we to allow our property to be stolen, without objecting? Perhaps Luke 6:34-35 clarifies what Jesus intends for us to do: “And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Highest. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.” The Lord’s illustration in this verse in Matthew deals with borrowing and lending, not with allowing thieves to rob us. As in the other illustrations, the primary point made is that loss or financial harm is preferable, rather than to retaliate or worsen the situation. When we give to someone in need (even in the guise of a loan), we should not expect to be repaid for our generosity, and we should certainly not take steps to force reimbursement. Benevolence should be done without expecting any gain. But God knows what we do, and He will provide and show us His favor: "He who has pity on the poor lends to the LORD, and He will pay back what he has given." Proverbs 19:17. If a person asks for a loan of money or goods, we should address his request assuming that he makes it in good faith, if there are no reasons to doubt his sincerity. But we must keep in mind basic principles from God's Word. What principles? We are to be good stewards of what God has given us. We are to take care of our own (starting with our families and then with our brothers and sisters in our own congregation). We are not to encourage laziness or sustain the idle. We are certainly not to aid vices (alcohol, drugs, or other addictions). And we cannot aid shady or dubious get-rich-quick schemes. These all make sense, and require a good deal of discernment on our part, especially since people can and do change, and not always for the good. Jesus' suggestion is that, if we do lend to others, we should consider that money to be gone forever. The struggle to regain it is likely not worth the effort, and is likely to damage relationships, and will do no good to one's character. So it is something to be avoided, and the best way is to make sure that we loan and give with careful discernment regarding the person and the situation. God does NOT want us to make a bad situation worse! In summary, what does Jesus’ illustration in Matthew 5:42 require of us? It asks of us, not only that we should lend without suspicion and with no eye to profit, but that we also should have a generous spirit of outgoing concern for a brother or sister in need. And it is not, as some claim, a command to let ourselves be conned, robbed, or stolen from with impunity.

The Wonders of God's World: Arsenic Bacteria

NASA had a special news conference to tout this discovery:

A strange, salty lake in California has yielded an equally strange bacterium that thrives on arsenic and redefines life as we know it, researchers reported on Thursday.

The bacteria do not merely eat arsenic — they incorporate the toxic element directly into their DNA, the researchers said.

The finding shows just how little scientists know about the variety of life forms on Earth, and may greatly expand where they should be looking for life on other planets and moons, the NASA-funded team said.

Obviously, we don't need to go to other worlds to find strange new lifeforms. The NASA search for life on other planets is fascinating, and stirs excitement in many people, but we often forget just why NASA and many scientists seek to find life elsewhere: because they believe that it will prove evolution and disprove special creation. This find will no doubt be enlisted in that great cause, as well.

But to the committed and knowledgeable child of God, this is one more proof of the marvelous wonder of God's creation. Here is a species which not only can tolerate an element (itself created by God) that normally kills organisms, but which NEEDS this element and incorporates it into itself.

I am reminded of Job 37:14, and of Job 42:3. We know that God did this - now, all you who preach and believe natural evolution, we wait for you to explain how this species could evolve, either with or without divine help.

Edward

King Saul - Lessons Learned (Part 1)

Pity poor Saul ben Kish of Benjamin. Handsome, strong, well-built, from a family of warriors (1 Samuel 9:1-2), Saul was at the wrong place at the wrong time, as events showed; though he certainly thought he had lucked out.

The People of Israel were tired of freedom, tired of liberty, tired of being a chosen people and wanted to be like all the rest of the nations (1 Samuel 8:4-5), and God decided to tell Samuel to let them have what they wanted, but warned them of what they would get together with what they wanted. (1 Samuel 8:11-17)

So God picked Saul. Was it because he knew that Saul, despite his best intentions, would turn out exactly as God had warned the elders of Israel? Or would ANYONE given that position, that authority, turn out to be as bad as Saul? We do not know, now.

Ultimately, Saul rebelled against God, as recorded in 1 Samuel 13: 9 and 1 Samuel 15:1-11. But together with that, he did a large number of foolish things, and his actions led to the virtual collapse of Israel and his own death together with his sons.

Matthew Allen, a gospel preacher, presents an excellent review of Saul's declining leadership. However, looking at this, it is difficult to see if ANY man could do better: proving the Lord's warning to Israel was, if anything, too mild by far.

The first lessons learned?
1. Do not trade your liberty for a little security - or worse, to be like everyone else.
2. Do not expect the best choice for "supreme leader" to be any good at all in the long run.

Important verses

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16
He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved, but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. Mark 16:16
You are My friends if you do what I command you. John 15:14
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore, we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. Romans 6:3-4

Thanksgiving Blessings

Thanksgiving is NOT a religious holiday, but an American tradition, fully in keeping with a Christian viewpoint and way of life.
We can and are thankful to God for all we have, each and every day. But it does not hurt to spend more than a few daily minutes in prayer to thank Him in more detail for all we have been blessed with:

- His love and our lives
- His Son and His sacrifice for our salvation
- Our church: brothers and sisters in Christ
- Our family
- Our friends
- Our home and land
- Our liberties

And so much more! God bless!

PS: Be sure to read the three part series (click on Archives to the lower right! or "Older Posts") on reincarnation!

Reincarnation in the Bible? Part 3

In the first part of this study, we looked at the definition of reincarnation and verses used to support the idea that reincarnation is a Biblical doctrine. In the second part, we looked at Jesus' statements used to support the idea of reincarnation and His acceptance. Now, let us see what else the Bible says that might support or contradict the idea.

SCRIPTURE AND MULTIPLE LIVES

We now need to look at a few other critical passages, beginning with Hebrews 9:27: “And just as it is appointed for people to die once—and after this, judgment — 28 so also the Messiah, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, (C) not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him.” This is clear, and matches what is taught by all the other New Testament writers: that there is one lifetime after which we will be judged: Paul, Peter, James, and Jesus Himself. There is no endless (or even lengthy) cycle of rebirth, of life after life. And there is no need for it (as is a common doctrine of Hinduism and other eastern religions): we do not need to be perfected through a long series of incarnations until we are pure enough to ascend to Heaven: Jesus’ sacrifice – His death – perfects us so that we can ascend.
Hebrews 9:27 is reinforced by Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” We do not need to die over and over again, because Jesus has purchased freedom from death by His blood. We must die physically – once – because of sin: that of Adam and our own – but we will live eternally because of Jesus’ sacrifice.
Still more passages support this idea that reincarnation is NOT taught or shown in the Scriptures: In 2nd Corinthians 5:8, Paul speaks of his confidence: “…yet we are confident and satisfied to be out of the body and at home with the Lord.” In death, the Christian goes “Home” to God, whether in Paradise or to Heaven: our spirit and soul are with God. Would He then send us back to “try again?” What about those who are NOT children of God, faithful to Him? Revelation 20:11-15 speaks of the judgment before the Throne of God: non-believers are judged for their works (they have rejected the blood of Christ Jesus) and then are sent (cast) into the lake of fire. NOT sent back to try again.
Job 14:7-12 also explicitly refutes the concept of human reincarnation. There are other passages that show that, taken as a whole, the doctrine or belief of reincarnation is not supported in the Bible.
In conclusion, it is clear that reincarnation is not a valid Christian doctrine which should be believed or taught. Indeed, the idea that we may have other lives ahead of us can be an active deterrent to someone to not accept Jesus the Christ as the Savior.

