#this man was literally made by the gods and yes that is factually correct

[wren-dy-flowergarden]

A fairytale we will never forget. (Wanderer/f!Reader)

*ੈ✩‧˚₊⁀➴ You are a failed writer of the Academia and Nahida gives you something to write about. Post Sumeru Arc! Wanderer x f!academiaReader *ੈ✩‧˚₊⁀➴A/N: OK! LISTEN- I have so much I need to write and My Precious Treasures is giving me trouble. Let me have my small little scaramouche man to cheer me up until my writing gets better (ꈍᴗꈍ)ε｀*). (Side note: not everything is cannon compliant, Im still on last act of story- but have been semi spoiled lol cause Kaveh stole my heart and the event was sooo cute!) *ੈ✩‧˚₊⁀➴Word Count: 3.3k *ੈ✩‧˚₊⁀➴Tags: if bickering was cute, writing stories together, lots of fluff, light spoilers, writer will do anything for inspiration, poor be'tad

───────────✧.*✦ *.✧.*✦ *.✧.*✦ ───────────────

You've failed again and would you be surprised it's not the first time you have failed.

It might have been the sixth, but you have lost count when your writings could fill ten books worth. You look at the scrolls limply hanging off your desk, the textbooks pilling so high they create a safety hazard of 'homicide by books'.

It's not right. It's not correct. It's not factual. It's not accurate. That's all they say, when they dismiss you with a wave of their hand and close the doors in front of sleepless eyes.

You want to scream, because it's not fucking accurate when a measly academia scholar like yourself cannot even read non-biased readings that do not have the author as Great Sage.

You needed something to take your mind off this.

You needed a break.

"You want to write a fantasy novel?" Aether comments munching on a stick of grilled meat. He looked off put by your comment as his companion Paimon speaks up, "Paimon doesn't understand how more writing is taking a break from writing?"

"It's a break because I can enjoy myself! No need to look at which theory makes more sense than the old. No more citing ancient sages that lived hundreds of years ago that are outdated. A good old fantasy."

Aether rolls his eyes, "And what defines 'good old fantasy'?"

Your eyes shine as you point directly at him. He scoffs as he tries another vendor's dish, "I mean- You have fought literal gods right! Or at least people tell me you have fought monsters that are as strong as gods!" You pause as you comment on your own delusions, "Well- I'm not sure how strong a god is, but it sounds impressive."

Aether is about to stop you as you continue, "Oh! Oh, what about the time you slayed a dragon? That sounds super interesting."

He groans in a way that you sense is that every time someone mentions the words 'dragon', that he must correct them, "For the last time. We didn't 'slay' it. We purified the crystal that made Dvalin sick."

"...So, your saying saved a kingdom from dark magic and that is not fantastical enough!"

You slam a couple mora onto the next vendor as Aether finished his latest dish. Sure, that money was for the breakfast, lunch and dinner for the next two days but what could be better than breathing, live, material!

You plead, "Please! One story, any story! I need something to jump start my brain that is not a library book."

Aether looks up the sky longingly you would narrate it as a 'take me now' moment; but surely not from you.

"Any story?"

You beam nodding as Aether reluctantly says yes.

.

.

.

"So that's the story. Sorry about this but I need to be back in Liyue by tomorrow and knowing (Y/N), she can um- be a lot."

You can't understand the rest of the sentence, but you see Aether talking to a smaller girl with leaves in her hair and flowers that bloomed around her.

At least that is what you say, but behind the boy with a large hat covering his head wore a frown as you could see each flower wilting- dead on the floor fictitiously.

What a buzzkill.

The girl, Nahida is what Aether calls her and she reminds you of sunshine that warms your heart. She smiles as she gives a small wave to you. As she does the boy behind her taps his foot frown never leaving his face.

"I see." And there is an ethereal ring in the small girl’s voice, "Leave it to us, please give the people of Liyue and the him our regards."

"Huh! Us?" A voice speaks at the same time. It was the boy with short purple hair dressed in flowing clothes different than your own. He looked like the wind would parachute him away at any second.

Aether sensing the shift whispered goodbye to you, leaving the room with the small girl and the frowning boy.

The girl speaks up first, "Aether told us of your 'predicament'? She questions because, no, writing a fantasy novel isn't considered a predicament more than getting a thorn stuck in your thumb; compared to how the academia cranks out automatous, encyclopedias of information that are used as the life blood of people’s lives, but in a sweets way she gives respect as she looks in your eyes.

Or so you thought.

"Therefore, he will help you!" And she points her thumb behind her to a balking boy who stomps his foot down. You could have sworn you felt the ground shaking, but that was probably his attitude.

"Wha- I refuse! There is no way I will be helping that baboon." And ouch, because words do hurt but if he had any sense of social norms and could read the room he would not continue. But he did, "You expect me to become one of those mediocre story tellers on the street?"

You glower as you gather any confidence you have in your work, "How dare you. Stories keep people alive!" And he gives you a look as if you are the idiot in the room because stories don't technically keep you alive, but that didn't stop your ramble," They let us share emotional connection with one each other as we can obtain a deeper understanding of people!" Don't say it, remember your manners, “and someone like you that has the emotional capability of a doormat wouldn't understand that!"

You wince as you see the boy’s brow raise underneath his ridiculously large hat, his mouth snarling as he cracks his fingers. It felt like the air was being sucked out of the room.

"Oh, really now?" It sounds like a threat the way his tone bleeds with irritation, "Let’s see who's the doormat once I-"

Nahida, gently places a hand on top of his and the air returns to normal. You let out a gasp that you did not feel you were holding as her voice rings out, "Now children, that's not how to treat each other."

She looks stern? Like a mother that is discipling her child by the way his face writhes into reluctance. She gives you a harsh stare that makes you feel like your own mother is chiding you, "Now, people who ask for favors can't start fighting with the asked. Can they?"

You look down at the floor, digging your heel in, properly chastised, "No... they can't."

She turns to the boy behind, "And people who invite guests into their home..."

He looks reluctant as if this wasn't his first time finishing her sentence, "don't blast them away..."

Blast them away?‌ And you think the right answer should be 'threaten, cause bodily harm, or even joke about causing bodily harm' but the small girl looks content either way.

"Now to start good relationships, we shake hands!" She clasps her hands together smiling.

Neither of you move.

"I rather not take my chances."

"I rather put my hand in boiling water."

Oh yes, this will be wonderful...

You sit down on a bench overlooking the landscape of Sumeru. It was beautiful the way the bustling of the city created a divide between the ethereal beauty of the nature itself to the bustling city life that coexisted with it.

Now that's beautifully said. Wait- but you used the word "beautiful" at least three, not four times now. What could you use instead?

You were about to dive deeper into your thoughts before a voice interrupted.

"Hey baboon!" A voice calls in which you wish was with endearment, because at least that be cuter than plain degrading. The boy pushes a plate of sticky rice plated with different types of fresh fruit, covered with syrupy goodness, "This is disgusting."

He's been doing this a while now, ever since Nahida kicked you two both out of the house with a couple of mora to keep you both full (how nice of her). She commented on 'sharing experiences with one each other', leading you to buy your favorite dessert as an olive branch.

You see the way her pushes the plate off towards the side of the table, "Hey that's my favorite dessert you know!"

And he scoffs folding his hands across his chest, leaning against the chair, "You have the tastebuds of a child then." And of course he continues, because goddamnit he does not know when enough is enough, "Oh- I forgot you are a child trying to create a kid's book."

You don't know which is worse. You going back to your small apartment to keep writing a bleeding thesis paper or you having to deal with this punk.

You take a breath in, you strive for peace, "Well. Then what's your favorite food?"

He rolls his eyes, "I don't have a favorite food."

"Everyone has something they like." You counter because he is not getting off the hook.

He pauses before he replies in pure reluctance, "Tea. The more bitter the better."

Now you're folding your hands across your chest, mirroring him.

"Tea?" You deadpan, "That's not a food."

"Were you not listening? I said I had no favorite food."

This time you scoff, "Well then why don't you like sticky rice?"

"It's disgusting."

"That's not an answer!"

"It is an answer you complete and utterly useless-!"

A third voice, "Excuse me."

You both turn to a server that has seen better days in their effort to survive customer service industry. The man looks at you and then at him, "You need to leave unless you stop yelling at each other. There are others trying to enjoy the view."

You look behind him and indeed others do look frustrated with the boy and you. At least you can read the room before the boy in front of you could, he looked like he was about to argue, and it was an argument he would lose. Slamming a couple of mora with a quick sorry, you grab the boy by his sleeve running out leaving your mango sticky rice behind.

By the time you make it to the top of Sumeru you are huffing and puffing. Air feels like fire as you steady yourself on your kneecaps gasping. Next to you, the boy has every piece of flowing fabric in place, his face not even a drip of sweat upon it. In other words, he looks and probably is way healthier than you.

"How- huff aren't you- dying?" And you say it in a way the means 'how are you standing', 'why are you freakishly healthy' or in a comedic sort of way 'are you even human?'; but his jumps eyes wide as he retorts head up high, "Everyone can run at least that far."

You start to think about your counterparts in the academia and how even a mile run would make you want to never leave your room again, and then you rethink, because Aether is his 'friend?' and that blond hair boy is certainly the least normal boy you know but he might fall into the category of 'everyone' to your interviewee.

That gave you hope.

You sit at a rickety bench underneath tarp that give a nice shade in the sun, fanning your shirt to let air in between all your robes. You notice him standing off to the side, like a cat waiting to be beckoned and that almost makes this time bearably. He must have surrendered, because he sees you eyeing him then the chair across from you and he sit down right on the edge.

"So", you start once you’re sure you can say a whole sentence without wheezing, "I know- that maybe, we got off on the wrong foot," and he opens his mouth for another (probably insensitive) comment and you talk quicker, "but I'm ready to listen to any story you have to share!" There quick and simple.

He closes his mouth, the thin line never shifting in his lips before he huffed, "I don't have a story for you."

And all common courtesy went out the window as you breathe in and out, peace! Peace you say! "Everyone has a story." A twinge of sass, "Like how everyone has a favorite food."

"Fine. I'll be more clear. I have no "fantasy" story that you will want to write."

And you blink, that was not the response you were expecting. You feel the academic spirit ignited in you as you prod for more information, "What do you mean by that?"

He's thinking and you can see thunder clouds brewing in his purple eyes as he clenches his teeth, "You want those dumb fairy tales where idiotic princes go save a damsel huh? Someone who saves you no matter what even though there is no one there!" You describe it as lightning engulfing his eyes as it leaks out with every enunciation in his words. You can feel the hair at the bottom of your neck standing up, "How stupid you all are."

A moment of thought, "Well, if you put it that way it is pretty stupid."

His face contorts in a way that you wonder if your face muscles can do that as well, "Huh?!"

"Yah!" You twiddle you fingers as if trying to connect the dots, "I never said I wanted to write a classic fantasy story! Who gets to say what I will write?" You stand up renewed energy as the cogs move in your mind, "I'm writing this because I want to! Stories are meant to connect us and if I can't hear your story then how the hell am I even supposed to know what to write?"

You don't let him even start. His mouth agape.

"You're right I may be an idiot I will admit. I can't even pass a stupid thesis paper because I am too focused on the fact that every paper I have used as reference sucks the living life out of me faster than I can even graduate." You point a finger towards him, your index finger almost touching his nose and he is spluters, "But Im not an idiot when it comes to sharing others stories."

When you're sure he's not going to start on another rampant of the insipid state of his world you say one last thing. A perfect conclusion.

"We haven't formally introduced ourselves."

His brows furrow, "Ha- I know your name!" He says in a loud voice, but there is less venom this time.

You shake your head, giving little tuts of disappointment, "No silly" he preens at the word but it's payback for him calling you a baboon, "I don't know your name."

The boy eyes cross towards your fingertips as he slaps your hands away, "Get your hand out of my face." You can tell he is thinking.

He gives a sigh, before mulling over the possibility of only one-story telling night vs. a determined author who will bang on his door every day until she gets what she wants. At least that's what you believe he is thinking of.

"You can call me..."

His voice becomes muffled under his hat, and you ask him to repeat again. His violet eyes dart to the side darkening, like saying his name is sooo difficult.

. 

.

.

".... hat guy"

You swear your ears misheard him underneath that large hat he wears as his voice projects to the ground, "Sorry, say that one more time?"

"...Hat...Guy"

This time you blink in incredulous response, "Hat guy?" You give him time to at least say a semblance of a normal name, but he is quiet, hands folded over his chest as his final answer, "Really? Hat guy?"

You throw your hands up, "I thought we were getting somewhere! Like I was trying to open up to you about the whole story thing!" Your hands lower in apocryphal delusion, "Hat guy... what type of parent names them hat guy?"

It's so ridiculous that you start laughing.

"Stop laughing! You're looking more like a baboon than before." A sharp comment breaks you out of breath as you hunch your sides.

You wipe a nonexistence tear from you tear ducts as you look at him. A faint mellow glow is left on his cheekbones- the only word you can use to describe the reaction is embarrassment.

Or anger. Probably anger.

The fleetingness of absurdity leaves you as the last hiccup escapes your lips, he looks like a cat that had water poured on him, "Sorry, sorry! I'll be serious now. Nice to meet you pft Hat Guy!" A guffaw escapes again and this time you have to stop because it looks like he's ready to punch your lights out.

You slip next to him, his face a contorting to annoyance. Pulling out a small journal, that has seen better days, kept in the back of your satchel you find a pen. Clicking the pen as you flip to an open page.

"So. Where do you want to start?"

"Wow (Y/N) you really..." Aether pauses finding the words, "stuck to the facts?" He finishes handing the rest of the paper to Paimon struggling to hold the rest of the pages in her tiny hands.

Paimon struggles to flip through the pages, squinting at the words on the page her eyes flicking to the violet haired boy in the back, "Yeah! Who knew that he was a prince of a continent who was known for dragon slaying? Then went on a thousand-year-old journey to find a piece of paper that hold the secret of a war from a long long LONG time ago...?" Even Paimon was awestruck by your story telling.

You puff up your chest in pride, "Well, the dragon slaying idea had come from you Aether. Gotta switch it around sometimes you know?" And you can see Aether facepalm his face mumbling something that's not worth the effort to narrate.

You turn toward Nahida and the boy of inspiration, "So! How do you like the first draft? I’m thinking of adding more details and vocabulary but all and all pretty good right!"

The girl, Nahida tilts her head in wonder, "I had no idea your story was so rich." She holds a secret behind her smile as she looks up towards the boy who hasn't said a word about the manuscript, "Truly, this has been an enlightening experience."

You nod rapidly, she always knew what to say to lift your spirits. You hop over to "hat guy" as he is staring blankly at your hard work. You give a small poke, and he jerks violet eyes catching yours.

"How is it?" You tilt your head to fit underneath his hat as you point towards a paragraph that has to do with the boy falling out of his kingdom in the first act, "Pretty accurate right? I tried combining multiple classic fantasy stories to create this, like you said."

He doesn't push you away, nor does he voice any acrimony. He does look at you like an adult would look at a child who made a mess of their kitchen before presenting equally a mess of a cake that people have to coo at because- it's a child's cake. Inedible, sloppy cute and the worst part- burnt on one side and raw on the other, but nonetheless a product of hard work made by a child.

Though this could be your imagination but notice him open his mouth after deliberating his thoughts. He decisively says in full confidence:

"I see why you haven't graduated."

#.wwrenwrites #genshinbrainspam #scaramouche x you #scaramouche x y/n #scaramouche x reader #wanderer x reader #wanderer x you #scaramouche fluff #wanderer fluff #genshin impact imagines #genshin impact #genshin impact headcanons #SCARAMOUCHE HEAL ME PLEASE holds up freaking healing catalyst to save me from writer block. #Nahida I love you so much #I promise this story is actually funny...at least I did my best #LOOK GUYS I referenced hat guy!!!!

[narwhalandchill]

i have to say of all the things people were speculating before 4.2 the fontaine AQ "theory" (if you could even call it that) im the most glad just. aged like complete milk and died silently in a ditch as it should was the way people were just. genuinely thinking the shadow dude in the narwhals stomach was childe 💀 and not even in the "ohhh what if" but actually soo convinced i just????

like hello what the fuck. i cannot believe that was a real thing like it was so widespread bc everyone went all. well the narwhal has to be bad and evil with terrible designs in mind for some nefarious plot relating to ajax so it has to be corrupting him and using his body as a puppet. and then pointing at the absolute most superficial "similarities" between the shadow and foul legacy when literally none of the actual core design aspects of FL were present at all whatsoever 😭 the shadow shares more in common with the fucking husks or even like. those hsr antimatter legion bitches what are you guys talking about. arguing oh the reason it looks nothing like childe or FL is bc hes already been gigasigma corrupted for a billion years in abyss time like WHAT

it got so bad i started fucking. double guessing my own (factually correct. as always. its like dawei wants to feed my ego) assessment of. yeah no fucking way thats ajax. theres some similarities in certain combat moves and some armor traits but like. he didnt invent his fighting style with FL he was literally taught it 💀 and 4.0 already told us skirk taking him in as a disciple had Something to do with his encounter with the narwhal. not at all unusual there would be some parallel (and i do find it plausible that the shadow v much has to do with surtalogi).

the other side of it was also like. yes sure im less reliable on that argument front leading up to 4.2 bc im way too narwhalpilled and obsessed with destined bonds between a mortal and an eldritch cosmic being in general so i was always hoping for it to like him in that based gourmet incomprehensible alien way. BUT. the way ppl fucking trashed my beloved acting all oh the narwhal calling for ajax must involve wanting to do something terrible to the uhhhhhh (checks notes) kid that.... freed it? woke it up? after an indeterminate time spent in some sort of stasis and imprisonment??? especially when its a creature meant to be freely traversing the cosmos?? Huh? 😭 tf would the narwhal have against him im crying. stop assuming the worst of this lovely friend shaped cetacean that is literally so rude.

(And like. i mean this with the utmost respect to his clear power boost regarding mastery over FL and am by no means trying to flatten or dismiss his development but also. 45+ days brawling. when the narwhal was already more or less fully primordial sea juice boosted. and when it went DIRECTLY for the kill against all those shrimp civilians in the cutscene. ajax. ajax. ajax. you did a great job but no way in fucking hell am i believing the narwhal was at any point trying to kill you fr im sorry 💀💀💀 you got the VIP treatment bc it likes you and i am Not believing otherwise unless dawei himself smites me and rebukes this directly. edit: and like he fell back in passed out & near death. well why the fuck wouldnt it finish the job right there and then???? checkmate atheists)

ultimately it just made no sense and while theories are fair game for everyone and all i just really hated this one its literally so petty but i cant help it im so glad it was instakilled on spot by the 4.2 trailer SKSKSKDKSKSDSJK i saw my man true and real in all his foul legacy drip and i knew i won.

also when the narwhal attack animations leaked and people were all oh my god its destroying childes constellation this is super bad and evil and i just. you mean the constellations that serve as the direct physical manifestations of celestias hold over destiny and fate. those. you mean the guy whose boss archive entry builds him up as the one who will "overturn this world" having his constellation busted through by a 874679 gigaton star-devouring whale pal could like. in no way shape or form be perhaps a visual metaphor for some. other development. after multiple lore drops and talks of wills capable of rivaling the world and not being chained by celestias ever present gaze. dont you maybe think the visuals of a constellation falling from the sky could also imply a different kind of thing. icant 😭 same for his vision malfunctioning if the narwhals behind that one too. like you mean the device we used to literally spy on his memories and that are all but confirmed to be not quite the quirky divine gift all perks no fine print you might assume. that thing. surely the vision malfunctioning is awful for ajax. (this take was sponsored by sustainer!!!)

it was literally just all these weird assumptions that abyss bad so narwhal from abyss (that aged well lmao) also bad ajax is a helpless baby fish being lured by the seductive calls of his narwhal to the dark side. and so on

and then turns out hes the one attacking the narwhal on sight 💀💀 if only we couldve foreseen his desire to fight the being he encountered during his time in the abyss once they meet again from something like idk his own voicelines that have been there since 1.1..... but alas 😔

#childe doesnt need rescuing from the narwhal surtalogi needs to put them in couples counselling i said what i said #that or solo counselling bro still hasnt dodged the same entity allegations but no time to get into that foil hat theory GSJSJDK #and fwiw yes i am not above accepting the narwhal mightve initiated the brawl either but also like #tf would be nefarious about that its literally childes love language 😭😭😭😭😭 #and not to even mention how the 4.1 cutscene really wasnt. tonally in any form some ominous oh caught in a trap oh no moment either #both the soundtrack and the narwhals vocalizations in it. bc. pay attention to the very start of the bossfight #theres a fucking. almost growl like sound at the very start. THATS hostility from the narwhal yet of all calls it has made at childe #none are like That. yes this is more of a me being insane moment than super serious theory proof but still. #rambles #genshin #childeposting

[anyways-wonderwall]

Album of the Week #48

In My Defense

(2019)

by Iggy Azalea

Overall Rating: 2.5/10

TL;DR: I gotta stop putting joke albums on the ‘to review’ list

(I don't like the font but other than that this album cover is pretty good! mysterious and edgy 7/10)

Overall Thoughts

Now this hurts to write, but I went through a pretty big Iggy Azalea phase in middle school. “Fancy” had just come out, I was at the age when swearing was the coolest thing you could do, and seeing Iggy twerk on stage made me feel like I was a grown up. While reviewing this album I went back and listened to some of her early hits, just to make sure younger me wasn’t completely deaf because god is this album terrible. 

I feel like most people reading this wasn’t expecting the album to be a masterpiece but I had hope! In her early songs the writing is pretty good, the backing track is good enough to dance along to, and she has a rags to riches story. This album falls into that ‘I’m rich, I’m hot, you’re a hater because you’re jealous’ which is fine for like, a song or two. Twelve is far beyond where I would want to tap out. 

Most of the backing tracks here sound terribly empty and confused (“Hoemita,” “Freak of the Week”) and many of them feature this terrible sound that makes it seem like your speakers have peaked. Why the hell would you do that, I literally cannot think of a single reason. It is horribly annoying, drowns out the vocals, makes me think my headphones are broken, and just makes the song unlistenable (“Clap Back,” “Hoemita,” “Big Bag,” “Freak of the Week”).

The writing also leaves a lot to be desired (to put it nicely). She constantly brags about being the first to do what she does (“Thanks I Get”) when she’s just factually not?? Like sorry Iggy but not a single person is going to believe you there. She constantly talks about how what she is doing is unique when she’s offering nothing new in a single song she does. The best sounding parts of her songs are when she repeats the same line 20 times because familiarity makes your brain like anything. The only songs with a decent flow and track are “Commes Des Garcons” and “Just Wanna” with the second sounding super similar to “Her” by Megan Thee Stallion which came out earlier this year. 

To finish this off I just wanna share some of my favorite lines, which is really the only gratifying part of reviewing albums like this. 

“Hoemita” features the line (with no punchline or build up) “turn this beat to a diabetic”. I have been analyzing this for days and still cannot figure out what it means, someone please help me out.

“Started” has “you fronting like breasts” which yes Iggy, breasts are in the front of your body

“Commes Des Garcons” has “whenever I post a pic they go nuts like semen” which honestly goes really hard

And last but not least “Pussy Pop” has the wonderful line “got green like luigi.” Thank you for defending my man Iggy, he is always stuck living in his brother’s shadow.

Final Thoughts

Just uhhh, don’t listen to this. If you like rap maybe give the two I thought were decent a shot and if you don’t like those you definitely won’t like any others. Also why does Iggy keep saying she’s gonna nut?? Is that anatomically correct?? This album leaves me with more questions than answers.

#album 48 #album of the week #album review #album recommendation #music review #rap music #rap #hip hop #iggy azalea

[docholligay]

Your comment on the post about multiple fandom readings - which I agree with! - made me smile, because it feels like a very Jewish response. When books of the holiest texts come with a bunch of mutually contradictory takes in the commentary right underneath, a tendency to allow or even value different interpretations seems pretty likely. Of course I'm still attached to my own readings, sometimes emotionally so, but others can shed light on them, you know?

I didn’t even think about it this way, but you’re right--it’s so bizarre to me when people can’t wrap their head around the idea of the same text being taken multiple ways by multiple people. How do you even live without the idea of midrash? I always thought it was so weird in college when people in my lit classes would be like, “But what is it SUPPOSED to mean?” genuinely wanting Word of God type clarification, when honestly, I don’t ever want that! I’m very sola scriptura about my text interpretation, most of the time. 

I can only assume being so used to the idea that people can take the literal words of God, and be like, “No no this is what it means” “no, THIS is what it means” and they can both be right and both be wrong. It’s kind of similar to another thing I love about Judaism, that things are the Tanach are TRUE, even if they aren’t strictly FACTUAL. I was never taught that Jonah was like, a literal man getting swallowed by a literal fish, but I was taught that the story is TRUE. As an adult, I think the story is about our relationship with God, how we cannot sometimes avoid being the person we are meant to be, how our role in the tapestry of the universe is more important than our individual desires. 

The things we live our lives by, whether they be religious texts or stories or whatever, are as much personal to us as they are anything else, and I think it’s so important to realize that our window to the world informs our view, and looking out of other windows has immense value. 

And I too, get SUPER WRAPPED UP in my own readings, in Torah, in fiction, in TV, whatever, but I guess I’m just used enough to sitting in Torah study listening to someone else’s reading and going, “I mean, okay, I guess” and having them do the same, that even the idea of fanon being taken as gospel offends me on some base level. I can LEARN something from someone else’s reading, even if I don’t like. I can have an emotional response to something without that emotional response being a sign of my ineffable correctness. 

let me add, I am NOT perfect, either, in any way. When I first got onto tumblr I too drank the Social Righteousness juice and found myself using good ideals--inclusivity, diversity, representation, anti-racism, etc--as fucking bludgeons. I was verbally clever, so using those things I could make myself “right”. But when I searched my motivations, what were they really? Was I seeking to improve the world? Or was I seeking for my way of seeing, you know, a fictional fucking character, to be the ‘correct and morally upright’ one? It’s embarrassing and so easy to fall into and I’m glad I grew up a bit. Once I came to, I was pretty deeply ashamed, since I fucking know better,  and it quickly becomes Cry Wolf. 

anyway sorry this became rambling, but YES! I think being Jewish greatly informs the way I look at the text, and the conversation around the text, and why I am sometimes shit-shocked that we can’t just have...conversations...about readings and interpretations. 

#identitycharacter #verbforverb #I think this is why I get so annoyed by ltieally any tumblr name that is #even if I 100% agree #it shows a real hold fast that makes me think they take it too seriously #like I think mercy is jewish and tracer is ADHD DEEPLY #but you'll never see it my NAME #also GOD I miss Torah study and talking Torah in general

[stalecrackers]

I've had a god damned day. When I woke up this morning, I would have sworn that I was human being. That I fucking mattered. But so many things have pointed to the contrary.

After three months of constantly trying to get a proper physical therapy referral, including three doctor visits and countless phone calls, I was finally able to begin treatment for my back/spine. It took ages to begin treatment for anything, because the doctor just wouldn't send the referral. Then sent it to the wrong place. Then sent it in complete. Then sent it to the wrong place. Then incomplete, then to the wrong place again, and then finally, the proper referral. I overheard my physical therapist talking to her boss during my treatment this morning. Apparently, the doctor never signed any of the three forms that were required to have his signature, in order for my insurance to process the claims. Bearing in mind I'm being seen on a financial hardship basis, so the remainder of my cost is waived. Apparently my insurance enjoys labeling things as a shared payment, and not a co-pay...as all of my out of pocket co-pays have been met. Well, I joined the conversation, and said I'd been eavesdropping, and that I actually had my supposed follow up to see how physical therapy was going, right afterwards, before work. I offered to deliver the paperwork, and literally not leave until he signed it, then deliver it back. So, they printed it off, and I was told that it could possibly be my last session, even though I've only had three treatments for my back, haven't yet had my neck re-evaluation, and am still severely struggling with my hands. Because my doctor wouldn't return faxes. Won't bother.

So, I get to the god damned appointment, and the mother fucker walks in and fucking introduces himself. I didn't hesitate even a moment to call him out on it. I wasn't rude. Just straight forward and factual. He seemed a little flustered, and then said he did remember me after all, but he just sees a lot of patients. We discussed that I'd made progress, but was still having issues, and that I'd only had three treatments so far for my back, because the referral hadn't been sent. Again. Factual. Not rude. He asked if there was anything else of concern. So, I said yes, actually. I needed an updated std screening, and that I prefer to be responsible and get them every six months. He said he doesn't like to do the tests just to do them. I restated the question, saying I needed the test, as the person I'd been seeing had gotten someone else pregnant, and I'd recently started having pain during sex. He said he doesn't like to do the tests just to do them, and that I probably needed more lubricant. I just stared and said Ok. After hesitating, I said “Not trying to be rude, but is there a reason to not do the test?” He said he doesn't like to do the tests just to do them, and that if I started having any issues, like vaginal discharge, he could see me in a month and do the tests then. I restated that I was having pain during intercourse and that I'd like to get the test done. He said “well, I could take a urine sample”, to test for gonorrhea/basic bacterial things. I said Ok. As soon as he left and the door closed, the student who'd been observing the appointment and he erupted into a slightly hushed bickering session. I couldn't make out what they were saying. The nurse who'd initially taken my vitals and information came back in to give me an updated tetanus shot and said she'd collect my urine sample. I asked if it was for the std test, to verify. She said yes, it was. I said it was extremely bizarre, that I'd asked the doctor to do an std screening, as sex was painful and the person I was seeing got someone else pregnant. I told her that I had to twist his arm to even get the urine test done. She seemed sweet and professional, and said it might usually be another appointment and a physical exam. I said he wanted me to wait a month to get it done, even though I'm having pain now. That I wanted to be responsible and be sure I don't have anything, so I don't accidentally spread stuff to people. She mentioned it might be something my obgyn might need to do, and suggested an updated pap test as well. I told her I'd already had my female exam for the year. She was polite, told me to relax my arm muscle so I'd be less sore from the tetanus shot in the morning, and later helped me open the plastic bag the urine sample bottle was contained in, as my hands were not cooperating on opening it. When I leave, she sweetly tells me I can go to the desk and schedule either my one or two month follow up. I scheduled my two month follow up, to track the course of my physical therapy. I'd decided to go to a walk in clinic to get the rest of my std screening done. I already had a veterinary appointment, and two appointments of my own scheduled for the following day, but I'd decided I'd have to squeeze in a walk in clinics, since he'd refused to do the tests.

So, I leave the place, and on my two fucking minute drive home, I get a call from a number I don't recognize. I answer. Immediately recognize the doctor's voice. He asks if it's ' miss (redacted)', I reply with 'yes sir'. He said, since we're doing these tests, I wondered if you'd like to actually bundle the syphilis and HIV tests in with it?” I reply with “yeah, that would be good.” He went on to tell me that his supervisor told him he apparently could do the std screening. He said to come in whenever was most convenient to me, and tell them I'm there for lab work, and that they'd take my blood. I asked if it was fine if I came in the morning. He said yes that would be good.

That mother fucker. One, or both of the women involved absolutely stood up for me afterwards. So, that's a win. I don't know if it was the student who erupted into an argument with him. Or the nurse who told me I could schedule my one or two month follow up, if I'd like, but one of them said something.

During all of this, I'd been offered a full time position, with benefits, for $35,000-$45,000 a year, in graphic design. But, the only catch was, the job is within 200 yards of my former stalker's house. The man who assaulted me, on more than one occasion. The hideous coward whose pupils I watched dilate as I pleaded with him that he was hurting me. Over and over again. The sorry sack of shit who took away my dexterity. My art. The very core of my identity. The person who ruptured my disc in my neck, causing the most excruciating years of my life. Whose laughable actions lead up to having a TIA, ungodly severe migraines, and the feeling of literal strings of fire being pulled through my arm and out the tips of my fingers. Who paralyzed my hand. Who made me believe I'd never be able to even draw a straight line again, or ever escape the most excruciating pain imaginable. The person who told people I was over reacting and making things seem worse than they were, after he'd twisted and snapped my neck two months after the spinal surgery to correct the injury he'd caused in the first place. The person who has made me previously contemplate the exact and vivid details of what it would be like to put a bullet through someone's skull. The reason I can't be touched in the same ways as I used to, and the reason I have to warn my dates how to avoid triggering my ptsd. The person whose actions lead to me having to leave my job and take time on disability. The reason I couldn't create art for four years of my adult life. The person who alienated me from my social group. Who convinced me I was broken and would never be lovable. Whose treatment sent me into downward spirals of self injury, substance abuse, and three hospitalizations. The reason I have tattoos on my forearm, cover scars created when testing the sharpness of a blade before I planned to lay my veins open.

The person offering me the job claims he didn't realize any of this transpired, though he doesn't seem adamant about no longer associating with him. Apparently, he told my friend that he's tried contacting me over the years and that he doesn't understand why I ignore him and won't talk to him, and says he still misses me. Almost six years after rupturing my disc and effectively ruining my life...paralyzing my hand, creating years of almost no use after spine surgery because of re-injury, and having to go through the process of relearning to individually move my fingers... after all of this...He misses me. Cute.

I would obviously get a restraining order if he ever contacts me again. The statute of limitations is up, and the lawyers I consulted with wouldn't take on a case with him. I waited too long. I was too emotionally vulnerable to get the police involved after he hung me, or after he forced my head to the left and upwards, creating a deafening pop and a shock wave down each side of my incision. I was too emotionally vulnerable, after weeks of barely being able to get out of bed, my head drooping to the side, and struggling to teach myself to do all of my self care left handed. After being forced to very effectively become ambidextrous. After having to be spoon fed, because I couldn't lift soup to my mouth. After spending so many weeks, day in and day out, laying in bed, struggling to roll in the correct manner in order to get up to use the restroom as my head drooped and my hand was useless. After all of the times I've spent, afraid of going to sleep, because I knew I'd have to start all over again with the pain that I cannot even now fully comprehend. The reason that, even today, I can only sleep in very specific positions, with a special pillow that costs $125. The reason that my muscles are still so atrophied that I am barely able to carry out basic tasks, spent several weeks in physical therapy before I could properly resume basic household chores, because I finally started a job. An attempt to restart my life. Carrying out basic work tasks forfeits my art. My daily tasks. Weeks of extensive physical therapy has gotten me to the point that I'm sweeping and mopping my home again, and not struggling as much to cook my meals. When I give in to my desire to create, I suffer substantially at work. Shattering pain spreads through my hands and fingers. Every single day I have to spend 1-2 hours when I first wake up to do a body awareness and mindfulness meditation. To tell myself that I am worth the basic commodities of life. To check in on my pain levels, and to stretch my muscles in my neck, back, and hands. My back suffers extensively, as I put strain on it to avoid further injuring the herniated disc from the assault that occurred after spinal surgery. My hands suffer from years of under use. My neck suffers from herniation, bone spurs, permanent arthritis caused from the first assault and the surgery, and simply from the trauma of being so severely injured and being so systematically emotionally traumatized. This “person” misses me.

I obviously cannot take a job, where I will live in fear of this person. Spend every day scrambling to and from my car, in fear that if I loiter too long, I might be seen. Might be discovered. I cannot have another job that is jeopardized by this person, where I actively need to involve the police and file a restraining order. I might be able to afford the dental care that I need, for the tooth I recently broke, likely from clenching my teeth from stress. And I might be able to pay for the upcoming eye exams to deal with the retinal holes and 30 flashes of light I see a day in my right eye. I might be able to move out of section 8 housing, where I automatically jump to the floor any time I hear a loud sound, in anticipation of another shooting. I might be able to afford my own groceries, without having to avoid certain stores because of the disgust upon being presented with an EBT card. I might be able to afford my arthritis medicine, and not have to order it from a foreign pharmacy. I might be able to afford to see a doctor that doesn't make me feel like a god damned mangy mutt, waiting in a run at the pound to see if I make it off the euthanasia list within the next month before my fleas get treated. Perhaps I'd be able to see a doctor that made me feel like a god damned human being, even. If I got extremely lucky. Not one who offers to double my anti-depressant, and refuses to do an std screening.

I scanned a copy of the reports from physical therapy. My hands were rated as a 72% disability, and my back was 50%, apparently. I am keeping a copy for my own records, as everyone is god damned incompetent, and I have to scratch and claw my way into a minimal existence.

When I finally got to work, three hours and four minutes after originally scheduled, my coworker was angry. He yelled at me because I asked him to keep a look out for some black ear buds that I'd dropped on the floor some time during the week. He then proceeded to blare screaming guitar music and make pottery. A strange, angry, and entitled combination. The temperature in the office was 78. The main studio was 91. The chemical room was 93 or 94, and the kiln room where I was doing most of my work was well into the 100's. I kept having to take breaks to cool down and to put ice on my hands and wrists and shattering pains shot through both hands and wrists. I even temporarily draped myself into the freezer, when I was getting ice out. The small part of the building that has air conditioning, I turned down to 68 degrees. I sat in one of the tattered cushioned chairs. I've gotten past my panic related to sitting in at office chair, as that's where I was sitting when my second neck injury occurred. That was something I discussed extensively in therapy. I felt the sweat trickle thickly down my back, squeezing between my skin and my tightly cinched back brace. The air started to chill my skin. I momentarily felt a little too cool, until the sweat dissipated, leaving me feeling somewhat comfortable. I wanted to work on some of the class demos I created last Monday. Trim them before they became too dry. Sacrifice my dexterity, and fight with my numb finger tips to create something that might, if I'm lucky, actually get me into a graduate program that would allow me to get the fuck out of the miserable stagnation. Something to challenge my mind and further my own art. But, I knew if I did, I would get bitched out by my boss, scolded and reprimanded like a naughty child, and told to create hideous phallic slab vases, even though they hurt my hands and wrists to create. She has made three. I've made 14. When she asked me to make more the other night, I said I would assemble them if she made the slabs. She said “ME?! You want me to help you?” I blandly replied yes, I did want her to help me, as the process injures my wrists, hands, and neck. My elderly coworker jumped in and offered to help. He's very kind, and I think he wanted to divert potential rising conflict.

So, instead of working on my own stuff, and being reprimanded for doing so, I just sat and stared into space. Tired, weak, exhausted, dejected, and fairly discouraged. A kind yoga teacher massaged my arms and hands for me, because she saw I was icing my wrists. Kindness always surprises me, and I find myself thanking people multiple times. It leaves me with a strange feeling. Nurturing isn't something I'm accustomed to accepting.

I flipped through my phone so much while staring into the void today that my battery almost died. The person I spent time with last night seems to have disappeared, and the person who seems most interested in dating me, I automatically fear will hurt me physically somehow, so I avoid carving out the time to spend. I apparently associate sweetness or tenderness with physical danger. Lines start to blur and I don't know whether I'm sensing a “red flag” or I'm so intrinsically programmed to think that if someone's interested in me, they're surely going to stalk, assault, and force themselves on me.

It's late, I'm tired, I'm in pain from typing. My hand is numb and tingly, and swollen and achy. I have to get up super early so I can take my cat in for a surgery I'm going to spend the next two months paying off. So, I have to say, again, it's been a god damned day. I'm just overwhelming relieved that my boss has put in her notice. Maybe, just maybe, I can get her old position, and get benefits and get out of the ghetto, and get things up to basic safety standards so my eyes don't burn from surfer dioxide. A thing that simply got a “huh” from my doctor, when mentioned. “Doctor”, I should say. He doesn't take me at all seriously, because I'm a female with ptsd. Mental health struggles mean you don't matter, within the medical field. It's been a mother fucking, god damned day. Good night.