Conclusion
It seems obvious that churches of Christ should not preach or believe in any form of reincarnation, and should not have fellowship with those who do.

If you wish to comment on this article, please do so on this blog!

Reincarnation in the Bible? Part 2

In part 1, we looked at the most common verses used to demonstrate that reincarnation is real and supported by Jesus Christ, and the definition of reincarnation, and determined that those passages do NOT justify claiming reincarnation as a Biblical doctrine.

JESUS

Why, some ask, would Jesus then say that Elijah had returned in fulfillment of Malachi’s prophesy (and Elijah’s own), if he really did not? For the same reason that we speak of someone sending or carrying a warning to others of attack as a “Paul Revere.” Or the same reason that a historian might refer to Simon Bolivar as “George Washington” – not because the messenger is thought to be the reincarnation of Revere or because General Bolivar was the reincarnation of General Washington, but because they filled a role like that previously filled by the earlier person. We do the same thing today, speaking of someone as a “Clara Barton” or “JFK” returned. We can see that Malachi’s prophesy is of this nature as well: a new Elijah, calling “make ye ready the way of the Lord” will appear before that awesome day of the Lord. This is figurative language, just as calling Jesus “the Lamb of God” is figurative: Jesus was not an actual lamb. Nor was He a vine nor a door (John 10:9).
Indeed, those who knew of Elijah’s ascension said (2 Kings 2:15), “The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha.” The “spirit” – whether that means only the commission of God or whether that means that the Holy Spirit inhabited Elisha and later John in the same way that the Spirit had dwelt in Elijah, or something else, it does not demand reincarnation as an answer. This is supported by Zacharias’ words in Luke 1:16-17: “he will go forth in the spirit and power of Elijah.” He does not say, “He IS Elijah.”

Are there other passages in the Bible to support this doctrine, and give us the authority to interpret John as an actual reincarnation of Elijah, or there evidence of someone else being reincarnated?
Some people cite Matthew 17:3 as further proof: the incident in which Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus and talked with Him on what we call the Mount of Transfiguration. This appearance does not meet the definition of reincarnation, however: their appearing was miraculous and not a birth; and the disciples recognized them as who they were: they did not have different bodies. While it may be that the disciples recognized them because they were wearing nametags, it is not a good justification for believing in reincarnation.
Still others claim that Jesus TAUGHT reincarnation, citing John 3:3 and Jesus’ teaching about “the new birth:” "In reply Jesus declared, 'I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.'” According to some people, this verse is cited more than any other to support reincarnation in the Bible. But when we study John 3, we find that a few verses, Jesus explains what He means when he says "born again." John 3:5 reads: "Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'" It is clear that the Lord is speaking of the “new birth” as being born again SPIRITUALLY, and not as a physical one.

In the third part, I'll look at some passages that seem to contradict claims of reincarnation.

Reincarnation in the Bible?

This post is the first of three parts, answering a question as to whether the doctrine of reincarnation was found in the Bible and acceptable to God. It was written by a friend:

REINCARNATION IN THE BIBLE
Do the passages Matthew 11: 11-15 and 17: 9-13 teach reincarnation? In these passages, Jesus refers to the coming of His cousin, John the Baptizer (or Baptist, if you prefer) as being the coming of Elijah, as asked by various people of Him.
Many people have used these verses to support the idea of reincarnation, but we need to look closely at this use. In addition, we also need to consider several other passes, including Mark 9:11-13, Luke 1:17, and John 1:21, where the connection of John the Baptizer and Elijah is also discussed by Jesus.
It is also important to consider some other Biblical information. But first, let us make sure that we are clear on just what reincarnation is. For convenience, let’s use the common definition found in on-line dictionaries, such as www.thefreedictionary.com This defines “reincarnation” in five ways, and gives an example:
1. Rebirth of the soul in another body.
2. A reappearance or revitalization in another form; a new embodiment: "The brownstone had already endured one reincarnation: In the 1940's, it was converted into eight studio apartments" (Ben Lloyd).
3. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the belief that on the death of the body the soul transmigrates to or is born again in another body
4. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the incarnation or embodiment of a soul in a new body after it has left the old one at physical death
5. embodiment again in a new form, as of a principle or idea
Definitions 1, 3, and 4 really duplicate each other, as do 2 and 5. Those who propose that the Bible (and specifically, these passages) teach reincarnation can be assumed to use 1/3/5, and we will use that assumption for this study. Note in particular that the soul is incarnated in another body: not that the old body is revived or resurrected. (The second definition can be viewed, by the way, as a figurative use of the word, and seemingly could be applied to people as well as objects and ideas, but let us concentrate on the primary definition.)
It is also important to be sure to distinguish between the concepts of reincarnation and resurrection: resurrection is not the same as reincarnation, though some people seem to confuse the two.

Back to the Bible: All of these passages deal with Elijah and John the Baptizer, and the idea is that John was Elijah reincarnated: that Elijah’s soul (or spirit) left his body at physical death and was born again in another body: that of John the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and cousin of Jesus (Luke 1:51).
John was the “forerunner” – he began teaching some time before his younger Cousin began his ministry (Luke 3:1-3), and specifically taught that he was fulfilling the prophesy of Isaiah, and making ready the Way of the Lord. He specifically identified Jesus of Nazareth as the One who was coming (Matthew 3:13-17).
Elijah was the Old Testament (Tanakh) prophet quoted by John, who preached during the reign of Ahab of Israel. Also known as Elias, or Elijah the Tishbite, he was from Gilead, a part of Canaan now in the Kingdom of Jordan, and his career in recorded in 1 Kings 17:1 to 2 Kings 2:11. He did not die, but instead was taken up to Heaven by a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:11). A later prophet, Malachi, predicted Elisha’s return “before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord.” (Malachi 4:5) As a result, Elijah was always mentioned in Hebrew worship on the Shabbat both in the time of Jesus and even today, as well as other Hebrew observances, and was considered to be the harbinger of the Messiah.
In John 1:21, John the Baptizer explicitly denied being Elijah, simply quoting Elijah himself to identify himself as the Forerunner, preparing the Way for the Messiah. This is a strong argument in itself that John was NOT Elijah reincarnated.
Another strong argument is the fact recorded in 2 Kings 2:11: Elijah DID NOT DIE. There can be no reincarnation without death. IF John (despite his denial) DID have (or was?) the soul of Elijah, that was NOT reincarnation, but some other miraculous act of God. We know that John’s birth was as miraculous as that of Jesus Himself (Luke 1ff), and this could be part of the miraculous process that led to his birth.

In the next part, I'll look at Jesus' statements about John.

Edward: This was written by a friend who asks to remain anonymous for reasons having nothing to do with this posting. Feel free to pass questions or arguments through me to them.

New Owner - Same Blog, Improved

I have taken this blog over from a friend, who is having to cut back on his activities, and asked me to take this and hopefully do what I can to make it live up to its potential.

The name of this blog says it all: Gospel Sower. That comes from Jesus' parable of the sower, recorded in Matthew 13: 3-9, and explained by Jesus Himself in Matthew 13: 18-23. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is man's hope, in it God has proclaimed and explained our salvation.

My friend (who shall remain relatively anonymous - as shall I) published a dead-tree version of the Gospel Sower for several years, before the press of family and work and other activities, and some opposition that could not be overcome, caused him to cease writing and publication. It was based in the Black Hills of South Dakota; when he began the blog, he continued that association; that is the heritage of this blog, and that remains. But even as his printed version and the blog went far beyond the beautiful Black Hills, the Gospel is to be sown in a field that encompasses the entire world. Therefore, the byline is changing.

The Gospel Sower proclaims the whole Gospel to the whole World: please share this and the new postings with anyone who IS interested in the Gospel, and anyone you WISH was interested.

The 2010 Religious Survey

Can you answer these questions? Apparently, most Americans cannot:


Pew Forum Religious Knowledge Questions

Questions below have been paraphrased for brevity; most response options were rotated.
Bible
What is the first book of the Bible? (Open-ended)
What are the names of the first four books of the New Testament, that is, the four Gospels? (Open-ended)
Where, according to the Bible, was Jesus born? Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Nazareth or Jericho?
Which of these is NOT in the Ten Commandments? Do unto others…, no adultery, no stealing, keep Sabbath?
Which figure is associated with remaining obedient to God despite suffering? Job, Elijah, Moses or Abraham?
Which figure is associated with leading the exodus from Egypt? Moses, Job, Elijah or Abraham?
Which figure is associated with willingness to sacrifice his son for God? Abraham, Job, Moses or Elijah?

Elements of Christianity
What is Catholic teaching about bread and wine in Communion? They become body and blood, or are symbols?
Which group traditionally teaches that salvation is through faith alone? Protestants, Catholics, both or neither?
Was Mother Teresa Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Mormon?
What is the name of the person whose writings and actions inspired the Reformation? Luther, Aquinas or Wesley?
Who was a preacher during the First Great Awakening? Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney or Billy Graham?

Elements of Judaism
When does the Jewish Sabbath begin? Friday, Saturday or Sunday?
Was Maimonides Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu or Mormon?

Elements of Mormonism
When was the Mormon religion founded? After 1800, between 1200 and 1800, or before 1200 A.D.?
The Book of Mormon tells of Jesus appearing to people in what area? The Americas, Middle East or Asia?
Was Joseph Smith Mormon, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu?

World Religions
Is Ramadan the Islamic holy month, the Hindu festival of lights or a Jewish day of atonement?
Do you happen to know the name of the holy book of Islam? (Open-ended)
Which religion aims at nirvana, the state of being free from suffering? Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam?
Is the Dalai Lama Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Catholic or Mormon?
In which religion are Vishnu and Shiva central figures? Hinduism, Islam or Taoism?
What is the religion of most people in India? Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or Christian?
What is the religion of most people in Pakistan? Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian?
What is the religion of most people in Indonesia? Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian?
Who is the king of Gods in Greek mythology? Zeus, Mars or Apollo?

Atheism and Agnosticism
Is an atheist someone who does NOT believe in God, believes in God, or is unsure whether God exists?
Is an agnostic someone who is unsure whether God exists, does NOT believe in God, or believes in God?

Religion in Public Life
What does Constitution say about religion? Separation of church and state, emphasize Christianity, or nothing?
According to the Supreme Court, can a public school teacher lead a class in prayer?
According to the Supreme Court, can a public school teacher read from the Bible as an example of literature?
According to the Supreme Court, can a public school teacher offer a class comparing the world’s religions?

One thing that I find interesting is that this survey considers both Atheism and Agnosticism to be "religions."

Comments and reflections on a Prager column

The following column has appeared, in two parts, on Townhall.com at http://tinyurl.com/78fr9u. Mr. Prager seems to make a lot of sense, from my view, and the Scriptures. In particular, let me point out Paul's writing in 1 Corinthians 7: 1-5:

1 About the things you wrote: ^[a] "It is good for a man not to have relations with ^[b] a woman." ^[c] 2 But because of sexual immorality, ^{(A) [d]} each man should have his own wife, ^(B) and each woman should have her own husband. 3 A husband should fulfill his marital duty ^(C) to his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband. 4 A wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. Equally, a husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. 5 Do not deprive ^(D) one another—except when you agree, for a time, to devote yourselves to ^[e] prayer. Then come together again; otherwise, Satan may tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (Holman Standard Christian Bible)

WHEN A WOMAN ISN’T IN THE MOOD

By Dennis Prager

Given our preoccupation with politics and economics, it is easy to forget that for most of us micro issues still play a greater role in our lives. So here are some thoughts that, as heretical as they might sound, have been found extremely helpful, sometimes even marriage-saving, from listeners to my radio show, which features a “male-female hour” every week.

The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is “not in the mood” and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband.

There are marriages with the opposite problem — a wife who is frustrated and hurt because her husband is rarely in the mood. But, as important and as destructive as that problem is, it has different causes and different solutions, and is therefore not addressed here. What is addressed is the far more common problem of “He wants, she doesn't want.”

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.

First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife's refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny). This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Many women think men's natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a woman's nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it.

This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex.

When first told this about men, women generally react in one or more of five ways:

1. You have to be kidding. That certainly isn't my way of knowing if he loves me. There have to be deeper ways than sex for me to show my husband that I love him.

2. If this is true, men really are animals.

3. Not my man. He knows I love him by the kind and loving way I treat him.

4. You have it backwards. If he truly loved me, he wouldn't expect sex when I'm not in the mood.

5. I know this and that's why I rarely say no to sex.

Let's deal with each of these responses.

1. You have to be kidding. …

The most common female reaction to hearing about men's sexual nature is incredulity, often followed by denial. These are entirely understandable reactions given how profoundly different — and how seemingly more primitive — men's sexual nature is compared to women's.

Incredulity is certainly the reaction most women have when first being told that a man knows he is loved when his wife gives him her body. The idea that the man she is married to, let alone a man whose intelligence she respects, will to any serious extent measure her love of him by such a carnal yardstick strikes many women as absurd and even objectionable.

But the question that should matter to a woman who loves her man is not whether this proposition speaks poorly or well of male nature. It is whether it is true. And it is true beyond anything she can imagine. A woman who often deprives her husband of her body is guaranteed to injure him and to injure the marriage — no matter what her female friends say, no matter what a sympathetic therapist says, and no matter what her man says.

(Very few men will confess to the amount of hurt and eventual anger they experience when repeatedly denied sex).