#mental health #art #assault #spinal injury #poverty #recovery

[mittensmorgul]

Has Chuck ever talked about why he brought Cas back? I'm watching The Man Who Would Be King and it's a massive point of contingency. Cas is clearly important to God, has that ever been brought back up?

Hi there... I don’t really get what the second message has to do with the first, but I’m gonna try to reply to both of these things, because these are two fundamentally unrelated issues. At least, I believe this is also a message from you, but please correct me if I’m wrong. Sometimes it’s really hard to tell if two messages are supposed to go together in the inbox when they’re both from anons:

In that same season Let It Bleed shows Dean asking Cas to erase the memories of Lisa and Ben and that's like Cas' ultimate skill as an angel Stripping Memory and he did for Dean Just Like That. My Chuck has anything been addressed for Cas since season 6?

I think this is the only thing that Chuck has canonically said about the fact he kept bringing Cas back, and it was uttered during one of his lil tantrums in 11.20, while Metatron was prodding him into Doing The Right Thing for all of creation:

Chuck: You know I love those guys, but the world would still be spinning with demon Dean in it. But Sam couldn't have that, though, could he? And so how is Amara being out on me?Metatron: It's not. But you helped the Winchesters before.Chuck: Helped them? I've saved them! I've rebuilt Castiel more times than I can remember. Look where that got me.Metatron: So you're just gonna let Amara win?Chuck: Eh, it's her time to shine.

Chuck was still actively deflecting any responsibility for the Darkness. As if this ENTIRE problem didn’t directly spring from his initial act of locking her away in the first place. Granted, we wouldn’t have had Creation at all if he hadn’t, but he’d been willing to just sequester himself off in his little private bar at the end of all things while the rest of the universe crumbled around him rather than confront any of that. It was easier for him to just blame everyone else for... everything else... as if the problem hadn’t been his own refusal to deal with the fact that he was only one side of this Creation Coin, you know? It took the catalyst of Dean Winchester to bring those two sides together eventually in 11.23.

But getting back to your point... No, Chuck has never said directly, “I specifically and factually continued to resurrect Cas for these explicit purposes,” and then given us a bullet-pointed list.

Because your second question (and I think it’s yours, again) refers to something in 6.21 as being in “the same season” that Chuck resurrected Cas... but he first resurrected Cas in 5.01, after Raphael had exploded him in 4.22 (which happened offscreen, but we were TOLD it happened, by Chuck in 5.01.

Given what we know about the Empty, and the fact it’s where angels go when they die, and the fact that we know now that Jimmy died in 4.22 and went to Heaven and has been there ever since despite Cas having been resurrected in a replacement Jimmy Suit in 5.01... I think it’s safe to assume that Chuck (since he’d been literally standing RIGHT THERE when Cas went kablooie) held Cas in some sort of stasis, waiting to see what happened next. Remember, they’d been making it up as they went. NONE of what happened at the end of 4.22 and after that had been part of Chuck’s Grand Plan. It wasn’t in the script. It was something he hadn’t expected, and yet... it happened.

I don’t think he initially had a definite plan to resurrect Cas, but it had been one of the options he’d held open for himself. Cas had done something INTERESTING to him. He was an angel who demonstrated an act of rebellion and free will-- not the way Lucifer had by wanting to destroy and corrupt humanity, but out of love for Humanity and creation itself. Cas wanted to save the world from Chuck’s destined apocalypse. And Chuck being a shrewd creator, he plucked Cas out of the air before he could be zapped off to the Empty, knowing that such an Angel was an anomaly, and that he might just have a bigger part to play in the salvation of Creation.

In 6.20, I believe the scene you’re referring to is this one:

CASTIEL I was...done. I was over. And then the most extraordinary thing happened. I was put back. (Castiel stands behind Dean, beaten bloody by Lucifer) And we had won. We stopped Armageddon. (Castiel heals Dean) But at a terrible cost. (Castiel heals Bobby)(flashback to very end of 'Swan Song')EXT. OUTSIDE OF LISA BRAEDEN'S HOUSE - NIGHT(Sam stands under the streetlight, which flickers and dies, watching Dean inside Lisa's house. Castiel watches Sam.)CASTIEL And so I knew what I had to do next. Once again, I went to Harrow Hell, to free Sam from Lucifer's cage. It was nearly impossible, but I was so full of confidence, of mission. I see now that was arrogance...Hubris...Because, of course, I hadn't truly raised Sam -- not all of him.(flashback to 'Unforgiven': Sam is beating a cop unconscious; flashback to 'Live Free or Twi-Hard': Sam watches Dean being turned; flashback to 'Appointment in Samarra': Sam raises his dagger to stab Bobby) Sometimes we're lucky enough to be given a warning. (back in front of Lisa's house, Sam turns and walks away- directly past Castiel) This should have been mine.

But this was actually his SECOND resurrection. He was also speaking from a place of desperation, at his lowest point to date, knowing he was about to make A Huge Choice and desperately looking for ANY sort of guidance. It’s like he KNEW he’d already made a mistake, and couldn’t see any way out of this dire, horrific circumstance other than to just... keep pushing through and hope everything worked out in the end. He was trying to save the universe, again, single-handedly. And EVERYTHING was failing. He’d failed to protect Dean, he’d failed to resurrect Sam properly, he’d failed and failed and failed.

Like he said in 12.19, he NEEDED a win, he needed to return to Dean already having secured a win, to prove his own worth. He’s been dealing with this issue, this personal struggle, since he first discovered those Doorways To Doubt way back in s4.

In 7.23, also at a place of Lowest Depression, he had this to say about his continued resurrections:

CASTIEL: If we attack Dick and fail, then you and Sam die heroically, correct?DEAN: I don't know. I guess.CASTIEL: And at best, I die trying to fix my own stupid mistake. Or... I don't die – I'm brought back again. I see now. It's a punishment resurrection. It's worse every time.DEAN: I'm sorry. Uh, we're talking about God crap, right?CASTIEL: I'm not good luck, Dean.DEAN: Yeah, but you know what? Bottom of the ninth, and you're the only guy left on the bench... Sorry, but I'd rather have you, cursed or not. And anyway, nut up, all right? We're all cursed. I seem like good luck to you? [CASTIEL stares at DEAN.] What?CASTIEL: Well, I don't want to make you uncomfortable, but I detect a note of forgiveness.DEAN: Yeah, well, I'm probably gonna die tomorrow, so...CASTIEL: Well, I'll go with you. And I'll do my best.

He was in such a low place that he sincerely believed he’d been repeatedly resurrected as a “punishment,” because he couldn’t see past his own guilt and trauma. But again, Dean held out a hand and offered him a different viewpoint. It was the first step toward Cas being able to forgive himself and move forward. He could finally begin “redeeming himself” in Dean’s eyes, which he’d promised back in 7.01. And that’s sort of the journey he’s been on ever since.

He’s been through a number of rough patches along the way, leading him to say Yes to Lucifer in 11.10, leading him to try to spare Sam and Dean from having to kill Kelly in 12.15-12.19, ultimately leading to his death (again! but the first death that Chuck hadn’t been standing by to catch him from and stop him from ever reaching the Empty) in 12.23.

For the first time, it was Cas HIMSELF that fought for his own resurrection, in which his own agency is what brought him back. He fought for HIMSELF.

*scrolls back up because I can’t even remember the question at this point...*

Aah, right... “Has anything been addressed for Cas since s6?” Um.. yes? Loads and loads? Which is why I have no idea how the second half of your question relates to the first...

I’ve barely scraped the tip of the iceberg here on that ONE issue, so short of writing a thesis on the narrative evolution of Castiel as a character that could probably span at least a trilogy of scholarly tomes, I don’t really know what else to say here... I’m honestly baffled that anyone could suggest that they’ve just not addressed Cas’s issues since s6, and wondering if we’re watching the same show.

#spn 6.20 #spn 4.22 #spn 5.01 #spn 6.21 #spn 7.01 #spn 7.23 #spn 11.20 #spn 11.10 #spn 12.15 #spn 12.19 #spn 12.23 #spn 13.04 #spn 13.06 #and i didn't even go into the s14 stuff that has Cas becoming the master via his education of jack i mean... #you learned it from the goats #castiel winchester #i am an honestly baffled mitten #if you say 'mysterious ways' so help me i will kick your ass #Anonymous

[christianstevefinnell]

THE DEVIL IS THE FATHER OF DECEIT  BY STEVE FINNELL

Satan was a liar from the beginning in the Garden of Eden. Satan deceived Eve and Eve convinced Adam that that deception was factually correct.  (Genesis 3:1-13.....And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done? And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me and I ate."'NKJV)

The Devil is the father of lies. He is the great deceiver. (John 8:44 "You are of your father the devil.....When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. NKJV)

Men are still being deceived by the Devil and in turn are deceiving others. It does not matter if a person is deceived and then deceives others, the results are the same for both of them.

There are some so-called Christians who claim Jesus is just one of many ways to heaven.

If you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God you will died in your sins. (John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in yours."NKJV)

If the master of deception convinces men that immersion in water is not essential for salvation and the deceived teach others the same, then, they are both dupes of duplicity.(Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved...)

Adam and Eve were both deceived. The, I was deceived by the serpent excuse, did not save them from death.

If what men are being taught is contrary to Scriptures, then, they are being deceived. What will be the consequences of accepting doctrine contrary to the Bible?

Pride and the lack of honest prayer and dishonest Bible study leaves people subject to becoming dupes of duplicity.

Satan is the father of deceit!

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

10:56 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

IS JESUS GOD THE FATHER? ---BY STEVE FINNELL

Jesus is God, however, He is not God the Father!

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NASB)

Yes, Jesus was and is God.

Matthew 24:35-36 Heaven and earth will pass away...36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.(NASB)

Jesus does not know the end of time date. Only the Father knows. Jesus is not God the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28 But now Christ has been raised from the dead....24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and authority and power.........28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (NASB)

Jesus is God, however, He is not God the Father.    

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:14 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2016

5 Reasons Racism is Ridiculousby

Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Atheism has no rational basis upon which to call anything objectively just or unjust, including racism. If mankind is merely the result of billions of years of mindless evolution and is nothing more than animals (as atheistic evolution contends; Marchant, 2008), then man can logically make evolutionary-based racist remarks that are consistent with the godless General Theory of Evolution. In fact, Charles Darwin’s “Bulldog,” atheist Thomas Huxley, did just that in his 1865 essay, “Emancipation—Black and White.” He alleged, for example, “no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less superior, of the white man.” In truth, if there is no God, mankind could just as easily look down upon and mistreat others (whom he deems are less evolved), as he does roaches, rats, and orangutans (

Lyons

, 2011;

Lyons and Butt

, 2009). Those who are Christians, however, logically contend that since (1) God exists, and (2) the Bible is the Word of God, racism is morally wrong—and completely ridiculous for the following five reasons.

#1—ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

Not only did God specially create Adam and Eve in His image and vastly different than all other living things on Earth (Genesis 1:26-27), since then, every human being has been made according to God’s likeness. While preaching to Gentiles in Athens thousands of years after the Creation, Paul, a Jew, did not contend that man was once the offspring of God; he said, “We are” the offspring of God (Acts 17:28-29). [The Greek word esmen in 17:28 is the first person plural of eimi (to be). This recognition of being God’s offspring served as a basis for his argument, as the next verse indicates: “Being then the offspring of God….”]James wrote: “But the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren these things ought not so to be” (3:8-9, ASV, emp. added). [The English verb “are made” (ASV) derives from the Greek gegonotas, which is the perfect participle of the verbginomai. The perfect tense in Greek is used to describe an action brought to completion in the past, but whose effects are felt in the present (Mounce, 1993, p. 219).] The thrust of the expression, “who are made after the likeness of God” (Greek kath’ homoisosin theou gegonotas), is that humans in the past have been made according to the likeness of God, andthey are still bearers of that likeness. For this reason, praising the Creator at one moment, while hurling unkind, racist remarks at another time, is terribly inconsistent in a most unChristlike way. All human beings (of every color and ethnicity) are divine image bearers.

#2—GOD ONLY MADE ONE RACE—THE HUMAN RACE

Although people come in different colors, shapes, and sizes, and although they often associate more closely with those whom they find more similar in ways to themselves, the fact is, there is only one human race. Racism is ridiculous because we are all related, not by means of naturalistic evolution, but by special Creation. No one person is inherently of more value than another person. We are all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve—the specially created couple whom God made thousands of years ago in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:20). What’s more, we are also sons and daughters of Noah and his wife, through whom the Earth was repopulated after the worldwide Flood of Genesis 6-8.As the apostle Paul informed the idolatrous Athenians 2,000 years ago, God “made from oneblood every nation to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Adam and Eve had children, who had children, who had children…who had you and me. We are all physically related. We are all of one race—the one human race. We are all (as modern science classifies us) of the same human species—Homo sapiens. We all trace our ancestry back to Noah, and then back to Adam. We may have different skin color, facial features, hair texture, etc., but we are all brothers and sisters! We are family—a part of the same human race.

#3—GOD DOESN’T PLAY FAVORITES…AND NEITHER SHOULD WE

Although God is omnipotent, He is actually color-blind. His all-loving, perfectly just nature will not allow Him to love someone more than another based upon the color of a person’s skin or the nation in which one was born. Similar to how God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), God cannot show favoritism.Moses wrote: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:17-19). Peter said: “God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35, emp. added). According to Paul, God “does not receive a face” (Galatians 2:6, NASB literal footnote rendering); that is, “God does not judge by external appearance” (Galatians 2:6, NIV).In short, it is impossible to hold “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, (the Lord) of glory, with respect of persons” (James 2:1, ASV). The Christian’s care and concern for his fellow brother by Creation and by Christ is to be color-blind.

#4—LOVE IS NOT RACIST

Whereas racism is fueled by earthly ignorance and hate, the Christian is filled with the fruit of Heaven’s Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). The child of God is directed by an omniscient, omni-benevolent Father Who expects His children to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). To the Philippians Paul wrote, “And this I pray,that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God” (1:9-11, emp. added). In two of the more challenging sections of Scripture, Paul wrote: “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:4-6, ESV). “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another…. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse…. Repay no one evil for evil…. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:9-18).No Christian can be a racist, and any racist who claims to be a Christian is, in truth, a liar. As the apostle John explained, “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also” (1 John 4:20-21).“[W]hatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor [regardless of his or her color and ethnicity—EL]. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:9-10, NIV).

#5—JESUS IS EVERYONE’S SAVIOR

In one of the earliest Messianic prophecies, God promised Abraham that it would be through One of his descendants that “all the nations” and “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 22:18; 12:3, emp. added). It certainly was an honor for Abraham’s family to be chosen as the one through whom the Savior of the world would come, but Jesus did not come only to save the Jews. God did not enact a plan of salvation to save one particular color of people. He did not send Jesus to take away the sins of a particular ethnic group or nation. Jesus is the answer to the whole world’s sin problem; He is “the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14). “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, thatwhoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16-17, emp. added).“God…desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4, emp. added). For this reason, “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations” (Luke 24:47, emp. added)—to people of all colors, in all cultures, in whatever countries.The Gospel “is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16, emp. added). And when individuals in the world “obey the Gospel” (2 Thessalonians 1:8; see

Lyons and Butt

, n.d.) and are added to the Lord’s Church by God Himself (Acts 2:47), we allbecome one in Christ Jesus. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:29).

CONCLUSION

I do not claim to be an expert on race relations, but I know that some people genuinely struggle with the sin of racism. Some struggle with being the recipients of racism, which in turn may cause them to be tempted to react in racist ways. Others struggle with cowardly silence as they tolerate the sin of racism in their homes, churches, schools, businesses, and communities. Still others seem so preoccupied with advancing their own racial agenda that they appear to hastily interpret most everything as a racial problem, when most things are not.Jesus once taught the hypocrites of His day, saying, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). May God help us to see as He sees: “for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). What a better world this would be if everyone realized the foolishness of judging a book by its cover. Racism really is ridiculous.

REFERENCES

Huxley, Thomas (1865), “Emancipation—Black and White,” http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE3/B&W.html.Lyons, Eric (2011), “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101&topic=95

.Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (no date), Receiving the Gift of Salvation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press),

http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Receiving%20the%20Gift%20of%20Salvation.pdf

.Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2009), “Darwin, Evolution, and Racism,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2654

.Marchant, Jo (2008), “We Should Act Like the Animals We Are,” New Scientist, 200[2678]:44-45, October 18-24.Mounce, William D. (1993), Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Copyright © 2015 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in part or 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) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (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, excepting brief quotations, 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 [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

8:38 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

IS BAPTISM SIMPLY AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE?---BY STEVE FINNELL

Is baptism essential to receive forgiveness of sins or is it simply an act of obedience?

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (NKJV)

Baptism is essential to forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them , "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (NKJV)

Baptism is not simply an act of obedience it is in order to receive forgiveness from sins.

ACTS OF OBEDIENCE THAT ARE NOT FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

1. Attending worship services.

2. Acts of evangelism.

3. Financial support of the Lord's church.

4. Doing good works.

5. Loving your neighbor as yourself

Simple acts of obedience are not in order to the forgiveness of sins.

ACTS OF OBEDIENCE THAT SAVE MEN.

1. Faith: John 3:16

2. Repentance: Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19

3. Confession: Romans 10:9-10

4. Immersion in water: Marl 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16

BAPTISM IS NOT SIMPLY AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE. THERE IS A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN BAPTISM AND SALVATION

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

7:44 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

WATER BAPTISM DENIERS BY STEVE FINNELL

Water baptism deniers claim that you can ignore Mark 16:16 because some of the earliest manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20. The problem is there are 60+ Bible translations that include those verses. I know of no English translation of the Bible that omits Mark 16:9-20. Yes, these same deniers have Mark 16:16 in the Bible they read. That does not keep them from explaining away that truth of Mark 16:16.

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (NKJV)

If the deniers cannot convince you that Mark 16:16 is not the inspired word of God. They will deny that "and" is a conjunction.

And Defined: A conjunction is used to grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses.[Ref. Dictionary.com]

Examples

1. Mark 16:16  He who believes and is baptized will be saved..(NKJV)

2. Acts 2:38 ...Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...(NKJV)

3. You need an engine and gasoline to start your automobile. You cannot start your car by the engine alone.

4. Your doctor says you need surgery and a blood transfusion in order to live. You cannot live by surgery alone.

5. You must have a house with walls, and a roof and a heating system to keep your house warm in winter. You cannot keep warm by a house with walls alone.

Denying that the Bible includes Mark 16:16 does not prove that water baptism is not essential in order to be saved.

Denying that "and" is a conjunction does not mean that you can have your sins forgiven without being baptized in water.

It takes a skilled professional to convince men that immersion in water (that is baptism) is not essential in order to be saved from the penalty of sin.

Honestly seeking God's truth trumps the erroneous teaching of skilled professionals every time it is tried.      

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:41 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

DOES PREACHING THE TRUTH PROMOTE HARMONY AND UNITY?----BY STEVE FINNELL

Does preaching the Biblical truth found in the new testament Scriptures lead to harmony, unity, and acceptance by the world and by believers in Jesus Christ? No, it does not.

Matthew 10:34-36 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.(NASB)

Anyone who has the audacity to preach or teach

the truth as found in the new testament Scriptures will not only be criticized by family members, but ostracized by fellow Christians and the world as well.

The truth in Christ promotes conflict with those who reject God's written word.

Jesus was crucified for not only preaching truth, but for being the Truth.

Eleven out of the twelve apostles were executed for preaching the truth.

Truth that causes conflict.

1. Teaching that immersion in water is essential to salvation. (Mark 16:16)

2. Proclaiming that Jesus is the only way to heaven. (John 14:6)

3. Teaching that is a sin to worship by praying to the Virgin Mary.(Matthew 4:10)

4. Teaching that Christians can lose their salvation.(1 Timothy 4:1-5)

5. Teaching that Christians should avoid those who cause division by teaching false doctrine. (Romans 16:17)

6. Teaching that men have the free-will to accept or reject the gospel. (John 3:16)

Preaching God's truth does not promote peace among those who do not love the truth.(2 Thessalonians 2:10 and with all deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.)NASB

         Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:39 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 2016

TRUST GOD OR NOT? BY STEVE FINNELL

When Christians are ask if they trust God; most would respond in the affirmative. Do Christians really believe God is trustworthy?