Of course, there are times when a man must simply refrain from initiating sex out of concern for his wife's physical or emotional condition. And then there are men for whom sex rarely has anything to do with making love or whose frequency of demands are excessive. (What “excessive” means ought to be determined by the couple before the refusals begin, or continue.) But the fact remains: Your man knows you love him by your willingness to give him your body.

2. If this is true, men really are animals.

Correct. Compared to most women's sexual nature, men's sexual nature is far closer to that of animals. So what? That is the way he is made. Blame God and nature. Telling your husband to control it is a fine idea. But he already does. Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control. He has married knowing he will have to deny his sexual nature's desire for variety for the rest of his life. To ask that he also regularly deny himself sex with the one woman in the world with whom he is permitted sex is asking far too much. Deny him enough times and he may try to fill this need with another woman. If he is too moral to ever do that, he will match your sexual withdrawal with emotional and other forms of withdrawal.

3. Not my man.

Many women will argue, understandably, “My husband knows I love him. He doesn't need me to have sex with him to know that. And this is especially so when I'm too tired or just don't want sex. Anyway, my man only enjoys sex with me when I'm into it, too.”

The importance of mutual kindness to a marriage is impossible to overstate. But while necessary, it is not sufficient. Women can understand this by applying the same rule to men. Most women will readily acknowledge that it is certainly not enough for a man to be kind to her. If it were, women would rarely reject kind men as husband material. But as much as a woman wants a kind man, she wants more than that. If a man is, let us say, lacking in ambition or just doesn't want to work hard, few women will love him no matter how kind he is. In fact, most women would happily give up some kindness for hard work and ambition. A kind man with little ambition is not masculine, therefore not desirable to most women.

Likewise, a kind woman who is not sexual with her husband is not feminine. She is a kind roommate.

Furthermore, a woman who denies the man she loves sex is not kind.

4. You have it backward.

Every rational and decent man knows there are times when he should not initiate sex. In a marriage of good communication, a man would either know when those times are or his wife would tell him (and she needs to — women should not expect men to read their minds. He is her man, not her mother.)

But, to repeat the key point, rejection of sex should happen infrequently. And it should almost never be dependent on mood — see Part II next week.

5. I know this and that's why I rarely say no to my husband.

This is a wise woman. She knows a sexually fulfilled husband is a happy husband. (At the same time, men need to recognize that complete sexual fulfillment is unattainable in this world.) And because a happy husband loves his wife more, this cycle of love produces a happy home.

In Part II, I will explain in detail why mood should play little or no role in a woman's determining whether she has sex with her husband.

I conclude Part I with this clarification: Everything written here applies under two conditions: 1. The woman is married to a good man. 2. She wants him to be a happy husband. If either condition is not present, nothing written here matters. But if you are a woman who loves your husband, what is written here can be the most important thing you will read concerning your marriage. Because chances are the man you love won't tell you.

In Part I, I made the argument that any woman who is married to a good man and who wants a happy marriage ought to consent to at least some form of sexual relations as much as possible. (Men need to understand that intercourse should not necessarily be the goal of every sexual encounter.)

In Part II, I advance the argument that a wife should do so even when she is not in the mood for sexual relations. I am talking about mood, not about times of emotional distress or illness.

Why?

Here are eight reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex.

1. If most women wait until they are in the mood before making love with their husband, many women will be waiting a month or more until they next have sex. When most women are young, and for some older women, spontaneously getting in the mood to have sex with the man they love can easily occur. But for most women, for myriad reasons -- female nature, childhood trauma, not feeling sexy, being preoccupied with some problem, fatigue after a day with the children and/or other work, just not being interested -- there is little comparable to a man’s “out of nowhere,” and seemingly constant, desire for sex.

2. Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood?

What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man.

What woman would love a man who was so governed by feelings and moods that he allowed them to determine whether he would do something as important as go to work? Why do we assume that it is terribly irresponsible for a man to refuse to go to work because he is not in the mood, but a woman can -- indeed, ought to -- refuse sex because she is not in the mood? Why?

This brings us to the next reasons.

3. The baby boom generation elevated feelings to a status higher than codes of behavior. In determining how one ought to act, feelings, not some code higher than one’s feelings, became decisive: “No shoulds, no oughts.” In the case of sex, therefore, the only right time for a wife to have sex with her husband is when she feels like having it. She never “should” have it. But marriage and life are filled with “shoulds.”

4. Thus, in the past generation we have witnessed the demise of the concept of obligation in personal relations. We have been nurtured in a culture of rights, not a culture of obligations. To many women, especially among the best educated, the notion that a woman owes her husband sex seems absurd, if not actually immoral. They have been taught that such a sense of obligation renders her “property.” Of course, the very fact that she can always say “no” -- and that this “no” must be honored -- renders the “property” argument absurd. A woman is not “property” when she feels she owes her husband conjugal relations. She is simply wise enough to recognize that marriages based on mutual obligations -- as opposed to rights alone and certainly as opposed to moods -- are likely to be the best marriages.

5. Partially in response to the historical denigration of women’s worth, since the 1960s, there has been an idealization of women and their feelings. So, if a husband is in the mood for sex and the wife is not, her feelings are deemed of greater significance -- because women’s feelings are of more importance than men’s. One proof is that even if the roles are reversed -- she is in the mood for sex and he is not -- our sympathies again go to the woman and her feelings.

6. Yet another outgrowth of ’60s thinking is the notion that it is “hypocritical” or wrong in some other way to act contrary to one’s feelings. One should always act, post-’60s theory teaches, consistent with one’s feelings. Therefore, many women believe that it would simply be wrong to have sex with their husband when they are not in the mood to. Of course, most women never regard it as hypocritical and rightly regard it as admirable when they meet their child’s or parent’s or friend’s needs when they are not in the mood to do so. They do what is right in those cases, rather than what their mood dictates. Why not apply this attitude to sex with one’s husband? Given how important it is to most husbands, isn’t the payoff -- a happier, more communicative, and loving husband and a happier home -- worth it?

7. Many contemporary women have an almost exclusively romantic notion of sex: It should always be mutually desired and equally satisfying or one should not engage in it. Therefore, if a couple engages in sexual relations when he wants it and she does not, the act is “dehumanizing” and “mechanical.” Now, ideally, every time a husband and wife have sex, they would equally desire it and equally enjoy it. But, given the different sexual natures of men and women, this cannot always be the case. If it is romance a woman seeks -- and she has every reason to seek it -- it would help her to realize how much more romantic her husband and her marriage are likely to be if he is not regularly denied sex, even of the non-romantic variety.

8. In the rest of life, not just in marital sex, it is almost always a poor idea to allow feelings or mood to determine one’s behavior. Far wiser is to use behavior to shape one’s feelings. Act happy no matter what your mood and you will feel happier. Act loving and you will feel more loving. Act religious, no matter how deep your religious doubts, and you will feel more religious. Act generous even if you have a selfish nature, and you will end with a more a generous nature. With regard to virtually anything in life that is good for us, if we wait until we are in the mood to do it, we will wait too long.