How do Christian respond when asked, do they believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? For many, the trust, in God starts to wane at this point. An all too common reply, is of course the Bible is God's word, however, the Scriptures were recorded and translated into other languages my mere men. We know men make mistakes.

What is mystifying to me is how believers in Christ can proclaim that they believe God created the heavens and the earth, but do not believe God has the power to direct men to record and translate His word without error. Would that be a God you could trust?

Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone , but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'" (NASB)

Jesus said men should live on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. How would that be possible if the Bible is not the infallible word of God?

1 John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.(NASB)

John said we know Jesus if we keep His commandments. If the Bible is not God's incontrovertible truth, how can we know we are keeping the commandments of Jesus?

THE GOD I WORSHIP HAS THE POWER TO PRODUCE A BIBLE THAT IS INERRANT, FACTUAL, INFALLIBLE, FREE FROM ERROR, LITERAL IN HISTORICAL ACCURACY, TRANSLATED CORRECTLY, AND YES, INSPIRED BY GOD HIMSELF.

There those who agree that the Bible is the inerrant word of God but then state that you have to be a Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scholar to understand the meaning of Scripture.

In order to understand the Bible you have to understand whatever language translation you are reading. If English is your first language then you should use an English translation, if German is your primary language then read a German translation, if you are Greek then read a Greek translation etc.

It is not ironic that they do not believe you have be a Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scholar to under Joshua 10:13, however, in order to understand Acts 2:38 you have be not only have to be a Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scholar, but an English professor as well.

Joshua 10:13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.

The "scholar police" accept Joshua 10:13 at face value; as well they should.

The "scholar police" believe you have to be a Greek scholar and an English professor to understand Acts 2:38.

The "scholar police" have an agenda. There goal is to convince the world that water baptism is not essential to have sins forgiven.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(The Thompson Chain -Reference Bible NIV)

You do not have to be a Greek scholar or an English professor to understand what "so that your sins may be forgiven" means.

Acts 2:38 Peter told them, "you must repent  and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus , so that you may have your sins forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(The New Testament in Modern English by J. B. Phillips)

If you have a fifth grade reading level you are capable of understand the meaning of "so that you may have your sins forgiven."

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Let each one of you repent and be immersed, in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to the remission of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (The Better Version of The New Testament by Chester Estes)

"In order to the remission of sins" means the same thing whether you are a Greek scholar, a professor in English or a novice Christian.

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NASB)

It does not matter if you are a Greek scholar, or an English professor; "for the forgiveness or your sins" means exactly what it says.

DO NOT LET THE "SCHOLAR POLICE" CONVINCE YOU, THAT ONLY AN ELITE FEW CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE.

CONTRARY TO THE "SCHOLAR POLICE" WATER BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL TO HAVE YOUR SINS FORGIVEN!      

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:00 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

SUNDAY, AUGUST 28, 2016

EVOLUTION OR CREATION?   BY STEVE FINNELL

Where did mankind come from? Evolution Or God?

Evolutionists claim man came from bacteria through monkeys.(A theory)

The Bible claims man was created by God through Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 3:9....God who created all things through Jesus Christ; NKJV)

Two choices. Only one answer.

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

1:14 PM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

IS INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY?  BY STEVE FINNELL

Is it possible to teach God's truth about Jesus Christ and be intellectually dishonest?

Example: Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NASB)

Would it be intellectually honest to say that baptized for the forgiveness of sins actually means you are baptized because your sins have already been forgiven?

Would it be intellectually honest to say that to repent for the forgiveness of sins actually means you have repented because your sins have already been forgiven? [Repentance is the intellectual commitment to turn from sin and to repent of unbelief and to turn toward God]

When you take an aspirin "for" a headache you are not taking an aspirin because your headache has already been cured.

To say that "for" in Acts 2:38 does not mean "in order to" is being intellectually dishonest.

Matthew 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins, (NASB)

It would be intellectually dishonest to assert that Jesus shed His blood because the sins of men had already been forgiven. Jesus shed His blood "for" [in order to] the forgiveness of sins.

     Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

11:45 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

SATURDAY, AUGUST 27, 2016

13 Objections to Baptismby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

S

ome churches historically have taught that water immersion is the dividing line between the lost and the saved. This means that a penitent believer remains unforgiven of sin until buried in the waters of baptism (Romans 6:4). Much of the denominational world disagrees with this analysis of Bible teaching, holding instead that one is saved at the point of “belief,” before and without water baptism. Consider some of the points that are advanced in an effort to minimize the essentiality of baptism for salvation.

OBJECTION #1: “JESUS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS BECAUSE HE WAS SINLESS; THEREFORE, PEOPLE TODAY ARE NOT BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO BE FORGIVEN. THEY MERELY IMITATE JESUS’ EXAMPLE.”

The baptism to which Jesus submitted Himself was John’s baptism (Matthew 3:13; Mark 1:9). John’s baptism was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). This truth is particularly evident from the fact that when Jesus presented Himself to John for baptism, John sought to deter Him, noting that, if anything, Jesus needed to baptize John (Matthew 3:14). Jesus did not correct John, as many seek to do today, by falsely arguing that baptism is not for remission of sins. Rather, Jesus, in effect, agreed with John, but made clear that His baptism was an exception to the rule.Jesus’ baptism was unique and not to be compared to anyone else’s baptism. Jesus’ baptism had the unique purpose of “fulfilling all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). In other words, it was necessary for Jesus to submit to John’s baptism (1) to show His contemporaries that no one is exempt from submitting to God’s will and (2) more specifically, Christ’s baptism was God’s appointed means of pinpointing for the world the precise identity of His Son. It was not until John saw the Spirit of God descending on Jesus and heard the voice (“This is My Son...”) that he knew that “this is the Son of God” (John 1:31-34; Matthew 3:16-17).Of course, John’s baptism is no longer valid (Acts 18:24-19:5). John’s baptism paralleled New Testament baptism in the sense that both were for the forgiveness of sins. But John’s baptism was transitional in nature, preparing Jews for their Messiah. Baptism after the cross is for all people (Matthew 28:19), in Jesus’ name (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 19:5), into His death (Romans 6:3), in order to be clothed with Him (Galatians 3:27), and added to His church (Acts 2:47; 1 Corinthians 12:13). We must not use Jesus’ baptism to suggest that salvation occurs prior to baptism.

OBJECTION #2: “THE THIEF ON THE CROSS WAS NOT BAPTIZED, AND HE WAS SAVED.”

When we “handle aright the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), we see that the thief was not subject to the New Testament command of immersion because this command was not given until after the thief’s death.¹ It was not until Christ was resurrected that He said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). It was not until Christ’s death that the Old Testament ceased, signified by the tearing of the Temple curtain (Matthew 27:51). When Jesus died, He took away the Old Testament, “nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14).The word “testament” means “covenant” or “will.” The last will and testament of Christ is the New Testament, which consists of those teachings that apply to people after the death of Christ. If we expect to receive the benefits of the New Testament (salvation, forgiveness of sin, eternal life), we must submit to the terms of the will for which Christ is mediator (Hebrews 9:15), for “where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator; for a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives” (Hebrews 9:16-17).So prior to the Lord’s death and the sealing of the New Testament, the baptism for the forgiveness of sins that would be in effect after the crucifixion was not a requirement for those who sought to be acceptable to God. Indeed, while Jesus was on Earth in person, He exercised His authority to forgive sin (Matthew 9:6). People now, however, live during the Christian era of religious history. Prior to Christ’s death, there were no Christians (Acts 11:26). For a person to reject water baptism as a prerequisite to salvation on the basis of what the thief did or did not do, is comparable to Abraham seeking salvation by building an ark—because that’s what Noah did to please God. It would be like the rich young ruler (Matthew 19) refusing Christ’s directive to sell all his possessions—because wealthy King David did not have to sell his possessions in order to please God.The thief on the cross could not have been baptized the way the new covenant stipulates you and I must be baptized. Why? Romans 6:3-4 teaches that if we wish to acquire “newness of life,” we must be baptized into Christ’s death, be buried with Christ in baptism, and then be raised from the dead. There was no way for the thief to comply with this New Testament baptism—Christ had not died! Christ had not been buried! Christ had not been raised! In fact, none of God’s ordained teachings pertaining to salvation in Christ (2 Timothy 2:10), and in His body the Church (Acts 2:47; Ephesians 1:22-23), had been given. The church, which Christ’s shed blood purchased (Acts 20:28), had not been established, and was not set up until weeks later (Acts 2).

2

We must not look to the thief as an example of salvation. Instead, we must obey “from the heart that form of doctrine” (Romans 6:17)—the form of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection through baptism (Romans 6:3-4). Only then can we be “made free from sin to become the servants of righteousness” (Romans 6:18).

OBJECTION #3: “THE BIBLE SAYS, ‘CHRIST STANDS AT THE DOOR OF YOUR HEART,’ AND ALL WE HAVE TO DO TO BE FORGIVEN OF SIN AND BECOME A CHRISTIAN IS TO INVITE HIM INTO OUR HEARTS.”

It is no doubt startling to discover that the Bible simply does not say such a thing. The phraseology is reminiscent of Revelation 3:20—the passage usually invoked to support the idea. But examine what Revelation 3:20 actually teaches. Revelation chapters 2 and 3 consist of seven specific messages directed to seven churches of Christ in Asia Minor in the first century. Thus, at the outset, we must recognize that Revelation 3:20 is addressed toChristians—not non-Christians seeking conversion to Christ.Second, Revelation 3:20 is found among Christ’s remarks to the church in Laodicea. Jesus made clear that the church had moved into a lost condition. The members were unacceptable to God since they were “lukewarm” (3:16). They had become unsaved since their spiritual condition was “wretched and miserable and poor” (3:17). Thus, in a very real sense, Jesus had abandoned them by removing His presence from their midst. Now He was on the outside looking in. He still wanted to be among them, but the decision was up to them. They had to recognize His absence, hear Him knocking for admission, and open the door—all of which is figurative language indicating their need to repent (3:19). They needed to return to the obedient lifestyle essential to sustaining God’s favor (John 14:21,23).Observe that Revelation 3:20 in no way supports the idea that non-Christians merely have to “open the door of their heart” and “invite Jesus in” with the assurance that the moment they mentally/verbally do so, Jesus comes into their heart and they are simultaneously saved from all past sin and have become Christians. The context of Revelation 3:20 shows that Jesus was seeking readmission into an apostate church.Does the Bible teach that Christ comes into a person’s heart? Yes, but not in the way the religious world suggests. For instance, Ephesians 3:17 states that Christ dwells in the heartthrough faith. Faith can be acquired only by hearing biblical truth (Romans 10:17). When Bible truth is obeyed, the individual is “saved by faith” (Hebrews 5:9; James 2:22; 1 Peter 1:22). Thus Christ enters our lives when we “draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience [i.e, repentance—DM] and our bodies washed with pure water [i.e., baptism—DM]” (Hebrews 10:22).

OBJECTION #4: “A PERSON IS SAVED THE MOMENT HE ACCEPTS CHRIST AS HIS PERSONAL SAVIOR—WHICH PRECEDES AND THEREFORE EXCLUDES WATER BAPTISM.”

To suggest that all one has to do to receive the forgiveness of God and become a Christian is to mentally accept Jesus into his heart and make a verbal statement to that effect, is to dispute the declaration of Jesus in Matthew 7:21—“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” To be sure, oral confession of Christ is one of the prerequisites to salvation (Romans 10:10). But Jesus said there is more to becoming a blood-bought follower of His than verbally “calling on his name”

3

or “inwardly accepting Him as Savior.” He stated that before we can even consider ourselves as God’s children (Christians), we must show our acceptance of His gift through outward obedience—“He that does the will of My Father.” Notice the significant contrast Jesus made: the difference between mental/verbal determination to accept and follow the Lord, versus verbal confession coupled with action or obedience (cf. James 2:14,17). This is why we must do everything the Lord has indicated must be done prior to salvation. Jesus is telling us that it is possible to make the mistake of claiming we have found the Lord, when we have not done what He plainly told us to do.Jesus said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Jesus also stated: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Honestly, have you accepted Christ as your personal savior—in the way He said it must be done? He asks: “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46, emp. added).

OBJECTION #5: “WE ARE CLOTHED WITH CHRIST AND BECOME HIS CHILDREN WHEN WE PLACE OUR FAITH IN HIM.”

Read Galatians 3:26-27: “You are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” The words “put on” (NKJV) are a translation of the Greek verb enduo which signifies “to enter into, get into, as into clothes, to put on.” Can we be saved prior to “putting Christ on” or “being clothed” with Christ? Of course not. But when and how does one put on Christ—according to Paul? When one is baptized in water. Those who teach we can be saved before baptism are, in reality, teaching we can be saved while spiritually naked and without Christ! Paul affirms that we “put on” Christ at the point of our baptism—not before.Paul wrote these words to people who were already saved. They had been made “sons of God by faith.” But how? At what point had they “been clothed with Christ”? When were they made “sons of God by faith”? When were they saved? Paul makes the answer to these questions very plain: they were united with Christ, had put on Christ, and were clothed with Christ—when they were baptized. Ask yourself if you have been clothed with Christ.

OBJECTION #6: “BAPTISM IS LIKE A BADGE ON A UNIFORM THAT MERELY GIVES EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON IS ALREADY SAVED.”

The New Testament nowhere expounds the idea that baptism is merely a “badge” or “outward sign of an inward grace.” Yes, baptism can biblically be referred to as a symbolicact; but what does it symbolize? Previous forgiveness? No! Romans 6 indicates that baptism symbolizes the previous death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Thus the benefits of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (remember, Jesus’ blood, which blots out sin, was shed in the context of His death, burial, and resurrection) are realized and received by the individual when he obediently (in penitent faith) submits to a similar ordeal, i.e., the death of his own “old man” or “body of sin” (Romans 6:6), burial (immersion into a watery tomb), and resurrection (rising from the watery tomb).Denominational doctrine maintains that forgiveness of sin is received prior to baptism. If so, the “new life” of the saved individual would also begin prior to baptism. Yet Paul said the “new life” occurs after baptism. He reiterated this to the Colossians. The “putting off of the body of the flesh by Christ’s circumcision” (Colossians 2:11) is accomplished in the context of water immersion and being “risen with Him” (Colossians 2:12). Chapter 3 then draws the important observation: “If then you were raised with Christ [an undeniable reference to baptism—DM], seek those things which are above” [an undeniable reference to the new life which follows—not precedes—baptism].

OBJECTION #7: “BAPTISM IS A MERITORIOUS WORK, WHEREAS WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE, NOT WORKS.”

“Works” or “steps” of salvation do not imply that one “merits” his salvation upon obedient compliance with those actions. Rather, “steps” or “a process” signifies the biblical concept of preconditions, stipulations of faith, or acts of obedience—what James called “works” (James 2:17). James was not saying that one can earn his justification (James 2:24). Rather, he was describing the active nature of faith, showing that saving faith, faith that is alive—as opposed to dead and therefore utterly useless (2:20)—is the only kind that is acceptable to God, a faith that obeys whatever actions God has indicated must be done. The obedience of both Abraham and Rahab is set forth as illustrative of the kind of faith James says is acceptable. They manifested their trust by actively doing what God wanted done. Such obedient or active trust is the only kind that avails anything. Thus, an obedient response is essential.The actions themselves are manifestations of this trust that justifies, not the trust itself. But notice that according to James, you cannot have one without the other. Trust, or faith, isdead, until it leads one to obey the specifications God assigned. Here is the essence of salvation that separates those who adhere to biblical teaching from those who have been adversely influenced by the Protestant reformers. The reformers reacted to the unbiblical concept of stacking bad deeds against good deeds in an effort to offset the former by the latter (cf. Islam). Unfortunately, the reactionary reformers went to the equally unacceptable, opposite extreme by asserting that man need “only believe” (Luther) or man can do nothing at all (Calvin). The truth is between these two unbiblical extremes.From Genesis to Revelation, faith is the trusting, obedient reaction that humans manifest in response to what God offers. This is the kind of “justification by faith” that Paul expounded in Romans. Like red flags at the very beginning (1:5) and at the end (16:26) of his divinely inspired treatise, he defined what he meant by “faith” with the words “obedient faith” (hupakoeinpisteos), i.e., faith that obeys, obedience which springs from faith.

4

This fact is precisely why God declared His willingness to fulfill the promises He made to Abraham: “because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5). Hence, in Romans Paul could speak of the necessity of walking “in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had” (Romans 4:12). Until faith obeys, it is useless and cannot justify.The Hebrews writer made the same point in Hebrews 11. The faith we see in Old Testament “men of faith” availed only after they obeyed God-given stipulations. God rewards those who “diligently seek Him” in faith (vs. 6). Noah “became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” when he “prepared an ark.” If he had not complied with divine instructions, he would have been branded as “unfaithful.” The thing that made the difference, that constituted the line of demarcation between faith and lack of faith, was obedient action—what James called “works,” and Paul called “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). In this sense, even faith is a “work” (John 6:29). Hebrews 11 repeatedly reinforces this eternal principle: (1) God offers grace (which may at any point in history consist of physical blessings, e.g., healing, salvation from enemies, land or property, etc., or spiritual blessings, e.g., justification, forgiveness, salvation from sin, being made righteous, etc.); (2) man responds in obedient trust (i.e., “faith”) by complying with the stipulated terms; and (3) God bestows the blessing.It would be wrong to think that man’s obedient response earns or merits the subsequent blessing. Such simply does not logically follow. All blessings God bestows on man are undeserved (Luke 17:10). His rich mercy and loving grace is freely offered and made available—though man never deserves such kindness (Titus 2:11). Still, a non-meritorious response is absolutely necessary if unworthy man is to receive certain blessings.

OBJECTION #8: “NOT ONLY IS BAPTISM NONESSENTIAL TO SALVATION, EVEN FAITH IS A GIFT FROM GOD TO A PERSON. MAN IS SO DEPRAVED THAT HE IS INCAPABLE OF BELIEVING.”

Surely, God’s infinite justice would not permit Him to force man to desire God’s blessings. God’s intervention into man’s woeful condition was not in the form of causing man to desire help or miraculously generating faith within man. God intervened by giving His inspired Word, which tells how He gave His Son to make a way for man to escape eternal calamity. Faith is then generated in the individual by God’s words which the person must read and understand (Romans 10:17; Acts 8:30). The individual then demonstrates his faith in obedience.Did the walls of Jericho fall down “by faith” (Hebrews 11:30)? Absolutely. But the salient question is: “When?” Did the walls fall the moment the Israelites merely “believed” that they would fall? No! Rather, when the people obeyed the divine directives. The walls fell “by faith”after the people met God’s conditions. If the conditions had not been met, the walls would not have fallen down “by faith.” The Israelites could not claim that the walls fell by their own effort, or that they earned the collapse of the walls. The city was given to them by God as an undeserved act of His grace (Joshua 6:2). To receive the free gift of the city, the people had to obey the divinely stipulated prerequisites.Notice the capsuling nature of Hebrews 11:6. Faith or belief is not given by God. It is something that man does in order to please God. The whole chapter is predicated on the fundamental idea that man is personally responsible for mustering obedient trust. God does not “regenerate man by His call, thus enabling man to respond.” God “calls” individuals through, by means of, His written Word (2 Thessalonians 2:14). In turn, the written Word can generate faith in the individual (Romans 10:17). How unscriptural to suggest that man is so “totally depraved” that he cannot even believe, thus placing God in the position of demanding something from man (John 8:24) of which man is inherently incapable. But the God of the Bible would not be guilty of such injustice.Some people approach passages like Romans 10:17 in this fashion: (1) God chooses to save an individual; (2) God gives him the free gift of faith; and (3) God uses the Gospel to stir up the faith which He has given the person. Yet neither Romans 10:17, nor any other passage, even hints at such an idea. The text states explicitly that faith comes from hearing Christ’s Word. Notice verse 14, where the true sequence is given: (1) the preacher preaches; (2) the individual hears the preached word; and (3) believes. This sequence is a far cry from suggesting that God miraculously imparts faith to a person, and then the Holy Spirit “stirs up” the faith. Such a notion has God giving man a defective faith which then needs to be stirred up. The text makes clear that God has provided for faith to be generated (i.e., originated) by the preached Word. God does not arbitrarily intervene and impose faith upon the hearts of a select group of individuals.According to 1 Corinthians 1:21, mankind did not know God, so God transmitted His message through inspired preachers so that those who respond in faith would be saved. Paul wrote in Romans 1:16 that this gospel message is God’s power to save those who believe it. Notice that the Gospel is what Paul preached (vs. 15). Thus the preached message from God generates faith and enables people to be saved.We see the same in Acts 2:37. What pierced the hearts of the listeners? Obviously, the sermon. Acts 2:37 is a demonstration of Romans 10:17—“faith comes by hearing…the word of God.” God did not change the hearts of the people miraculously; Peter’s words did. If denominational doctrine is correct, when the Jews asked the apostles what they should do, Peter should have said: “There’s nothing you can do. You are so totally depraved, you can’t do anything. God will regenerate you; He will cause you to believe (since faith is His ‘free gift’).” Yet, quite to the contrary, Peter told them that they needed to do some things. And they were things that God could not do for them.First, they were required to “repent.” Biblical repentance is a change of mind (Matthew 21:29). A “turning” follows repentance (Acts 3:19) and consists of some specified action subsequent to the change of mind. John the Baptizer called this turning activity, which follows repentance and serves as evidence that repentance has occurred, “fruits” (Matthew 3:8). After being convicted (Acts 2:37—i.e., believing the truth of Peter’s contentions), they were told to “repent,” to change their minds about their previous course of life. What else were they to do?Peter did not tell them to “repent and believe.” Their belief was already abundantly evident in their pricked hearts and their fervent petition for instructions. What was lacking? Peter said (i.e., God said) they still lacked baptism. Remember, the only difference between dead faith and saving faith is outward action—compliance with all actions that God specifies as necessary before He will freely bestow unmerited favor in the form of forgiveness.Thus baptism marked the point at which God would count them righteous if they first believed and repented. Baptism served as the line of demarcation between the saved and the lost. Jesus’ blood could wash their sins away only at the point of baptism.

OBJECTION #9: “THE PREPOSITION ‘FOR’ IN THE PHRASE ‘FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS’ IN ACTS 2:38 MEANS ‘BECAUSE OF.’ HENCE, THEY WERE BAPTIZED BECAUSE OF SINS FOR WHICH THEY WERE FORGIVEN WHEN THEY BELIEVED.”

The English word “for” has, as one of its meanings, “because of.” However, the Greek preposition eis that underlies the English word “for” never has a causal function. It always has its primary, basic, accusative thrust: unto, into, to, toward. We must not go to the text, decide what we think it means, and assign a grammatical meaning that coincides with our preconceived understanding. We must begin with the inspired grammar and seek to understand every text in light of the normal, natural, common meaning of the grammatical and lexical construction. The same grammatical construction of Acts 2:38 is found in Matthew 26:28—“into the remission of sins” (eisaphesin hamartion). Jesus’ blood, the blood of the covenant, was undeniably shed for many “in order to acquire remission of sins.” This is the natural and normal meaning of the Greek preposition—toward, in the direction of. Had the Holy Spirit intended to say that baptism is “because of” or “on account of” past forgiveness, He would have used the Greek preposition that conveys that very idea: dia with the accusative.Similarly, in Acts 2:38, if repentance is not “because of” remission of sins, neither is baptism. Regardless of person and number considerations, Peter told his hearers to do both things. The act of baptism (connected to the act of repentance by the coordinate conjunction) cannot be extricated from the context of remission of sins by any stretch.

OBJECTION #10: “WHEN THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER ASKED WHAT TO DO TO BE SAVED, HE WAS SIMPLY TOLD TO BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.”

As further proof that God does not miraculously bestow faith on a person through the Holy Spirit, observe that Paul told the jailer that he (the jailer) had to believe; he did not answer the jailer’s question with: “You don’t have to do anything. God will give you faith.” On the contrary, Paul and Silas told him that he had to manifest faith in Jesus. But was this pagan jailer in a position at that moment to do so? No, he would have to be taught Who, how, and what to believe. No wonder, then, Luke records immediately: “they spoke the word of the Lord to him” (Acts 16:32). If Romans 10:17 can be trusted, the words which Paul and Silas proclaimed generated faith in the jailer. And those same words surely included the necessity of repentance and baptism, because the jailer immediately manifested the fruit of repentance (by washing their stripes), and likewise was immediately baptized (not waiting until morning or the weekend). Observe carefully Luke’s meticulous documentation, that it was only afterthe jailer believed, repented, and was baptized, that the jailer was in a position to rejoice. Only then did Luke describe the jailer as “having believed in God” (vs. 34), i.e., now standing in a state of perfected belief.

5

OBJECTION #11: “SAUL WAS SAVED BEFORE AND WITHOUT BAPTISM WHILE HE WAS ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS WHEN JESUS APPEARED TO HIM.”

The actual sequence of events delineated in Acts shows that Saul was not saved while on the road to Damascus. Jesus identified Himself and then accused Saul of being a persecutor (Acts 9:5). Saul “trembled” and was “astonished” (hardly the description of a saved individual), and pleadingly asked what he should do—a clear indication that he had just been struck with his lost and undone condition.This question has the exact same force as the Pentecostians’ question (Acts 2:37) and the jailer’s question (Acts 16:30). All three passages are analogous in their characterization of individuals who had acted wrongly (i.e., the Pentecostians had crucified Jesus, Saul was persecuting Christians, and the jailer had kept innocent Christians jailed). Likewise, in each instance, the candidates for conversion are portrayed as unhappy (i.e., the Pentecostians were “cut to the heart,” Saul “trembled” and “was astonished,” and the jailer “came trembling”—i.e., he was frightened). They were scared, miserable individuals, suddenly brought face to face with their horribly unacceptable status before God. Such is hardly an apt description for saved individuals. Where is the joy, peace, and excitement that comes when one’s sins have been washed away?Saul was not forgiven on the road to Damascus—he still needed to be told what he “must do” (Acts 9:6). He still lacked “hearing the word of the Lord.” The only way for Saul to hear the Gospel was through the agency of a preacher (Romans 10:14; 1 Corinthians 1:21).  Similarly, an angel told Cornelius (Acts 10:4) that his prayers and money had gone up for a memorial before God—yet he was unsaved. He needed to contact an inspired preacher, Peter, “who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved” (Acts 11:14). Likewise, before Saul could learn of God’s plan that he be the great “apostle of the Gentiles,” he first needed to hear the Gospel expounded and told how to respond to what God offered in Christ.Rather than tell him what he needed to do to be saved, Jesus told him to go into the city, where a preacher (Ananias) would expound to him the necessity of salvation. Notice: Saul waited in Damascus for three days without food and drink, and was still blind. Here’s an individual who was still miserable, unhappy, and unsaved, awaiting instructions on how to change his unfortunate status. Acts 9:18 condenses Saul’s response to the preached Word, while Acts 22 elaborates a little further on the significance of Saul’s response. Ananias said, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).Notice Ananias’ inspired connection between baptism and sins being cleansed. If Saul was saved prior to baptism, it was wrong for Ananias to say that Saul still had sins that needed to be washed away. Ananias did not congratulate Saul because his sins already were washed away, and tell him that he needed to be baptized only as a “badge” or “outward symbol” or “picture” of what had already occurred. He plainly said Saul’s sins yet needed to be washed away. That can be accomplished only by Jesus’ blood in the act of baptism. The water does not cleanse the sin-stained soul—Jesus does. And Ananias clearly stated when(not how or by Whom) that occurs. If Saul’s penitent faith would not lead him to submit to water immersion, he could not have had his sins washed away by Jesus. Instead, he would have remained in opposition to Jesus. Remember, Scripture never portrays baptism as symbolic of previous sin removal. The only symbolism ever attached to the act of baptism is its (1) likeness to Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5); (2) its comparison to the removal of sin like circumcision removes skin (Colossians 2:12); and (3) its likeness to Noah’s emergence from a sinful world (1 Peter 3:20-21). God literally (not symbolically) removes sin and justifies the individual by grace, through faith, at the point of baptism.

OBJECTION #12: “IF BAPTISM IS NECESSARY TO SALVATION, JESUS WOULD HAVE SAID, ‘BUT HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE AND IS NOT BAPTIZED WILL BE CONDEMNED’ IN MARK 16:16. AND BESIDES, THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK 16 ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE OLDEST AND BEST GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.”

The omission of “and is not baptized” in Mark 16:16 is completely logical and necessary. The first phrase (“he who believes and is baptized”) describes man’s complete response necessitated by the preaching of the Gospel: Faith must precede baptism, since obviously one would not submit to baptism if he did not first believe. It is non-essential to ascribe condemnation in the second clause to the individual who is not baptized, since the individual being condemned is the one who does not initially believe. The person who refuses to believe “is condemned already” (John 3:18) and certainly would not be interested in the next item of compliance—baptism. He who does not believe would obviously not be baptized—and even if he would, his failure to first believe disqualifies him from being immersed. Only penitent believers are candidates for baptism. An exact grammatical parallel would be: “He who goes to the store and buys coffee for his father will receive $5.00. He who does not go to the store will be spanked.” Obviously, if the child refuses to go to the store, he would not be in a position to buy coffee, and it would be redundant—even grammatically and linguistically inappropriate—to include the failure to purchase the coffee in the pronouncement of an impending spanking.Are the last verses of Mark 16 uninspired? The textual evidence supporting the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is exceptional in light of the vast sources available for establishing the original text. While it is true that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit the last 12 verses, it is positively misleading to assume that “the validity of these verses is weak.” In fact, the vast number of witnesses are in favor of the authenticity of verses 9-20. The rejection ofVaticanus is less weighty in light of its comparable exclusion of the Pastoral Epistles, the last part of Hebrews, and Revelation. The rejection of Sinaiticus is similarly unconvincing, since it includes some of the Apocryphal books.

6

OBJECTION #13: “ROMANS 10:9-10 INDICATES THAT ALL ONE NEEDS TO DO IS BELIEVE AND CONFESS JESUS.”

The use of eis in Romans 10:10 cannot mean “because of.” Verse nine explicitly says one will be saved “if” he confesses and believes in the heart. Confession and faith are therefore prerequisites to forgiveness. They are God-ordained “responses” to the preached Word (vs. 8) and must occur before salvation is imparted by God. In other words, one’s soul is purified when he obeys the truth (1 Peter 1:22). Jesus provides eternal salvation to those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:9).But is baptism excluded from salvation since only faith and confession are mentioned in Romans 10:9-10? Notice, four chapters earlier, the order of Romans 6:17-18: (1) slaves to sin; (2) person obeys; (3) made free from sin (righteous). Item (3) cannot occur unless item (2) occurs first. The “whole” of man is to reverence God and keep His commands(Ecclesiastes 12:13). To whom does God give the Holy Spirit? To those whom He arbitrarily chooses, without any consideration of the individual’s necessitated response? No. Acts 5:32 says God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. God has always conditioned the bestowal of spiritual blessing upon prior obedient response (Jeremiah 7:23; Genesis 26:4-5). Deuteronomy 5:10 says God shows mercy to those who love Him and keep His commands.In Romans 10, Paul is not stressing the specific aspects of the conversion process. That is not the context. Rather, the context addresses whether one is acceptable to God in the Christian dispensation due to physical heritage (i.e., race/ethnicity), versus whether one is saved when one complies with God’s instruction. Paul was stressing that their nationality could not bring the Jews into God’s favor. Rather, people are saved when they render obedience to the Gospel. He quoted Joel 2:32, where the emphasis is on the word “whosoever” in contrast to “Jews only.” Verse 12 argues that God does not distinguish on the basis of race. The individual’s response to the preached Word is the deciding factor. However, Romans 10 does not reveal all of the details of that obedient response. One must be willing to search out the whole truth on such a subject.If repentance is essential to salvation, one must concede that such teaching must come from some passage other than Romans 10. Does Romans 10:10 mean that repentance is unnecessary, just because it is unmentioned in the text? No, since repentance is required in chapter 2:4. If not, then why assume baptism to be nonessential simply because it is not mentioned in this particular text? It is enjoined in chapter 6:3-4. To ascertain the significance of baptism in God’s sight, one must go to passages that discuss that subject, rather than dismiss them in deference to verses on faith. If God says, “faith saves” (Romans 5:1), let us accept that truth. If God says, “baptism saves” (1 Peter 3:21), let us accept that truth, too! Jesus Himself said: belief + baptism = salvation (Mark 16:16), not belief = salvation + baptism.Notice also, Romans 10:10,13 does not say that salvation can be acquired by mere verbal confession (e.g., “I accept Jesus into my heart as my personal Savior”). Why?(1) Nowhere is the statement, “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior,” found in Scripture.(2) Jesus forever dashed the idea of salvation by mental acceptance/verbal profession alone in Matthew 7:21 and Luke 6:46, where He showed that oral confession alone is unacceptable. In every age, there have been specified actions of obedience that God has required before He would count individuals as pleasing or acceptable. In fact, if faith is not coupled with the appropriate obedient action (like baptism), then such faith is unable to justify. Such faith is imperfect (James 2:17,20,26) and therefore cannot save!(3) The phrase “call on the name of the Lord” is an idiomatic way to say: “respond with appropriate obedient actions.” It is the figure of speech known as synecdoche (i.e., the part stands for the whole). To “call” on God’s name is equivalent to saying, “Do what He tells you to do.” Isaiah 55:6 told the Jews of Isaiah’s day to call on God. Verse 7 explains how: (1) forsake wicked ways, (2) forsake wicked thoughts, (3) return to the Lord. To obey these three stipulations constituted “calling on God.”Likewise, those in Jerusalem who “called on the Lord’s name” (Acts 9:14,21) had done so, not solely by verbal confession, but by repentance and baptism for forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Similarly, Paul himself became a Christian, that is, he “called on the name of the Lord”—not by verbally confessing Christ—but by being baptized (Acts 22:16). For Paul, “calling on the Lord’s name” was equivalent to (not precedent to) being baptized. God washed his sins away by the blood of Jesus at the point of his baptism.

CONCLUSION

Though the bulk of Christendom for centuries has veered off into Calvinism and other post-first century theological thought, the meaning and design of baptism is determined by the New Testament. The verses in the New Testament that speak about baptism are definitive. They indicate that water immersion precedes salvation—along with faith, repentance, and confession of Christ’s deity. No objection has ever overturned this divinely intended function.

ENDNOTES

1

Although the thief may well have submitted to the precursor to NT baptism, i.e., John’s baptism, it also was “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).

2

See also Dave Miller (2003), “The Thief on the Cross,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1274&topic=86

.

3

Cf. Eric Lyons (2004), “Calling on the Name of the Lord,”

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/597

.

4

Rudolf Bultmann (1968), “πιστεύω,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982 reprint), 6:206; Fredrick William Danker (2000), “ὑπακοη,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition, p. 1028; James Denny (no date), “St. Paul’s Epistles to the Romans” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:587; J.B. Lightfoot (1895), Notes on Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan), p. 246; H.P.V. Nunn (1912), A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 42; Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor (1944), “A Note on ‘είς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως’ in Romans 1.5 and xvi.26,” The Expository Times, 55:305-306; A.T. Robertson (1931), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press), 4:324; Marvin Vincent (1946), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 3:5; W.E. Vine (1966), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell), p. 123.

5

W.M. Ramsay (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Houghton and Stoughton), p. 165.

6

For a more thorough discussion of this matter, see Dave Miller (2005), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25[12]:89-95, December,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780

.

Copyright © 2016 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or 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) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (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, excepting brief quotations, 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:

[gizmosisbuttons]

Episode 4 was a fandom wide callout post.

all you fools too busy being pissed bc Coran went all show crazy and basically re-characterized the paladins to what the masses found entertaining, to notice that the entire episode was literally a fandom wide call out post. they literally called us out guys. 

lets go over the list of things Coran said/did in ep 4 and compare them shall we?

let me preface this by saying he literally wasn't himself and i still love him just as much as before, my gorgeous man.

”I worked up very specific personas for each of you. This is going to help the audience connect on a much deeper level with each team member.” 

as if they didn't already have defining personalities that make them very likable and awesome? sounds familiar right? its one thing to speculate and theorize based on what we know about a character especially if we don’t know a lot about said character. the writers put a lot of time and effort into developing these characters and even said during an interview once that one of the things that bugged them about og Voltron was that the only properly developed character was Keith. the other guys didn't get a chance to be loved. and that was what they aimed to do, to give every paladin and character the chance to be loved. since the beginning the fandom has been bad at this. taking one teeny trait from each character and twisting them so that the only thing that matters is that trait. 

         “lover-boy lance”

throughout the series lance is known  to flirt with...pretty much every cute alien girl. of course. hes handsome, charming, girls love him. Coran wipes away all of the actually relatable things about his personality in favor of this charming flirt who would win over girls. Lance is insecure, he’s witty, he is the freaking sharpshooter, the teams sniper and their glue. he’s voltrons right hand now for a reason. he got into the garrison which is a military space exploration base, not just anyone gets in. hes incredibly intelligent and a great pilot. amazing really. bc simulations are always absolutely terrible and rarely help. oh yea, and hes charming.but god forbid anyone forget that hes a flirt. who cares about the other stuff that will actually help the audience connect with him. 

        “science wiz pidge” 

its no secret that pidge is incredibly intelligent. she is one of the characters who haven't gotten their developing points until this season. in one of the first flashbacks we learned she nearly gave up studying because some kid decided to be a dick and bully her. Matt pulled her out of it and encouraged her to work hard. later on in ep 4 coran says that her science doesn't need to be factually correct because noone will understand her either way. he undermined her intelligence because . well. noone cares what she says as long as it sounds smart. fanfic writers do this a lot. like. a lot. i understand that you may not have the same knowledge that the girl who hacked herself into a military school base undercover at he age of 14-15 (if the theory that the garrison is a high school program is correct) because she had gotten banned for sneaking in and hacking into the computer system, but if you really do insist on focusing her on her smarts, do some research. no to mention. pidge may be the youngest, but she really is more than science and calculations. shes intelligent yes, but she can hold her own in battle (at the age range of 15-17 with no prior battle training), shes afraid of the possible reality that all her efforts are wasted and Matt and Sam are dead, she is actually pretty social with the paladins (she can even be seen hanging out in the kitchen while hunk makes glass cookies.) and beyond her intelligence, shes wise. shes not just random science facts, she knows how to hold her own in situations outside of battle and books. shes street smart. 

       “lone wolf keith”

now i know this was said to allura, and ill get to that. but if the keith vlog showed us anything, its that  hes not just a moody loner teenager.  i am very guilty of this myself. i portray keith as a human disaster. we don’t know hen he was left alone, we don’t really know much of his story. i head canon that his dad left him to fend for himself but every month woul drop off food or money or something. i head canon hes terrible about taking care of his body. but at least i don’t call him moody and move on.  i give him a background to fill in the blank space, but sometimes i forget and focus too much on his folded arms and  pouty face. he smiles. he laughs. hes an actual precious bean.  but hes also afraid of being pushed away. hes guarded and does his best to be strong. he hides his feelings and protects his heart with everything he has. (geez boi who hurt you). he is not the human embodiment of “teenagers” by mcr. aka he has feelings too. not to mention he also got into the garrison, and was the top pilot regardless of how he got in, if it happened to be by recommendation like most people think. 