The best solution to the problem of a wife not being in the mood is so simple that many women, after thinking about it, react with profound regret that they had not thought of it earlier in their marriage. As one bright and attractive woman in her 50s ruefully said to me, “Had I known this while I was married, he would never have divorced me.”

That solution is for a wife who loves her husband -- if she doesn’t love him, mood is not the problem -- to be guided by her mind, not her mood, in deciding whether to deny her husband sex.

If her husband is a decent man -- if he is not, nothing written here applies -- a woman will be rewarded many times over outside the bedroom (and if her man is smart, inside the bedroom as well) with a happy, open, grateful, loving, and faithful husband. That is a prospect that should get any rational woman into the mood more often.

Baker's Dozen Meditations #2

#2 INFANTS IN EVIL

Verse: 1 Corinthians 14:20. “Brethren, don’t be childish in your thinking, but be infants in evil and adult in your thinking.” (HCSB)

We often see and comment on how a child implicitly trusts their father and mother, in ways that an adult would not trust even a parent. Although sometimes that trust is misplaced, such is rare. And it is important, because the child does not always realize the danger offered by walking across a street or highway, listening to the blandishments of a stranger, or dealing with adult tools and equipment.

Children often try NOT to see evil, bad things, and do not look forward and consider what can go wrong. Yet, they are trusting and all too often, we as Christians think that it is this sort of childish behavior that we are to imitate. Paul corrects that misunderstanding in this passage. An adult anticipates and plans for things to go wrong, instead of just “hoping” that all will go right. Then (childlike), the adult does not think of evil to do to respond when things go wrong. It is not ungodly to take actions to avoid and respond to evil, whether physical or spiritual. Indeed, it is wisdom as God defines such. But like a little child, we should exhibit faith and be free of malice, and not acquiesce in evil deeds, either by submitting to them or allowing someone (or ourselves) to be forced into doing evil in return, as a result of the evil done to us.

Read also: Hebrews 5:12, 14, and 2 Peter 3:18.

Song: Children of the Heavenly King (http://cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/o/cofthehk.htm)

Appointments Everyone Must Keep

There are five appointments in the life of a human that EVERYONE faces; four of these are required:

1. Birth (see Ecclesiastes 12:7) Our spirit, soul, and mind is created/given to us by God.

2. Death (physical death) (see Hebrews 9:27; Romans 5:12) All men die: only two are recorded in history as having bypassed death and gone to God's presence (Enoch and Elijah), if we understand Scripture right.

3. The Resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 5:12 and 19; Acts 24:15; Revelation 1:7; John 5:28-29; John 6:54; and 2 Timothy 2:18) This resurrection is yet to come, and should not be confused with those who were brought back to life such as Lazarus, Dorcas, or the others recorded in Scripture, except for the Christ Himself, who is the "First Born" (Colossians 1:18).

4. The Judgment (see Acts 17:31; Matthew 13:40-43; 1 Corinthians 15:51-58; Revelation 20:12-13) Judgment will be according to our works (John 12:48; Matthiew 7:22-23: 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8); Mark 13:31-33; 2 Peter 3:10-13; 2 Thessalonians 5:2). Mercy will be given us, however, for without His mercy our failure to be perfect condemns us (Titus 3:5; Hebrews 4:16, Romans 9:15-18). The time of that judgment is unknown (Matthew 24:44-46).

There is one other appointment which is optional: men may fail to meet this very important appointment, but will suffer the consequences of doing so. It is an appointment with the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
a. It must be met in order to obtain glory (2 Thessalonians 2:14)
b. It must be preached (1 Corinthians 9:16)
c. It must be obeyed on pain of everlasting destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9)
d. It is the Gospel of Him who is the source of eternal salvation and must be obeyed (Hebrews 5:9)

We humans were created to live forever, but to do so, we must meet these five appointments. Physical death and Judgment are only steps on the way to eternity, but where will we spend eternity? If we reject our appointment with the Gospel, we have no more mercy available from God on Judgment, and we cannot obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14).

2 Thessalonians 2:16-17: "16 May our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal encouragement and good hope by grace, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good work and word. "

Baker's Dozen Mediations #1 Builders

Verse: Nehemiah 4:9: “So we prayed to our God and stationed a guard because of them [furious plotters, verse 8] day and night.” (HCSB)

Throughout history, the builder has frequently also had to defend what they have built against those who do not want the building done. Sometimes it is a spiritual “building project,” and sometimes it is a physical project with a spiritual aspect. Whether it was the Anasazi defending their cliff dwellings against nomadic raiders, a contractor protecting his equipment and job-site against eco-freak “monkeywrenchers,” or an inner-city ministry defending their chapel against a street gang, they can all appreciate the situation in the rebuilding of Jerusalem 2500 years ago.

Prayer is essential; it is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the believer. But Nehemiah and his fellow builders in Jerusalem were careful to recognize that faith inspires works. As Nehemiah 4:15 records, they stood watch against their enemies “with their swords, spears, and bows.” While trusting the Lord, they were prepared and ready to fight if needed. They understood that they were not to depend on their own ability, though. They knew that “Our God will fight for us.” (4:20).

This sound Biblical principle applies to all endeavors we undertake, spiritual and physical. James tells us (2:17), “faith, if it doesn’t have works, is dead by itself.” “Watching” was clearly, to Nehemiah and his pioneers, more than just being alert and sounding an alarm. It included an active defense and required weapons. An unarmed watchman is worthless.”

Yes, they still trusted to the Lord that they were prepared enough, that He would keep them alert and ready “unto every good work,” even when that work required physical defense against those attacking them, their work, their families, and their community.

Are we able to do the same today?

Read also: James 2: 22-24, and Psalm 127: 1-3.

Song: Remember Me, O Mighty One

Baptism saves!

Most American Evangelicals reject this statement: Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals of all types. A web search will reveal more attacks on the Biblical teaching that baptism saves than supporting it. Why? Many believe that baptism is something that we do for God and for others. Ironically, most of those claiming to be Christians in the rest of the world believe this statement as well as the historic church, apostate or not.

Even the apostate “historic” churches have confessed that baptism provides for the forgiveness of sin. In the third article of the Nicene Creed, many confess “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.” This creed is confessed by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, as well as Reformed churches. They will and do reject the idea of some modern “Baptist” and “Bible” churches that the one baptism is a “Spirit baptism” and not involving water (although these “historic” churches mostly believe that sprinkling or pouring can replace immersion).

Definition of Baptism

The Greek words mean to wash, immerse, or dip. There are two: the noun, usually translated “baptism” is baptisma. The verb is baptizo, translated usually as “baptize.” Both words are used throughout the New Testament for cleaning and washing (see Mark 7:4, Luke 11:38, Hebrews 9:10). These are unrelated to the act of baptism or action of baptizing, but since a Greek word can have multiple meanings, context is critical to understanding what the word means in a particular verse.

Why Baptize?