      “humourous hunk”

as a hunk stan this one annoys me the most. throughout the episode hunk is consistently embarrassed, and even protests the fart noises, fart jokes, etc. he is purposely tripped for laughs. the fandom forgets that hes not just the fat funny guy, or just the personal chef. hes overcome so much since babies first lion flight, he used to get sick, constantly had to be the voice of reason to keep his teammates out of trouble,  he is just as intelligent as pidge and is actually one of the only people that can keep up with her science stuff. keith and lance even stated that they didnt understand anything they'd said. hes a fantastic engineer even if he had a few tummy mishaps. hes an amazing pilot too, and extremely sassy. he and pidge probably rigged the game console to work in space, And hes pretty friendly and cautious. he is NOT meant to be the comic relief. (say it louder for people in the back)

     “shiro the hero”

a lot of the fandom has taken to calling shiro daddy, sexualizing him (”now put on this tight shirt”) and focusing on shiro and only shiro (shiros the “favorite character” of corans little show). hes great. he really is. and the man needs a break. voltron is a kids show. he isnt meant to  be sexualized, none of them are. hes more than his arms and his leadership abilities. the biggest issue i have with the whole shiro thing. regardless of if hes a clone, when shiro returned he cut his hair differently, and wore short sleeves. everyone i know, including me, said they'd be fine with the clone if he had kept his hair long and “as much as i love the arm view” and didnt change his outfit. its a kid show. his body shouldn't matter.i am also guilty of this, and ep 4 opened my eyes to it. coran lifted shiros arm as if to prove that thats what the audience really wanted. he treats shiro differently bc hes the real star here and everyone should know it. ofc, hes the black paladin. (i wonder where the whole “the black paladin is the only one who really matters here” mindset came from. looking @ u ‘84). shiros may have ptsd, and hes constantly trying to hold himself together for his team, and its obviously not easy. maybe thats why hes got a cute white floof. the stress. 

      alluras erasure  

another point that always bugged me. the fandom either forgets allura exists, or that she is just stealing lances place temporarily. Allura is the blue paladin. while keith is gone, she is not filling in. shes a paladin now too. for coran to call her keith, and constantly call her keith, even though she obviously has a few choice words to say about it, its distrespectful. she says his plan is working and he replies with “why thank you keith...i like to keep you in character” once again, erasing her existence. now im not as well versed in this particular topic, but id like you to keep in mind that he talks to his princess with that mouth, and that she IS the princess and not a fill in while keith leads. feel free to elaborate on this more. 

     coran “fires “ team voltron. 

this. i find extremely entertaining. remember that legal trouble last year bc of the leaks? and right around that time the klance shipper started threatening them if they didn't make it gayer and put keith and lance together? the  fandom, who wanted all of this to happen their way, were threatening to get it cancelled and such just because things didnt go their way. shiro, the leader, disagreed with coran and tries to shut him down. and coran in fit of rage says:

you're a bunch of quitters! quitters! i’m a visionary! i have thoughts, ideas, i dont need you anyway. ill rewrite the show, get rid of the whole lot of you, replace you with new paladins! and the show will be better than ever before!...except for you shiro, ill never get rid of you, you're our most popular character!

this is essentially what the fandom was saying. now, was this definitely their plan, to call us out with this bit, in not sure, but honestly, its almost too coincidental.

the writers have made it clear that they heard us, and have always been listening. and really, thats why i love ep4. you're angry because you know you got called out but haven't admitted it to yourself. the writers do their best to bring us the best show possible, but they cant satisfy everyone. why cant we just be happy about Actual Meme (tm) Matt, and look forward to season five instead of fighting them because we got our shit handed right back to us. weve gotten a  taste of our own medicine, so chill. i enjoy them keeping us on our toes, surprising us with every turn, theyre great writers.who cares if one or two things pissed you off? we both know youre not gonna stop watching.

#voltron #voltron season four #voltrons4 #voltron legendary defender #vld #takashi shirogane #keith kogane #hunk garrett #pidge gunderson #katie holt #matt holt #lance mcclain #coran hieronymus wimbleton smythe #coran #allura #voltron paladins #this is mostly me ranting #i rewatched the episode trying to get my points across. #callout post for the voltron fandom #callout post #shiro #honestly i wrote this almost 12 hours ago and i just woke up. so. #fight me if you want but you cant be mad at them because they hand your shit right back to you

[aquarianlights]

Coming out as transgender to people who you have absolutely no idea if they're going to reject you or not is worse and way more traumatic than coming out to people who you KNOW are going to reject you.

I'm literally fucking sobbing right now. Two of my oldest friends... Two people I have known since pre-k...maybe before that...Jymboree... That. That was before pre-k, right? Well, I've known them since Jymboree.........and I don't think either of them know I am transgender. One of them only just now found me on FB and we haven't spoken since... early college years. And the other...we haven't spoken in a few years.

I'm just coming out to them both RIGHT NOW....and I'm shaking and crying. I'm literally shaking and there are tears rolling down my cheeks.... I have known these two girls probably 24 of my 25 years of existence. Maybe almost a full 25. They were two of the biggest influences in my entire life....and they are like sisters who I grew up with.

I only found out I was transgender and not just "faking it/pretending to be a boy" around the age of 20-22ish. I honest to god thought I was pretending and my ex girlfriend breaking up with me after over 5 years of an LD relationship because she thought I was pretending, too, was possibly one of the most traumatic experiences of my life. Not THAT it happened...but how it happened. And the things I have experienced from being transgender... specifically from cishet males... is horrible.

And people misgendering me and just not understanding for some reason??? I'm sorry, but even if you're on the autism spectrum, you can understand when someone says they're a boy, they're a boy. You're not misunderstanding this because you're autistic; you're misunderstanding it because you're a white, cishet dude who apparently has a crush on me.

Receiving a text that says or someone saying "I'm sorry, but it's just weird for a me, being a straifght guy, to have a crush on you as a transboy." LET ME MAKE ONE THING CLEAR RIGHT FUCKING NOW: YOU EITHER HAVE A CRUSH ON ME OR YOU ARE NOT STRAIGHT. There is ///////////NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/////// inbetween. You cannot be male and like another male and call yourself straight. Can you? Then how can you like me and call yourself straight? I'm just as male as you are. Always have been, always will be. Before and after HRT + gender correction surgeries. Just because I am transgender and haven't transitioned yet does not make me ANY LESS of a man than you in ANY way.

There is literally no way in this world or logic or ANYTHING that can state factually that you can be straight and male and have a crush on me. I don't understand how a man can call himself straight if he has a crush on another man? Can someone explain that to me? Please? I'm just DYING to know. And for anyone who is autistic (I think I have like maybe 2 or 3 friends on the spectrum here on FB and who knows how many on tumblr where I'm gonna c/p this to), you have absolutely no excuse. If a fucking child can understand that I'm a man....so can you. Idk if autism and down syndrome are synonymous... I don't think they are, coz my cousin has down syndrome and he's not like any of the autistic people I've spoken with online... (So I'm a little confused there), BUT EVEN HE UNDERSTANDS I AM MALE OKAY! He can't even speak for himself or change himself or dress himself or do anything for himself. He holds a bagging position at a local grocery store with help. Other than that, that's about it. He is in his late 20's and he acts like a child...always pulling my hair, can't speak correctly, speaks through sounds and groans and motions, reacts emotionally like...toddler-like emotions...Stuff like that to give examples. And I thought, for the longest time (coz I was ignorant and sheltered) that that was what autism was.

Well, I'm sorry, but if my cousin WITH THAT SEVERITY OF DOWN SYNDROME (which may or may not be autism?????? I have no clue on any developmental issues coz I only have mental disorders and not developmental issues and I only study psuedo-sciences (aka psych things) relevant to myself because I'm forced to so I'm ignorant by choice here which is probably abelist but it emotionally hurts me to look at this stuff) CAN UNDERSTAND THAT I'M A BOY EVEN WHEN I'M IN A DRESS AND HIGH HEELS WITH MAKE-UP ON, UNDERCOVER IN DISGUISE FOR A FAMILY FUNCTION.... ANY OF YOU AUTISTIC PEOPLE CAN. NONE OF YOU HAVE ANY EXCUSE. NO ONE WITH A DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER, MENTAL ILLNESS, OR ANYTHING HAS ANY EXCUSE. AND, NO, I'M SORRY, BUT YOUR BIGOTRY IS THE SAME AS PEDOPHILIA BEING INCLUDED IN THE LGBT+ COMMUNITY: IT'S NOT COUNTING AND IT NEVER WILL BE, YOU SICK FUCK.

I'm just....I'm just so scared and so angry and so hurt and so...

All the experiences I've had irl and online with both people I know and people I don't know and anything inbetween...professionals and acquaintances and anything inbetween... I'm fucking traumatized by it all and yes that's actually part of my PTSD. It's not the main part of it, but the trauma associated with accumulated experiences due to being out and proud as a transman are a part of my extremely severe PTSD. Again, not the main part...but the fact they are a chunk is scary... Coz that means it could be the ENTIRE reason for someone's PTSD if they were to have lesser experiences than me (lesser being used in quantitative terms here, not qualitative---everyone's traumas are equal...the times we experience traumas are all different, obvs, and the times we experience traumas that contribute to PTSD are different and since I have so goddamn many, thinking some trans person could have PTSD based SOLELY around their experience as a trans person is horrifying when that is one of the least of my worries in the PTSD category).

I didn't realizing coming out could be this terrifying...

When I thought I was pretending to be male and was actually female irl, I thought I was just a lesbian since I am attracted to mostly girls. (Didn't know bi and pan was a thing either lol) so I came out on my very first day at a new school sophomore year of hs by people asking me or something and me doing something really bold and rash to prove it and then shrugging and being all "And? What are you gonna do about it?" Like. Coming out as lezz was as though I were coming out as human in my mind. It absolutely did not matter to me at all. 

And, frankly, I got off on it mentally coz it added a shock value when someone called me a dyke in a crowd and I would grab the nearest girl and ask her permission to kiss her and kiss her as hard as I could and then throw her aside (gently) into the crowd and strut right up to said (cishet white male obvs) person who asked and stand so close he could smell the shampoo I use and look him directly in the eye and dare him to do something about it and basically say "Are you just angry I get more pussy than you? Is that why you tried to make it public that you've got such a small dick?" Stuff like that. I get filmed a lot doing this stuff so there's prob videos of little female-presenting, bright blue haired, 5'1 3'4" kandi kid, harajuku girl Nickita version of me floating around being all confrontational and angry. Lol.

I forget why I made this post.

Oh yeah. Because I'm crying and shaking coz my friends aren't gonna respond for a while I'm sure and Idk if I'm going to lose them and at the same time I am super super SUPER sick and drained by guys not treating me as equal to them when I'm just as male as they are, with or without the parts.

I’m seriously so drained by cishet boys. By the ace thing and by the trans thing. I’m sick of cishet boys trying to coerce me into sex because they’re the “one exception” and I’m sick of cishet boys trying to say they’re straight but they have a crush on me, when I’m a boy. You CANNOT BE A STRAIGHT BOY AND HAVE A CRUSH ON A BOY!?!??!?!

These are things I deal with MULTIPLE times a day from MULTIPLE people...from people with autism and aspergers...to actual full on neurotypicals. Like. THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?

NOTE: I have since learned the aspergers, autism, and down syndrome are like...all different or something like that. I don’t really want to know, which is ableist af, but I don’t want to know on purpose. I want to stay ignorant on specifics. I just want the general knowledge and the tl;dr version of it all. At least....right now....maybe when I’m not about to have a panic attack, ready to slit my wrists, overdose, shoot someone, can slow down my thoughts, can force my intrusive thoughts back into intrusive thought zone and not desire zone, and can STOP HAVING AUDITORY HALLUCINATIONS WHEN I KNOW DAMN WELL MY SCHIZO MEDS ARE WORKING THEY ARE WORKING THEY ARE WORKING SO THIS ISN’T REAL AND IDK WHY THIS IS HAPPENING....maybe then I’ll like to know specifics, but I cannot an will not handle specifics right now. No thanks. Pseudo-science are ew. It’s bad enough I have to lean my OWN psuedo-sciences. (Psst. I still only learn the tl;dr textbook version of my own pseudo-science stuff (aka: psych stuff) so I can just learn the rest from self experience. it works. pro tip, y’all.)

#personal #trans #trans stuff #idk #conflicted #emotional af #i want to kill myself tbh haha............... no #i actually am considering it #i ahve all the pills....

[go-redgirl]

Media Melts Down Over Iran’s Pathetic Strike Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | January 8, 2020 | Rush Limbaugh 

RUSH: I want to get some of the audio sound bites here of the some of the Drive-By Media that happened last night and this morning after Iran launched its impotent little salvo at a couple of bases in Iraq where Americans were stationed. We have a montage here — this is audio sound bite number 3. This is literally the Drive-By Media praising Iran for intentionally causing no casualties and saving the world from the madman, Donald Trump.

Now, let me give you the timeline of this. Last night when Iran launches its missiles, which we all saw in cheap, standard definition video, we saw two launches and they were looping ’em, made to look like a constant barrage of launches, but it was just two, a cheap fireworks show. And so everybody in the media is in a state of panic. “Oh, my God. Oh, this is what we feared. The awesomely powerful, omnipotent Iranians are gonna wipe out America. Oh, my God. It’s all Trump’s fault. Oh, my God. Oh, my God.”

Then we learn that the Iranians didn’t hit anything, by design, that they were engaged in a face-saving maneuver designed appease their own out of control wackos in their country, but they knew full well they didn’t want any part of Donald Trump. They tipped us off that these missiles were aimed at nothing.

So the Drive-Bys, when they learned that — there’s that video right now, Snerdley. There it is. Well, that launch they didn’t have last night. CNN’s running the video that I’m talking about. Cheap SD quality video that Iranian TV provided. At any rate, so now the Drive-Bys — yeah, our little montage here — go out of their way to praise Iran for restraint in purposely avoiding American targets so as to not provoke our madman president.

RICHARD ENGEL: This was a calibrated response. We’re still waiting to hear from President Trump. Is he going to come out and taunt the Iranians?

ERIN BURNETT: Was that intentional? By Iran, to not have there be American casualties? To provide an off-ramp?

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Off ramp. Zero casualties. Does that afford the president of the United States an off ramp?

ANDREA MITCHELL: Iran deliberately missed. They have such highly precise missiles. We know that they can do this if they really want to.

RUSH: (laughing)

JAMES CLAPPER: The administration, skated by another one. We may have dodged a bullet here.

BRETT MCGURK: We kind of dodged a bullet.

DEXTER FILKINS: If in fact they didn’t kill any Americans, then we all got lucky.

CHRIS CUOMO: Who’s going to give that message to the president? If he’s listening tonight, God bless him, I hope you’re trying to be your best self.

MAX BOOT: I would hope that President Trump would take this opportunity.

RUSH: It just never ends. The bad guys are the good guys. The bad guys have all the talent. The bad guys have all the precision. The bad guys hold all the cards. The bad guys are making a fool of our president. The bad guys, boy, I hope our president, oh, I hope he doesn’t revert to his real self, says Fredo Cuomo.

Let me give you some of the identities here. It was Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, who said Iran deliberately missed, they have such highly precise missiles, you know. We know they can do this if they really want to. Oh, yeah, see? The Iranians are unstoppable. We can’t stop ’em. We can’t beat ’em. The Iranians, man, we’re lucky they were being so nice. We’re lucky that the Iranians purposely missed, otherwise, oh, we don’t even want to think about it.

These people cannot even conceive of the fact that we’re the good guys and that we have the precision and that we have the ability to project power that the Iranians can only dream of. No, it’s all from the standpoint that Iran holds the cards, Iran’s running the show. James Clapper of the Trump-Russia coup effort, “Well, the administration skated by –” See, Trump is just an idiot, wandering around in the White House, doesn’t know what’s going on and he dodged a bullet because the goodness and the good graciousness of the Iranians.

Chris Cuomo. “Who’s gonna give that message to the president?” Meaning the Iranians have launched missiles, like Trump doesn’t know. Fredo’s telling the world the Iranians launched. Trump doesn’t know. Fredo’s worried who’s gonna tell Trump. God bless Trump. I hope he’s trying to be his best self-tonight. Here’s more Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington. Sound bites 20 and 21. This was today, NBC.

MITCHELL: By saying that, again, as he has said for years, that in the Iran nuclear deal, that he provided — that the Obama administration provided $150 billion, that’s just not factually correct, that was unfreezing the frozen Iranian assets that have been frozen since 1979 when they took the hostages, the 52 hostages and took over our U.S. embassy. So the Iran nuclear deal did allow Iran to get back its own assets, and that’s a lot of the money that he is describing.

RUSH: Okay. Is this not a difference without a distinction? We had put sanctions on Iran since 1979. They took 52 hostages. And what’s Obama do? Obama comes along and pretty much apologizes and unfreezes the assets and then delivers the cash to the Tehran International airport on a pallet. We saw it. It was Obama who delivered the cash. They want to split hairs over whether or not it was our money or the Iranians’ money.

But regardless, they cannot permit any criticism of Obama. And so that’s what Trump did today. Trump blamed all of this — he said these missiles, these missiles launched on our targets last night were paid for with money from our previous administration. And that’s Obama. And it’s true.

In what sane world does a president of the United States deliver $1.8 billion in cash? That’s what Obama did all throughout his effort to appease — and then sign the stupid nuclear deal with Iran, which today Trump urged the ChiComs and the Russians to also get out of. And what do you bet they will? Chuck Todd, NBC, also distressed that Trump blamed Obama in his speech today, claiming that Obama made it possible financially for Iran to launch the missiles last night.

TODD: They did, and he took it. Ummm, but he didn’t want to look like he took it. You know, we’re glossing over that. The sitting president of the United States (snickering) accusing essentially the previous president of helping to finance, uh, Iranian weapons is — is — is quite remarkable that he’s willing to push the envelope like that with the office — with this office. I mean, I guess at this point we shouldn’t be surprised that he does these things anymore. It’s still (snickers) a remarkable thing that he actually did it.

RUSH: Yeah? What is remarkable, Chuck? Is it remarkable that Obama did it and that Trump is pointing it out? Should Trump just not mention these kinds of things? Is that the way it works, that current presidents do not say critical things of their predecessors? These guys still can’t figure out that they’re dealing with somebody entirely outside their sphere. They’re dealing with somebody, Donald Trump, outside their bubble — and they don’t even now know how to process it. They live in a constant state of disbelief, being offended.

“How dare he say that about Obama!”

But it all happened. It all happened. I don’t care whether it was Iranian money that had been frozen and unfrozen. I don’t care if it was our money. Obama delivered it, and why did Obama deliver it? Why was Obama trying to appease Iran? Because of a failed philosophy about how to deal with enemies, and that philosophy — through many previous administrations, not just Obama’s — was rooted in the belief that it’s all the United States’ fault. And if it’s not our fault, it’s certainly within our power to control.

“We’re so big and so powerful, and that alone frightens and intimidates and provokes.” So we’ve had a succession of administrations and a constant civil service corps — State Department ambassadorial corps — who have believed that the United States, by virtue of our achievements and existence, is a destabilizing force in the rest of the world. And we’ve got a president who doesn’t think that, thinks the exact opposite — and this is what that looks like.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I just watched this loon Clapper on CNN (imitating Clapper), “Well, we don’t know the possibility that Iran might want proxies on terror attacks. Could be tomorrow. Could be next week. Could be later this year. I think it’s a mistake to assume that anything Trump’s done made us safer.”

And then the infobabe anchor. “Yes. That’s not been said enough. That’s right on, Mr. Clapper.”

“Thank you. Thank you. I talk to Brennan constantly about how we hate Trump, posing great, great threats, Steele dossier and all that.”

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events KEYWORDS: drivebymedia; iran; iraq; media; rush; transcript

[connorsaturday]

(You Can’t) Prove It.

[October 10th, 2017]

      One of my favorite comedians is a mixed-race man by the name of Louis C.K. If you aren’t familiar with him, he is a well-known, long-time comedian with several specials on Netflix, and a show on FXX named Louie. While his comedic style can be described as dark, dirty, crass, and possibly even disturbing, his masterful ability to critically and accurately analyze society is, quite simply, profound. There’s one story of his in particular that I quote to people often, where he tells about a time he talked to an atheist about life after death. Upon asking the atheist what he thought it would be like, the atheist responded with this:

           Atheist: “Well, do you remember, like, when you were born and when you             were a baby and stuff?”

           Louis: “W- well, no, not really.”

           Atheist: “Yeah, so, kinda like that.”

      That perspective has always amazed me. I often ask people to imagine this perspective, and they often reply with something along the lines of “that would suck”, but it wouldn’t. It wouldn’t suck, but it wouldn’t be great either. It would be nothing. You would stop existing, stop feeling, stop thinking, stop being anything at all. You wouldn’t experience anymore. You wouldn’t be. But, as a Christian, I don’t believe that will happen to me, or anyone else, for that matter.  But I can’t prove it. Does that mean it’s false?

      Atheists and other religious skeptics often claim that due to the lack of evidence proving God’s existence, that he is therefore not real. This way of thinking is false; a lack of evidence towards one thing doesn’t count as evidence towards it’s disproval, because each side needs its own evidence. It means that it can’t be proven true – but it also can’t be proven false. It means that it is a theory: something that is plausible, but not factual. Even when I say this, people will often misconstrue this, because many people associate the word “fact” with “true”. While this can be accurate in many cases, there are many other cases where things that are not facts can be truths. Universal morals, like how it is bad to murder, is not a fact or law of the universe, but it is a truth. The same goes for religion. Religion is a theory, which means that it is not necessarily factual, but it is true. It took us nearly seventy years to find any evidence towards Einstein’s theory of relativity, and an average atheist would be more likely to support that theory before the discovery of evidence before religion. Funny enough, whether that applies to you or not, we will be using Einstein’s theory of relativity to help explain “my theory” of why science and religion are two parts to one whole: the scientific-religious creation story, and the logical intervention of God in modern times.

      The scientific-religious creation story contains two key concepts that we must tackle, the first of which being the interpretation and wording of the Biblical creation story itself. The Biblical creation story is usually understood as a seven-day genesis of the earth, all life, and essentially the universe – but is it, even according to the Bible itself? The very first verse of the NIV Bible states, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” If you closely analyze the text itself, you can see that it doesn’t actually state that many specifics. Does it explicitly deny the big bang? Or the expansion of the universe? No, it is kept somewhat vague – only stating the necessary info. In addition to this, the text itself is in a paragraph format that is not considered to be prose. I talked about this in my most recent article, but essentially this text is not in prose format, which means that the Bible demands this section to be read metaphorically, whereas later on in Genesis it demands literal interpretation due to its right-justified prose format (the formatting is determined by the original Hebrew text, which contains contextual information in the Hebrew language itself on how to interpret the text).

           The second key concept we must understand to make this creation perspective work is the theory that the scientific estimate that the universe being several billion years old, and the Biblical account of six days of creation, are one in the same. To accomplish this, one must understand Einstein’s theory of relativity (of which we recently found actual hard evidence). This theory basically states that no matter what speed an observer or object is moving, that light always travels at a constant, fixed speed. Therefore, using the theory of basic relativity, one can conclude that the moving object or observer is experiencing time at a slower pace than the stationary observer, because time is the only other variable that can change to accommodate for the difference in speed (and there is evidence of this, as well). If you can understand that time slows down the faster an object is moving, then we can use it to explain, due to Einstein’s theory of relativity, that the six-day account in the Bible is actually equal to the multi-billion-year account of scientists due to the relativity of time itself. For the sake of everyone’s time and energy (including my own), I will not fully explain how Einstein’s theory works and how it relates to the creation of the universe. There are plenty of YouTube videos that can do that.

      In comparison to the first part of my theory, the logical intervention of God in modern times is, luckily, a lot simpler to understand. Essentially, the theory states that, due to the fact that all events can be explained by statistics and human decision making, that these two things are unchanging. The way that God fits into it, however, is in how he chose the distribution of that probability while maintaining the statistical balance. This theory is quite analogous to the law of conservation of energy states that energy is never created nor destroyed, it is simply transferred into different pieces of matter and in different states. Think about it like this: if I flip a penny 1000 times, that the landing result will be half heads and half tails, statistically. According to my theory, however, God controls where and when the heads and the tails results are in the string of events, and can place them wherever so long as he doesn’t change any specific outcome from heads to tails, or visa-versa. By doing this, he essentially chooses and determines the future events while also maintaining the statistical probability that must remain unchanged. If you apply this theory to the entire world and universe, and consider the potentially infinite number of factors and statistical probabilities, it’s pretty reasonable to see how one could assert that God answered their prayer, and that it is simultaneously explainable by random probability and human decision-making.

      So, when put together, my theory offers explanations as to how science and religion co-exist in the creation of the universe and earth, as well as intervention and determination of events in our daily lives. In addition to this theory, however, there are three other key points you need to take away from this article:

1. Think of the science and religion as not separate from each other, but interconnected parts of one world, where science helps explain God’s actions as best as possible.

2. Keep in mind that I do not claim this theory, that I made in a short amount of time and with minimal evidence and research for the second part, to be the best or only plausible theory. I don’t even know if it is truly “my theory”; there very well may be others who have already thought of a part or of all this perspective. I made this for myself, so that I can relieve the cognitive dissonance I had been experiencing due to my inability to sacrifice science for religion, or the other way around. My intention behind sharing this with you is to give you an alternative way of looking at the topic of “science v religion”, as to give you a new option to adopt if you choose to.

3. No matter if you like this theory or not, if you believe in the historical stories or not, it is crucial to know the historical veracity of the Bible is not what an individual’s faith, nor Christianity itself, should be based off. As I have said in previous articles, the morals and metaphors in the Bible are truths – truths that give Christianity and its followers a foundation that is unbreakable and invincible. If tomorrow, the whole of the Biblical stories was proven false by archaeologists, one’s faith in God should not waiver, because as we have covered earlier in this article, the theory of God is one that will never be proven or disproven. It is a theory will always remain plausible, and always remain prevalent in the lives of people everywhere.

      Discussion is healthy. Questioning God is incredibly beneficial to one’s growth in their faith. At some point, however, questions and discussion can only explain so much. We will never truly be able to understand and explain God, philosophically or scientifically. Our views and perspectives on religion are changed and corrected many, many times throughout out our lives, like a hard drive writing over itself. Like religion, science is constantly writing over itself and proving parts of it to be false; is it really that far-fetched to consider the possibility that we simply don’t understand the already existing relationship between science and religion? It can’t be proven true, yes – but it can’t be proven false.

[marcjampole]

If you want mainstream media to like your book on American decline, blame the 60’s. Fantasyland latest to do so

It seems as if no social critic can get a fair hearing in the mass media unless she-he blames it on the sixties. If you Google the expression “blame it on the sixties,” you summon up references to a wide range of articles and books in which experts and pundits blame a variety of current social and economic problems on changes in the attitudes, customs and mores of the 1960’s. My perusal of the first three pages of search results found the 1960’s and early 1970’s faulted for the rise in child abuse, our economic decline, political correctness, the vote in the Electoral College for Donald Trump, the increase in obesity, crime and growing drug abuse.

You’d think that most of the sixties-haters would be religious and social conservatives, because, say what you will about that decade, it did witness the sexual revolution that led to more open attitudes and greater social acceptance of sexual rights for women and all kinds of sexual experiences between all kinds of people. But as it turns out, a substantial number of sixties critics are self-flagellating liberals, you know, pundits who claim to be liberal but butter their bread by always blaming liberals for their own predicament. For example, after the election, a slew of Democrats blamed Clinton’s loss on the Democrats depending too much on “identity politics,” i.e., caring about civil rights. With friends like that…

The latest liberal self-flagellator to blame the sixties for the deplorable state of the world is novelist and journalist Kurt Andersen, in his glib and often superficial Fantasyland. Anderson’s description of today’s American Fantasyland is attractive and largely accurate. The insidious spread of fake news; the new level of lying by politicians; the basing of social and economic policy on disproven or bad science; the great numbers of Americans who believe in demons, the absolute existence of a god with male features and/or a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian genesis myth; the large number of adults whose lives revolve around electronic games, comic book superheroes, cosplay and other escapist fare; the climate change deniers, the evolution deniers, the birthers—these snapshots of the irrational are but a sampling of the evidence that Andersen musters to show that current American society is based on lies and myths, that we surround ourselves with fantasy.

Andersen is also right when he asserts that fantasy has played a major role in American society since the search for the Northwest Passage and the Salem witch trials. His history of irrational thought in America reads like an outline or a greatest hits list: each major figure in an irrational movement or trend gets a paragraph or so. For readers who want to delve into the long history of irrational thought in America, Fantasyland can serve as a syllabus that sends you to the right people and primary sources to read.

But the third part of Andersen’s thesis—that the sixties marked a turning point, after which instead of being a peripheral trend, irrationality took center stage—is dead wrong.

In sixties terminology, Andersen’s mistake is to conflate “do your own thing” with “believe your own thing.” Yes, a lot of people believed in some pretty weird stuff in the 1960’s. Like the First (1730-1740) and Second (1800-1860) Great Awakenings and the Roaring Twenties, the sixties saw an uptick in interest in the occult and the irrational. But lots of the doing of your own thing in the sixties and early seventies involved overthrowing old myths and lies and asserting the truth of empirical science, such as the anti-Vietnam War, Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, Gay Rights, environmental, anti-nuclear, organic gardening and sustainable living movements. All products of a very rational sixties. And in every case, it was the government or the majority of those with influence who were living in a fantasy.

Andersen takes particular note of the rise of the Pentecostal movement and televangelism in the 1960’s. True enough, but morality is not inherently contra-factual. Morality motivated a lot of the antiwar activists and poverty workers. Remember, too, that a Christian left and right wing have existed in this country since at least the abolitionist movement got its start. Even if we accept the core beliefs of the Christian right wing that have persisted for at least 140 years, a rise in a concern for moral issues doesn’t in and of itself suggest the society is entering a fantasyland. I can be against a woman’s right to control her body for moral reasons and still be living in the real world. I enter Fantasyland only when I believe that an abortion causes future health problems, that life begins at conception or that vaccines cause autism.

All of society bases part of its existence on fantastic notions, typically related to ethnic superiority, national character, religion and the convenience of rich folk. Certainly since Columbus made his voyages, religious and irrational beliefs have harmed the United States. Our economy before the 1860’s was largely based on the myth that Africans were inferior people who needed the white man’s guidance and therefore benefited from slavery. What about the medical, economic and social impact of the myths that led to the anti-marijuana laws of the 1930’s? TR, Henry Cabot Lodge and William Randolph Hearst shoveled a lot of bull hockey at Americans to build support for the Spanish-American War and our later atrocities in the Philippines. I would like to prove that the inflection point at which belief overran rationality was during the Reagan era, when so many edifices of lies were built and then used to justify horrific policies; lies and myths such as welfare queens, supply side economics, the failure of government, the failure of public schools and the benefits of the unimpeded free market. But reading history books like Stephen Kinzer’s The True Flag about the Spanish-American War epoch and Matthew Karp’s This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy about pre-Civil War U.S. foreign policy demonstrates that the Bush II and the current administrations aren’t the first times the United States has been run by a band of reality-denying ignoramuses guided by myths with no basis in reality and representing a sizable minority but not all the people.  

If we, as I do, place primary blame for the growth of the American Fantasyland on the increase of lies and myths knowingly perpetrated by the news media, we can’t really locate in the 1960’s the inflection point after which fantasies begin to dominate the media and, by inference, American society. Since the original scandal sheets and yellow journalism of the Gilded Age, mass media has been growing inexorably, and as it does, so has the ubiquity of advertising, the focus on celebrity and the increase in myths being presented as truth—in commercials, by televangelists, well-funded rightwing think tanks and rightwing television and radio, on alt-right and UFO websites, in social media and fake news. Let’s look at some of major events in the history of media’s creation of Fantasyland: yellow journalism emerged at the end of 19th century, free market commercial radio developed in the 1920’s, the first radio evangelists started broadcasting in the 1930’s and 1940’s, the rise of commercial television and the beginning of the right wing creating alternative distribution channels for their myths occurred in the 1950’s, the federal law that allowed companies to own more TV and radio stations passed in the 1980’s, rightwing radio was born in the 1990’s, the Internet was the 2000’s, the Citizens United decision in 2010. You get the idea.

Why then blame the 1960’s? We would have to read into Kurt Andersen’s heart to know the answer as it pertains toFantasyland. I am, however, quite confident that the larger phenomenon of blaming the 1960’s (and early 1970’s) for every social and economic ill since then results from the mass media applying a screen: Blame the sixties—we like it; blame another decade—reject the article! For the most part rich folk who like the status quo own the mass media and the companies which support media outlets with advertising. While rich folk include a spectrum of beliefs from left-leaning to ultra-right (there are very few socialists of any ilk among this group), they mostly lean right and mostly want to protect the prerogatives of the wealthy.

And they don’t like the true story of what happened in the sixties: It was the absolute high point for equality of wealth and income in U. S. history and the high point of union power (if not of union membership, which occurred in the 1950’s). While not the inflection point for American irrationality, it certainly was for the movement to provide equal rights in courts, the marketplace and workplace to all Americans—plenty happened afterwards, but the turning point certainly came in the 1960’s with the maturing of the Civil Rights movement and the start of other inclusion movements. The 1960’s thus represent the start of the threat to the special position of white males.

In other words, the real “evil” of the 1960’s is not that it created an American Fantasyland, or that it led to a decline in morals or educational standards or the work ethic. No, what the mass media hates about the 1960’s is that for a few brief years we saw a way to institute a true social democracy in a fairly equitable society with a fairly level playing field, kind of like the model developed in Europe after World War II. The Reaganites saw another way, but to make it work, they had to denigrate the real ideals of the sixties—government spending to solve social problems, a level playing field that did not favor individuals of any group, the importance of ending poverty and giving people a hand up, enlightened stewardship of natural resources, a foreign policy not dependent on America bullying other nations. These core beliefs—all based on facts and science—contradict everything the right stands for. Thus the desire, even today, to blame everything on the 1960’s.

I stopped reading novels about writers or university teachers about 30 years ago. I think it might be time to stop reading books that blame the 60’s.

#mainstreammedia #60s #american decline

[wellmeaningshutin]

Short Story #108: Angel.

Written: 4/29/2017                                                                      Monster Week

“You’re a, what did you say?” Asked aging Ethel, staring in disbelief at the man who had showed up in her room.

“I’m an angel.” Said the man, with no trace of humor. “I’ve come here with a message from god, and I need your assistance.”

“Why, I just can’t believe that you’re an angel. Where are your wings? Don’t angels have big, white wings behind them? And, and where is your halo?”

Waving away this statement with one hand, “Those are all from the interpretations of man. We never stated that we had any of those, and they are just the results of your art forms. The Inferno and Paradise Lost are hailed as classics, for instance, but they don’t reflect how anything actually plays out in heaven and in hell, and the ways that those works are misguided are the same as your depictions of angels being winged and having halos.” Ethel was about to speak, but the angel was not finished with his point. “The same goes Jesus Christ, who has been depicted differently than he actually looked while he was on Earth a couple days ago.”

“A couple days, why-”

“Oh yes, I forgot. Time moves more slowly up here. Well, he would still look different, and when he will come back to Earth, why, I bet a lot of people will have a hard time believing that its him. However, I am getting besides the point, and I just want to point out that you shouldn’t base your ideas of what heaven should be like, what angels should look like, when you have never seen any of it in the first place. Have you ever met an angel before?”

“No, I can’t say that-”

“So how would you know what an angel is supposed to look like?”

“Well, my pastor-”

“Ah, yes”, Ethel frowned, since the man, angel or not, was sure impolite, “a man attempting to pass of his misguided opinion’s as that of the lord’s. Not all pastors are to be trusted my dear.”

“Yes, that is true, there are ones who try to say wild things, but my pastor, he’s a good man. I’ve heard him speak for twenty, is it twenty? Twenty… or so, somewhere around twenty years”, the angel was clearly having trouble keeping his patience, but Ethel was happy to have some room to get her opinion across, “and not once has he ever said something that made me think, ‘why, I don’t like that at all’. I’ve been to plenty of churches who claimed outlandish things, but this is the first man I’ve seen speak, since the days of when I was a girl, who has put his foot down and hasn’t been afraid to speak the truth.”

“And how do you know that he is telling the truth? Just because something sounds right, doesn’t make it so. How do you know that you don’t have misguided views yourself, and you have refused to challenge or adapt those views, so you had to find somebody who was as closed minded-”

“Now, this doesn’t sound like angel talk. If you were an angel, then why wouldn’t you already know all of it, why wouldn’t you know the truth of it all? I’ve been blessed to find a pastor who speaks out against the immorality of gay marriage, the decline of western culture, the threats of Islam, of refugees, of-”

Nodding, “Yes yes, I knew all of that already. You need to have more faith in the ways of heaven, because I was only guiding you to the truth, because I know more than you ever could. Yes, your pastor is correct about those things,” he said with a mocking grin, which she took as an understanding smile, “but I only wanted to point out the small fact of the depiction of angels-”

“But-”

“He is just a mortal man, even if he is a very knowledgeable and loving man,” again, the grin, “and I applaud you for holding the views that you do. It is the Christian way to fill your heart with judgment, and even a little hatred, for things that you don’t like or understand. Why, I remember when Christ said, ‘Nobody is above judgment, which is blessed in its nature’, when the townsfolk were about to cast stones onto the filthy whore. However, although you are a perfect example of what it is to be a member of your faith,” he had to actively suppress his smile now, “there is one matter that you were misguided in, and it is one that you should not be ashamed of. Why, its flattering that you believed that we would look so elegant, but, generally, we appear to be people, just like you. The lord has made us in his image, just like he has made you.”

“Okay”, nodding to herself, “you’re talking a lot of sense right now, but, one last question about your appearance. Why are you a negro? Why would god send a negro down?”

Taken aback, “Why do you ask this? What are you talking about”

“Well, I know for a fact that any angel would be white, with golden locks that reminded one of lambswool.”

“Why, that is what I look like, can’t you see?” She blinked, and was surprised to see that the angel did fit her description. Wondering if her mind was starting to wander off, she tried to sharpen her focus, and hide her embarrassment. “Oh, dear, don’t feel ashamed,” he said after he saw her blush, “because the devil tries to play many tricks on you, and because of that he probably created a false image of me, to lead you away from the path of the righteous.”

“That sounds right, but-”

“And you can take that as more proof of how divine I really am. Can’t you see that because of this, I am an angel? And I need your help, Ethel, I need it very much.”

“Why do you need my help”, believing that he was, in fact, an angel, “what do you need me to do?”

“Well, I need you to allow me to take over your body.”

“What? Angels dont-”

“Now, Ethel, remember the points I made earlier? Cast aside your false ideas of the workings of heaven, and take what I say in faith. Why, isn��t blind faith with no form of proof, for something that seems completely impossible, and even a little ridiculous, what your beliefs were entirely founded on?” She nodded, “Now, know what I have to tell you may seem unrealistic, but it is completely true and should not be questioned: the pope is possessed by none other than the devil himself. He is spreading evil ideas, and nobody is questioning him because they think that he speaks for god. Why, the man said that people who were not Christians could get into heaven, he said that we should accept the gays, or the divorced, that countries should welcome refugees and immigrants, why, that’s not very Christian, is it?”