This starts with Jesus and John the Baptizer. While Jesus did not require baptism, he shows us that baptism is associated with the Holy Spirit as well as an action that God approves of. When John questioned Jesus’ need for baptism, Jesus replied "Allow it for now, because this is the way for us to fulfill all righteousness." (Matt 3:15).

When Jesus was baptized, we see the entire Godhead. God the Father approves of what God the Son just had done; and God the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus. This marks the beginning of the Jesus “public” ministry. Fulfilled righteousness was now to be proclaimed.

When He met with Nicodemus, Jesus stated " I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5).

At the completion of Jesus’ earthly ministry, he returns to baptism. He makes baptism a part of making disciples. “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. “ (Matt. 28:19-20a). Baptism is part – an obviously essential part - of making disciples. Note that it is listed before teaching. If baptism is part of making a disciple, then it is more than just an action we do.

What does Baptism do?

In the Acts of the Apostles, we see baptism play an important role in the growth of the young Church. Baptism has many benefits for the believers, but certainly one is the forgiveness of sin. The first time we hear this is then Peter tells those in Jerusalem that it is baptism that brings the forgiveness of sin (Acts 3:38).

When Paul was recounting his conversion, Paul stated that he was to be baptized which washed away his sins (Acts 22:16). In Acts, we see other benefits of baptism that God gives to the believer such as the gift (indwelling) of the Holy Spirit. In Romans, Paul writes that we receive new life in Christ when we are baptized (Rom. 6:4). We also see that baptism removes our sins (Titus 3:5-6); this may be the same as forgiveness, or a related benefit.

Peter writes about baptism is his first letter. He states that the Great Flood was a symbolic form of baptism for Noah and his family since it saved them. Peter clearly teaches that baptism now saves us. Baptism is the pledge of a good conscience words God. Baptism saves us by Christ’s resurrection. This is consistent with what Paul wrote in Romans 6.

It is wrong to conclude that baptism is the only way of salvation. Baptism is the way of salvation that God has given us. We find examples of those who were saved through baptism and those saved prior to baptism or with no baptism at all: but those were under the Old Covenant; under the New Covenant, we have but the one way that God has given us. Does this limit His power to save? No, of course not – but He is the Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22).

Who is doing the Work?

When you read these verses, who is acting and who is passive? God is active in baptism while we are passive. We can only receive what God gives through baptism. God is acting through the person administering the baptism, so if we were to claim that the person doing the baptism is saved by doing so, we would indeed be preaching “salvation by works,” but that isn’t the case.

In Acts 2:38, Peter states that we receive both forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism. We are the passive participants in this action: our only action is submission to the Savior.

In both passages from Romans and Titus, it is clear that we are passive in this act. Titus 3:5-6 states that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are the active players “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”. In Titus 3:6, the only part we play is passive “. . . so that having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.” An heir does not merit their inheritance, but is given to them by the generosity of another.

Who should be baptized?

Jesus states that we are to baptize all nations – plain and simple. There is no limit to sex, ancestry, nationality, or age in his command: the only limit is that it is necessary to believe (Acts 8:36-37) and repent (Acts 2:38). Likewise, Peter instructed those on Pentecost that baptism and the promises associated with it is for both the adults and their children capable of repentence. In Acts 16:32, the jailer and all of his family were baptized into the faith after Paul and Silas presented the Gospel to the jailer; again, anyone who could believe and repent.

It is clear that this resolves the claims of many that John 3:16 and Mark 16:16 support the idea that belief alone (faith only) is required for salvation. There is no “believe only” loophole any more than there is a “baptism only” exemption. God has established His Way, and we may accept it or reject it, but we are not able to bargain about it.

Anyone who believes that Jesus is Lord, and like those in Jerusalem on that long-ago Pentecost, repent of their sins, may confess His name and put on His name in baptism, submitting to His will and being buried with Him in baptism to rise to a new life. Anyone.

Critical Comments on a Horrible Event

It happened this weekend. Here is one of the many news stories (my comment follows):

Colorado killings linked to same [dead] gunman

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-09-missionariesshot_N.htm

USA Today

COLORADO SPRINGS — Police searched a home in suburban Englewood early Monday, seeking any link between two deadly shooting sprees at Christian religious centers that left both communities stunned on a day of worship. Four people and a gunman died in the attacks Sunday at a megachurch here in Colorado Springs and at the Youth With a Mission missionary center in the town of Arvada. "She [the security volunteer] probably saved over 100 lives," [New Life Church leader] Boyd said. He described her as a highly trained volunteer member of the church with a law enforcement background whose role was to provide security. He said she was not wearing a uniform and is licensed to carry a gun. Boyd said the shooting was random and that the gunman had no conenction to the church. He said the church has had a security plan in place for many years which includes the evacuation plan it used on Sunday.

Let’s start with the good news: one woman with a gun, a church member, a volunteer with training, saved dozens of lives.

Why? Because:

(1) the leaders of that church (yes, a denominational church) faced facts (in today's society, just as in the time of Jesus, violence (sometimes random and irrational violence) was a fact of life, and no one is immune to it),

(2) fear did not drive their decisions (especially irrational fears about some of their own members carrying weapons, or about scaring away members of their church because weapons might be present in the meetinghouse),

(3) love DID drive their actions (concern for both the spiritual AND physical wellbeing of their fellow members in their church and those who visited); and

(4) they believed that self-defense was scriptural. It was taught by the Lord Himself, it is clearly a principle expressed in both the Old Testament and New Testament, and it does not mean that we do not trust in the Lord to save us or protect us.

Since Colorado is an open-carry state, I assume this woman volunteer had a CCW and carried her weapon that way - concealed. But more important, she knew how to use it and she had the courage to use it. Like the Lord, she was willing to lay down her life that others might live.

Notice: there was NO ONE armed at the Arvada church: no doubt they proclaimed what too many brethren have:

(1) “it can’t happen here,”

(2) "it is too dangerous,"

(3) "it might scare off people who would otherwise come to worship," and

(4) “we trust in God, not in evil weapons.”

Each of these excuses (and many others) can be answered simply and directly. This very incident (and dozens more across the years and around the world) show that it CAN happen here: yes, even in churches of Christ and even to faithful brethren. Just as floods, tornadoes, fires, vandalism, family violence, and other bad things can happen. Weapons are no more dangerous than any other tool: we don't ban electricity in the meeting house because there is a chance of electrocution, we don't ban baptisries in the meeting house because there is a chance of drowning (and sadly, over the years, children HAVE died from drowning in a baptisry), but too many are so fearful of "guns" that they are willing to ban them. If people are so fearful of weapons that it will keep them from worshipping God, it is THEY who are showing no trust in the Lord, nor in their fellow Christians: and the work of the church to educate them about the real dangers they should fear is obvious. Finally, if we are to trust in the Lord in the matter of self-defense and protection from attacks, why do we NOT "trust in the Lord" when it comes to fire, flood, vandalism, and car accidents: this argument makes paying for liability and auto accident insurance a sin of lack of faith in God. If we are to trust in the Lord in all physical things (an argument that has been advanced more than once to me), why do we have heaters in church buildings: do we not trust the Lord to keep us warm and safe from storms?

There are too many churches where leaders (sadly, elders and deacons) are willing to make fun of those who DO want to carry, asking “what are YOU afraid of?” and “why are you so fearful and distrustful of God?” Perhaps these needless deaths in Arvada and Colorado Springs will make a few wake up and and understand that when brethren are willing to and do carry weapons, openly or concealed, it is about LOVE and not fear: love for their brothers and sisters in Christ, love that says, in very physical terms and not just in pious words that if Christ was willing to die for us, we should be willing to put our own lives in danger to protect our brothers and sisters in Him, the visitors to our assemblies, even our neighbors and, yes, even strangers from both physical and spiritual dangers.

Reprint from Apologetics Press: Is all religion bad?

All Religion Is Bad Because Some Is? by Kyle Butt, M.A. Printer version | Email this article

In logical discussions, a straw man is a weak, illogical position that is easily refuted. The more powerful, logical position is then coupled with the straw man, and both are said to fall together, yet the stronger position never actually is refuted by the opposition. For example, suppose a person stated that he owned a congenial, safe dog. The man’s neighbor argued that such was impossible. The opposing neighbor then recounted a story about a family’s pet pitbull that went berserk and killed someone. Then he stated that this incident proves that all pets are dangerous. Does his argument follow from the evidence? Of course not. He might have proven that one family’s pitbull was dangerous, but he did not prove that all pets are dangerous. In fact, it would be easy to multiply numerous examples of dangerous pets, but proving those specific pets to be dangerous could not logically be applied to all pets.

This idea must be understood when reading modern atheistic writings that purport to prove that the ideas of God and formulated religion are detrimental to society. Their argument, in a nutshell, goes like this: Since we can list examples of religions and religious fanatics that were (or are) harmful or detrimental to society, then all religions or ideas about God are harmful or detrimental to society.

So that the reader does not think that this author is, himself, constructing a straw man, let us consult the writings of a very popular, militant atheist by the name of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens has been critically acclaimed as “one of the most prolific, as well as brilliant, journalists of our time” according to the London Observer. The Los Angeles Times stated that he is a “political and literary journalist extraordinaire.”

One of Hitchens’ most popular recent books is titled god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Notice that his subtitle is broad enough to lump all religions into it: Islam, New Testament Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Hitchens then proceeded, in the pages of his book, to list many horrible things that people have done in the name of “religion.” He said: “Religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow” (2007, p. 6). Hitchens even titled chapter two, “Religion Kills.” In it he wrote: “Here, then, is a very brief summary of the religiously inspired cruelty I witnessed... ” (p. 18). He then recounted horror stories of several moral atrocities perpetrated in the name of “religion.” Furthermore, Hitchens stated: “If one comprehends the fallacies of any ‘revealed’ religion, one comprehends them all” (p. 126).

Can Hitchens and others document atrocities performed in the name of religion? Of course they can. Does this prove that all religion is false, and that if a person can spot a flaw or comprehend a fallacy in one religion, then he has effectively disproved the validity of all religions? Absolutely not. Can you imagine what would happen if this type of argument were used in other areas of life? Apply such thinking to food. Many foods are poisonous and kill people, thus all foods should be avoided. Apply it to electricity. It is the case that many people have died while using electricity, thus all electrical use is detrimental to society. Or apply it to activities like swimming. Many have drowned while swimming, thus all swimming leads to drowning and should be avoided. What if it were applied to surgery? Since it is true that thousands of people have died during surgery, or as a result of surgery, then all surgery should be avoided because it all leads to death or is in some way physically detrimental to society. Obviously, the ridiculous idea that all religion is detrimental to society because it can be proven that some religions are, should be quickly discarded by any honest, thoughtful observer.

New Testament Christianity does not stand or fall based on the validity of other competing religions. In fact, Hitchens and others are right to assert that many religions are detrimental to society. But they are wrong to lump true Christianity in with the rest of the useless lot. New Testament Christianity is unique, logically valid, historically documented, and philosophically flawless. It does not crumble with various other religions that are filled with “vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20). Instead, New Testament Christianity as personified in the life of Jesus Christ shines as the truth that makes men free (John 8:32).

[NOTE: It should not be understood that Hitchens and others attack Christianity solely using the straw man argument. They do present other, more specific arguments that are answered in other Apologetics Press materials. It should be observed, however, that the straw man is a frequently used, favorite tactic that needs to be understood and specifically refuted.]

REFERENCES

Hitchens, Christopher (2007), god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve).

---

Copyright © 2007 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Bible Bullets" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

How important is a "quibble over a word"?

Recently, a dear friend could not understand how I could not support an effort to preach the Gospel and restore liberty in our land, just because I did not agree with the promoter and founder of the effort insisting on calling preachers or evangelists by the denominational term "pastor."

I've written this informal study in an attempt to answer that question:

Dear friend:

I am sorry that you believe I am just quibbling over a word. I am not saying that it is an insult in itself, but an insult because it is wrong. If I, an engineer, am called either an "architect" or a "technician" it is wrong: it may not be an insult, especially not an intentional insult, but none the less it is wrong because I am neither. Would you accept being called a "Doctor" when you are a nurse? Or being called a "nursing aide" when you are a nurse? When someone should or does understand the difference between one profession and the other, it is insulting to be called the wrong thing, even if unintentional.

Mr. Baldwin states that he is very much a believer in the Scriptures, and that he follows the tradition of "Sola Scriptura" - the Bible only. He states that he believes that the Bible IS the inspired Word of God, and not that it "contains" the Word (as so many people do). He wants people to follow the Bible. I applaud his effort, but fear he is not sincere in it. He has added (or accepted traditions of men) to God's Word. It is very clear in the New Testament that there is a very great difference in the role or offices of pastor and preacher.

A preacher, evangelist, or minister is an individual who publicly proclaims the Word of God to both christians and nonchristians; from the pulpit and in public places; who may also be a teacher (although that is a separate role, as well). If we accept the usual division of the mission of God's church into three parts: "evangelism, edification, and benevolence," his primary concern is the first: evangelizing. It may be done in foreign fields (a "missionary") or locally - but the primary purpose is to reach the lost. A preacher may be completely on his own (example, Phillip or Peter) or part of a team (Paul and Silas, Paul and Barnabas); he may be located in one place for years (Titus, Peter in Joppa or even Paul in Corinth) or move from one location to another frequently (Paul's missionary journeys, Phillip; what today we call itinerant preachers). There are no requirements as to age, experience, family status, education, or similar things stated in the Bible: we know that Timothy was very young, Phillip of middle age, and there are other examples. As part of their duties (Titus is one example) they are to appoint shepherds or overseers in churches. An evangelist may be full-time (that is, supported by others) or part-time (supporting himself to do the work, as Paul did by making tents). I know that some people believe that no one should be completely supported by others because this creates a "hireling" mentality and creates a temptation to "tickle people's ears" when they are paying for you to do your work.

A pastor, bishop, shepherd, elder, presbyter, or overseer (all biblical terms for what is the same role or office, emphasizing the wide ranging nature and functions) is one of the leaders of a community of believers: a local community or congregation. All the examples and commands in the New Testament make it clear that there is _always_ more than one co-equal shepherds or overseers in a congregation - I believe to prevent the dangers of one-man rule. Their primary concern is the well-being, spiritual _and_ physical, of the congregation which they are among: the "edification and benevolence" parts of the church's mission. To carry out this mission, they may do it themselves or have teachers (for the edification) and deacons (for the benevolence). The qualifications of these bishops are very clearly stated in New Testament - twice in fact. Among other things, they are to be husbands of one wife and have believing children (I believe this is, among other things, because the viewpoint and wisdom of both a man and a woman are essential to performing the duties, and because properly raising a family is strong evidence that they have the wisdom (and patience)). They are, of necessity, of mature years. As part of their responsibilities, they are to resolve disputes, ensure that sound doctrine is preached and practiced, and see that things are done in good order. Most people that I know believe these should always be "part-time" - that is, not paid for their work (for the same reasons: a "hireling" mentality) but do not exclude retired men who actually do work almost full-time in this role,

Mr. Baldwin, like many many others, has confused these two very distinct offices and has a defacto clergy-laity distinction that is not found in the Bible and has led to the degraded state of "christendom" today. To call a preacher a pastor is like calling a Lieutenant a General: it is inappropriate, and when done by a civilian might be brushed off due to lack of knowledge, but when done by someone who is a military scholar or a military member, is an insult because it is so inappropriate. The development of one-man rule, the merger of individual churches into dioceses or synods or whatever, the "hireling" mentality, the splitting of churches into a privileged clergy supported by a laity; all these things have produced great evils. Worse, the word "pastor" (and for that matter, "bishop" and "elder" and even "shepherd") have been turned into titles, almost as bad as titles of nobility: together with the titles or honorifics "reverend" (reserved in the Bible for God alone) and "father" and "saint" - elevating some people over others. Bishops/overseers are not to "lord it over the flock" and there is night and day difference between "let no one despise your youth" and the way "Pastor" is fawned over in many congregations today.

I know of many men who are preaching in Wyoming and South Dakota and Nebraska who would agree with the idea of the Black Regiment who are preachers - not many "full-time" preachers but still ministers of the Word. They live in Sheridan, Rawlins, Cheyenne, Rapid City, Huron, Omaha, perhaps even Alliance and Hot Springs and Spearfish. They all preach, most of them two or three times a week in public worship services and public and private Bible classes in their communities. If someone calls them "Pastor" one time they will, to a man, correct the person gently and explain that they are not elders or bishops or pastors, just preachers or ministers. (Some of them may work in churches where there are shepherds that oversee them just like the rest of the congregation.) If someone calls them that again, and it is clearly not just a matter of habit, they will treat it as evidence that the person rejects the explanation or doesn't care enough to remember - either an implied insult, even if unintentional.

Just as I consider Mr. Baldwin's lack of any response whatsoever to my e-mail to be one of several things:
(1) he could simply be unable yet to respond due to press of time (my assumption for now)
(2) he is working on a response
(3) he knows he is wrong, ignores it, and therefore ignores any challenges
(4) he does not consider the argument to be worth considering because of who is making it

Sadly, the first two do not seem to be the case, as it has been three or four months without an answer. So I must reluctantly conclude that it is one of the two latter. He has apparently decided that he is not, after all, a believer in "Solo Scriptura" - that he can with impunity accept or add things to God's Word. Therefore, he is not in fellowship with God. I cannot participate with him in his effort, however noble or highly motivated it might be, because it is a religious effort, if he is not in fellowship with God.

Reprint from Apologetics Press: Embryos are People

Embryos are People by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Printer version | Email this article

The polarizing national debate over the use of embryonic stem cells for the purpose of seeking solutions to medical ailments continues to rage. The most recent development entailed the passage by the Senate of a bill to permit government funding for research using human embryonic stem cells (Babington, 2006a). President Bush vetoed the bill on the grounds that such research entails the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others (Babington, 2006b). At the formal signing of the veto, the President was surrounded by babies and young children who began life as frozen embryos that were created for in vitro fertilization, but who remained in suspension after the fertility treatments were complete.

What further proof is needed? Nothing was done after conception to change these children from embryos into humans. They became human at conception. From that point onward, they were merely allowed to grow—transferred to the womb to continue their development. No difference exists between a pre-birth infant and a post-birth infant—both are simply at different stages of human growth and development. As the children produced from “adopted” frozen embryos encircled the President with their parents, proof that embryos are people was staring the nation and the world in the face. How blind can we be? Are we of those who “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:13)?

Apart from the fact that the scientific community’s insistence that embryonic stem cells will be the panacea to cure disease remains both unproven and highly suspect, and despite the fact that adult stem cells have, in fact, shown the most promise and have been used successfully (Harrub and Thompson, 2004; Harrub, 2006), the only concern in the discussion ought to be the moral, ethical, and spiritual implication. On this basis alone, the entire matter ought to be—and can be—settled.

If the God of the Bible exists, and if the Bible is His Word, then human life begins at conception. To deliberately terminate that life—for whatever purpose—is the taking of human life, identified in Scripture as murder. David insisted that his development as a human being, his personhood, was achieved by God, prior to his birth, while he was yet in his mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13-16). Elizabeth’s pre-born baby is represented as a living human being (Luke 1:39-44). In fact, the term “baby” used in verses 41 and 44 to refer to the pre-born John is the exact same term that is used in chapter two to refer to Jesus after His birth as He laid in the manger (Luke 2:12,16). So, in God’s sight, whether a person is in his or her pre-birth developmental state, or in a post-birth developmental state, that person is still a baby! John the Baptizer is referred to as “a son” from the very moment of conception (Luke 1:36). All three phases of human life are listed in reverse order in Hosea 9:11—birth, pregnancy, and conception (see Miller, 2003).

The national discussion regarding the use of embryonic stem cells is “cut and dried” for those who believe in and respect the God of the Bible: “[D]o not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked” (Exodus 23:7). God hates “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17). The fact that we even are debating this subject demonstrates the extent to which the nation has strayed from its commitment to and reliance on the God of the Universe—yet another unmistakable manifestation of America’s downward spiral into moral and spiritual depravity.

REFERENCES

Babington, Charles (2006a), “Senate Passes Stem Cell Bill; Bush Vows Veto,” Washington Post, July 19, A01, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/ AR2006071800182.html.

Babington, Charles (2006b), “Stem Cell Bill Gets Bush’s First Veto,” Washington Post, July 20, A04, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/ AR2006071900524.html.

Harrub, Brad (2006), “False Marketing of Embryonic Stem Cells,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2976.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2004), “Presidential Elections, Superman, Embryonic Stem Cells, Bad Science, and False Hope,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2621.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1964.

---

Copyright © 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "In the News" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org