“Why, no, I don’t think it is. But why would the devil need to possess the pope, couldn’t he just use the media-”

“Ah, but those who are already tricked by the media will continue to do so, but there are the knowledgeable, such as yourself, who follow the real news, who learn about mass rapes that are common in Syrian culture, or that climate change is a load of bullshit, or that transgender people are really just a bunch of disgusting, mentally ill men who we shouldn’t coddle, that are an example of hateful views gone to far, especially since most of them are only playing dress up so that they can rape women and children in bathrooms. People, like you, who know that white Christians have it harder than anyone in the world, and are persecuted by notions of legalized abortion, gay marriage, by the fact that children aren’t allowed to pray in schools any more, the fact that every day you are dangerously close to having Sharia law take over the country, on top of the scores of terrorist attacks that you suffer from all of the time. Why, with clearly intelligent and pure hearted people like you, the devil’s media would never be able to lay a finger on your beliefs.”

“Why, I’m sorry that I ever doubted that you may be an angel.”

The grin returned, “No, do not worry about it. I understand, I forgive. Now, because of all of this, the devil had found himself in a difficult position, because everyday the powers of truth have been prevailing, especially since the government has begun to turn rational. So, now that everything has been turning against him, he has only one course of action left, which is to seize control of the head of the religion, to start speaking for god. There was nobody better for his goals than the pope.”

“How come he was able to take control of him? How could he even step inside of the Vatican, wouldn’t God-”

“Yes, normally he would be unable to enter the premises, but he found a loophole. He was able to take control of a misguided person, somebody whose views on their own religion was warped and deluded enough for her to think that the devil, who came to her in the guise of an angel, was actually so, and allowed that wicked man to take control of her. She was so mislead that she believed that all of his lies, all of his hateful nonsense, represented the beliefs of her lord, and that’s-”

“Ah, I see now. I understand where you are going with this.” Nodding her head, “Its a shame that there are people in the world who could be so misguided, Why, nowadays you could say the most scientific, the most rational and factual thing, but no matter what people will try to claim that you are a hateful person. Its a pity that they don’t see that they are the ones who-”

“Alright, now, Ethel, I love that you are seeing the way of the lord,but I need to press on. The Vatican, now under control of the devil, is warding off any and all angels who try to seek access. Its a shame, but that’s how it is, and we’ve been stumped on how to return and to clear the sin out of there. Well, until the lord told us that there was one woman, who was so pure and good, that would be willing to allow one of us to take possession of her body, so that we could enter the Vatican, and return everything into its proper order.”

“But what will happen to me? What-”

“Oh, that,” waving the idea off, “you do not have to worry about that. You will have a one way ticket to heaven, and will not have to worry for the rest of eternity.”

Sounding afraid, “So it will kill me? You want to-”

Calm, emotionless, curious, “Why does this worry you so? You are already close to death anyways. I mean, you live in a building, this retirement home, that literally exists as a waiting room for dying. You live out your life in here, knowing that you are close to the end, so why get upset when the opportunity presents itself? Why, your life her cannot be much better than the kingdom of heaven, can it? And you will probably reach sainthood, since you will have helped clear the devil out of this world, which would bring a wave of love, reason, rationality, and peace to this currently chaotic and sinful world.”

“I guess you have a point, but-”

“Now, my dear, why are you questioning this so much? Aren’t you sick of the fake Christians who accuse you of giving them a bad name, who, like your grandchildren, are ashamed to be associated with you, even though there is nothing wrong with your worldview? Aren’t you tired of being the moral compass, who gets mistaken as immoral by those whose compasses have been tuned wrong, who have been tricked by the devil with awful ideas, like atheism? Aren’t you sick of people calling you a racist, just because you dare speak the truth about other races, and don’t dare coddle them, because they should know better? Alas, as you know, some cultures are harmful, but how many times have you been called racist for attempting to point that out? And why not stand up for yourself, for reason, and do something to shift the current climate away from emotion, and towards reason, towards science. Oh, and lets not forget how tainted science has become, with all of these bribed, so called ‘scientists’, who claim that global warming is real, or that gender is a ‘spectrum’, when its really black and white, male and female, or that homosexuality isn’t a choice, or that a baby in the first trimester is just a lump of cells, instead of a soul that god has given life to, and that it is perfectly alright to rip it right out of the mother, even a couple days before it would be born, just because the mother thought its what she wanted. And what about the way that it has lied about drugs, with the way that people have been pushing to legalize marijuana, the devil’s cabbage, the gateway drug that leads to heroin and meth addiction. Let’s not forget the immoral push of sexual education in schools, where they are trying to teach that sexual deviance is okay, that it is ‘fine’ to have premarital intercourse, that masturbation, a dangerous sin itself, is ‘perfectly healthy’ or ‘perfectly normal’. Well, last time I checked, there was nothing healthy about sinning, but I guess they’re right about it being normal nowadays, now that it seems like everyone is trying to drag this world into the pits of hell. And, lets not forget that they lie, claiming that sexual education won’t cause children to perform deviant acts, won’t cause children to sleep with a large amount of partners, or think that they should just have sex all of the time, even though that we, rational people, know that the only way to be safe from the dangerous effects of intercourse isn’t to have it ‘safely’, and I don’t know how ‘safe sex’ prevents you from sin, but is to, what is the only way, Ethel?”

“Abstinence.”

“That’s right! Abstinence! And they try to call you ‘unrealistic’, or ‘outdated’ for claiming such views, but you know the path to salvation, and they just don’t want to hear it. And I don’t know how it can’t just make you so angry, to see all of this, this assault on your views, day after day, while your rights are being taken away, while people are willingly submitting themselves to immorality. Why, when was the last time that somebody even told you Merry Christmas when you were checking out at the grocery store?”

“Oh, my, its been-”

“Years, hasn’t it? And all because of this horrible war on Christmas. And what’s wrong with Christmas? Not a single thing. You have to at least be upset enough for that, for their hatred towards such a blessed holiday. Any one of these horrible things alone should make you upset enough to try to change it, but, I have to admit, I’m starting to wonder if you are as intelligent as I thought you were. Why, you seemed to be rational, but now I wonder, because people are drowning in this hatred, drowning in this misinformation, this blind entitlement, and you don’t seem to want to do anything to stop it. Why, you seem content to sit around and just ignore it, while they give all of your hard earned money to immigrants and people who use welfare to support them while they sit around and insult good people like you. Maybe I should leave”, he rose out of his seat, “maybe I should go and find somebody who would actually be willing to help me on my mission, instead of sitting around and allow the devil to take the world over.”

As he walked over to the door, she panicked, and yelled, “Wait, wait! Come back! I’ll help, I’ll help! You were right, there is no way, I just can’t, no way for me to sit by, and allow everything to fall apart. I will allow you to-”

Before she was finished talking, he had locked eyes with her, and then she was gone. Or, at least, her soul had gone, and the supposed angel had taken its place. It chuckled, or Ethel chuckled.

Ethel’s soul was surprised to find herself, all of the sudden, in place that was nothing like she expected heaven to be. First off, it was painfully hot, hot enough for her to have to stay in constant motion, just to avoid burning her feet too badly. However, it was too much for her to even have to alternate, and she wanted to fall over, but she knew that if she did that it would burn her whole body, so she had to allow her skin to burn and peel off of her soles, leaving traces on the ground. The pain was too much for her to take much note on her surroundings, which seemed dreadful anyways. Maybe the angel was right, maybe she didn’t know anything about heaven, but who would have known that she would have been so far off of the mark? Two searing hot hooks dug into her shoulder blades, burning her from the inside, and she let out a scream, the loudest one that she had ever let out. It felt as if the heat alone was going to rip her arms off, it felt as if that area of her body was made entirely of pain, and the rest of the body went out of focus, since the hooks demanded so much of her attention, until it felt as if her whole body was made from pain itself. After she begun to rise, and started to see the endless horrors and suffering in front of her, she tried to say, ‘Wait, you have it all wrong! I’m supposed to be in heaven! Please, talk to the angel, he’ll sort this out’, but she found that she was too busy screaming, and it was impossible to get any words out. Flies began to enter her mouth, at first one by one, but eventually they began to swarm, heading down her throat, buzzing around in her stomach, her lungs, every organ that they could some how reach. Some were killed by the hooks. After only a minute, she felt as if she was stuffed with them, was unable to scream, even if she desperately needed to, because it felt as if all of her insides were full, were moving, writhing, and vibrating, as if she were suffocating but wouldn’t die, all on top of the pain from the hooks. She continued to rise, hoping that she would rise all the way to heaven, where they would clear up this mistake.

“Now,” asked the angel, to Ethel's reflection in the mirror in front of him, “why would she think that some frail old woman’s body could be useful in… Ha ha. They told me it was easy, but…” Smiling, “well, lets see how long I can last.” Crouching under the bed, he felt around until he found the cold, metal object that he had been feeling for, then slid it out from under the bed. It was a combat shotgun, semi-automatic, that Ethel’s son had helped her acquire after her last home’s orderlies had sexually abused residents, and was even a cannibal, so she needed protection for her new home. They couldn’t take any chances, and her son didn’t want to take care of the woman, who had become unbearable within the past several years. The angel smiled as he checked if it was loaded, and it turned out to be so.

Knock, knock, knock, “Ethel?” A voice called from behind the door, the angel crouched behind the bed, aiming the gun’s barrel towards the door, “its time for dinner, why don’t you head out and-”

“Oh”, replied the angel, “where am I? This isn’t my home, how do you know my name?”

“I’m coming in”, the voice said, a little concerned. The doorknob turned, slowly, then a large man entered the room, with a look of surprise forming on his face, just for a second, as he was processing the current situation, but with a flash from the barrel and a deafening roar, his chest was swiftly torn open with many, very small holes, and he dropped, backwards, to the floor, spilling blood on his way down. Having been knocked over by the recoil, and slightly deafened, the angel scrambled to get off of the floor, hoping that somebody would come to check the situation, so that she could cut them down too. If his ears weren’t ringing, he probably would have heard the vet in the next door room, who was screaming, thinking that he was back in the thick of it. When the angel arrived at the door, gun in his frail, weak arms, he could see a nurse who was not too far down the hall, frozen, wanting to check on the dead man, but afraid of the attacker, and then, once again, the angel pulled the trigger and knocked himself towards the frame of the door, while he watched the nurse spin, then drop to the floor. However, even though the man was bleeding out a good amount, only two bullets had gone into his left shoulder, and the angel had to get up close, while the injured man yelled something that couldn’t overpower the tinnitus, pleading before his face would become unrecognizable not only as his own, but as a human face in general. This time, the angel had slipped on the pooling blood, and was knocked to the floor with more force, causing the shotgun to slip out of his hands, and clatter towards the dead orderly. Panicking, he tried to get to his feet, to get to the gun quick, since there was no way he was going back with only two bodies that he was responsible for, it would make him look pathetic. Lucky, for him at least, enough to get to the gun, a patient had stepped out of their room, upset about being woken up, and the angel, who had slipped while grabbing the gun, shot straight ahead and completely tore off the senior’s right leg, causing them to topple over to the ground in a manner that required the angel to pause to laugh. Hell, he was able to show restraint when persuading the old broad, but the sight of the toppling man was just enough to break him. However, when the elder fell, the angel could see an officer walking down the hallway, right towards him, and he knew that he was starting to reach the end of his little joyride. Three bodies wasn’t enough, was it? If he shot down an officer, would that at least make up for his low body count, or would he still not get taken very seriously? As the officer aimed their pistol, the angel aimed and pulled three times, hoping that it would be enough to stop the officer, but only one little bullet hit the policeman in his thigh, and the other two bursts were sent into the ceiling, after he had once again slipped in blood. He lied there for a short while, surprised that he hadn’t been shot yet, until he saw that the office had been approaching, not firing. The man sure was taking his time, since he had just received a nasty limp, and when the angel rose to fire again, the cop shot first and brained him.

#Free Write #Short Story #Writers on Tumblr #Religion #Fake Christians

[christianstevefinnell]

THE DEVIL IS THE FATHER OF DECEIT  BY STEVE FINNELL

Satan was a liar from the beginning in the Garden of Eden. Satan deceived Eve and Eve convinced Adam that that deception was factually correct.  (Genesis 3:1-13.....And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done? And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me and I ate."'NKJV)

The Devil is the father of lies. He is the great deceiver. (John 8:44 "You are of your father the devil.....When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. NKJV)

Men are still being deceived by the Devil and in turn are deceiving others. It does not matter if a person is deceived and then deceives others, the results are the same for both of them.

There are some so-called Christians who claim Jesus is just one of many ways to heaven.

If you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God you will died in your sins. (John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in yours."NKJV)

If the master of deception convinces men that immersion in water is not essential for salvation and the deceived teach others the same, then, they are both dupes of duplicity.(Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved...)

Adam and Eve were both deceived. The, I was deceived by the serpent excuse, did not save them from death.

If what men are being taught is contrary to Scriptures, then, they are being deceived. What will be the consequences of accepting doctrine contrary to the Bible?

Pride and the lack of honest prayer and dishonest Bible study leaves people subject to becoming dupes of duplicity.

Satan is the father of deceit!

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

10:56 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

IS JESUS GOD THE FATHER? ---BY STEVE FINNELL

Jesus is God, however, He is not God the Father!

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NASB)

Yes, Jesus was and is God.

Matthew 24:35-36 Heaven and earth will pass away...36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.(NASB)

Jesus does not know the end of time date. Only the Father knows. Jesus is not God the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28 But now Christ has been raised from the dead....24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and authority and power.........28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (NASB)

Jesus is God, however, He is not God the Father.    

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:14 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2016

5 Reasons Racism is Ridiculousby

Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Atheism has no rational basis upon which to call anything objectively just or unjust, including racism. If mankind is merely the result of billions of years of mindless evolution and is nothing more than animals (as atheistic evolution contends; Marchant, 2008), then man can logically make evolutionary-based racist remarks that are consistent with the godless General Theory of Evolution. In fact, Charles Darwin’s “Bulldog,” atheist Thomas Huxley, did just that in his 1865 essay, “Emancipation—Black and White.” He alleged, for example, “no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less superior, of the white man.” In truth, if there is no God, mankind could just as easily look down upon and mistreat others (whom he deems are less evolved), as he does roaches, rats, and orangutans (

Lyons

, 2011;

Lyons and Butt

, 2009). Those who are Christians, however, logically contend that since (1) God exists, and (2) the Bible is the Word of God, racism is morally wrong—and completely ridiculous for the following five reasons.

#1—ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

Not only did God specially create Adam and Eve in His image and vastly different than all other living things on Earth (Genesis 1:26-27), since then, every human being has been made according to God’s likeness. While preaching to Gentiles in Athens thousands of years after the Creation, Paul, a Jew, did not contend that man was once the offspring of God; he said, “We are” the offspring of God (Acts 17:28-29). [The Greek word esmen in 17:28 is the first person plural of eimi (to be). This recognition of being God’s offspring served as a basis for his argument, as the next verse indicates: “Being then the offspring of God….”]James wrote: “But the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren these things ought not so to be” (3:8-9, ASV, emp. added). [The English verb “are made” (ASV) derives from the Greek gegonotas, which is the perfect participle of the verbginomai. The perfect tense in Greek is used to describe an action brought to completion in the past, but whose effects are felt in the present (Mounce, 1993, p. 219).] The thrust of the expression, “who are made after the likeness of God” (Greek kath’ homoisosin theou gegonotas), is that humans in the past have been made according to the likeness of God, andthey are still bearers of that likeness. For this reason, praising the Creator at one moment, while hurling unkind, racist remarks at another time, is terribly inconsistent in a most unChristlike way. All human beings (of every color and ethnicity) are divine image bearers.

#2—GOD ONLY MADE ONE RACE—THE HUMAN RACE

Although people come in different colors, shapes, and sizes, and although they often associate more closely with those whom they find more similar in ways to themselves, the fact is, there is only one human race. Racism is ridiculous because we are all related, not by means of naturalistic evolution, but by special Creation. No one person is inherently of more value than another person. We are all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve—the specially created couple whom God made thousands of years ago in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:20). What’s more, we are also sons and daughters of Noah and his wife, through whom the Earth was repopulated after the worldwide Flood of Genesis 6-8.As the apostle Paul informed the idolatrous Athenians 2,000 years ago, God “made from oneblood every nation to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Adam and Eve had children, who had children, who had children…who had you and me. We are all physically related. We are all of one race—the one human race. We are all (as modern science classifies us) of the same human species—Homo sapiens. We all trace our ancestry back to Noah, and then back to Adam. We may have different skin color, facial features, hair texture, etc., but we are all brothers and sisters! We are family—a part of the same human race.

#3—GOD DOESN’T PLAY FAVORITES…AND NEITHER SHOULD WE

Although God is omnipotent, He is actually color-blind. His all-loving, perfectly just nature will not allow Him to love someone more than another based upon the color of a person’s skin or the nation in which one was born. Similar to how God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), God cannot show favoritism.Moses wrote: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:17-19). Peter said: “God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35, emp. added). According to Paul, God “does not receive a face” (Galatians 2:6, NASB literal footnote rendering); that is, “God does not judge by external appearance” (Galatians 2:6, NIV).In short, it is impossible to hold “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, (the Lord) of glory, with respect of persons” (James 2:1, ASV). The Christian’s care and concern for his fellow brother by Creation and by Christ is to be color-blind.

#4—LOVE IS NOT RACIST

Whereas racism is fueled by earthly ignorance and hate, the Christian is filled with the fruit of Heaven’s Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). The child of God is directed by an omniscient, omni-benevolent Father Who expects His children to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). To the Philippians Paul wrote, “And this I pray,that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God” (1:9-11, emp. added). In two of the more challenging sections of Scripture, Paul wrote: “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:4-6, ESV). “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another…. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse…. Repay no one evil for evil…. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:9-18).No Christian can be a racist, and any racist who claims to be a Christian is, in truth, a liar. As the apostle John explained, “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also” (1 John 4:20-21).“[W]hatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor [regardless of his or her color and ethnicity—EL]. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:9-10, NIV).

#5—JESUS IS EVERYONE’S SAVIOR

In one of the earliest Messianic prophecies, God promised Abraham that it would be through One of his descendants that “all the nations” and “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 22:18; 12:3, emp. added). It certainly was an honor for Abraham’s family to be chosen as the one through whom the Savior of the world would come, but Jesus did not come only to save the Jews. God did not enact a plan of salvation to save one particular color of people. He did not send Jesus to take away the sins of a particular ethnic group or nation. Jesus is the answer to the whole world’s sin problem; He is “the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14). “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, thatwhoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16-17, emp. added).“God…desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4, emp. added). For this reason, “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations” (Luke 24:47, emp. added)—to people of all colors, in all cultures, in whatever countries.The Gospel “is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16, emp. added). And when individuals in the world “obey the Gospel” (2 Thessalonians 1:8; see

Lyons and Butt

, n.d.) and are added to the Lord’s Church by God Himself (Acts 2:47), we allbecome one in Christ Jesus. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:29).

CONCLUSION

I do not claim to be an expert on race relations, but I know that some people genuinely struggle with the sin of racism. Some struggle with being the recipients of racism, which in turn may cause them to be tempted to react in racist ways. Others struggle with cowardly silence as they tolerate the sin of racism in their homes, churches, schools, businesses, and communities. Still others seem so preoccupied with advancing their own racial agenda that they appear to hastily interpret most everything as a racial problem, when most things are not.Jesus once taught the hypocrites of His day, saying, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). May God help us to see as He sees: “for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). What a better world this would be if everyone realized the foolishness of judging a book by its cover. Racism really is ridiculous.

REFERENCES

Huxley, Thomas (1865), “Emancipation—Black and White,” http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE3/B&W.html.Lyons, Eric (2011), “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101&topic=95

.Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (no date), Receiving the Gift of Salvation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press),

http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Receiving%20the%20Gift%20of%20Salvation.pdf

.Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2009), “Darwin, Evolution, and Racism,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2654

.Marchant, Jo (2008), “We Should Act Like the Animals We Are,” New Scientist, 200[2678]:44-45, October 18-24.Mounce, William D. (1993), Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Copyright © 2015 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in part or 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) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (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, excepting brief quotations, 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 [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

8:38 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

IS BAPTISM SIMPLY AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE?---BY STEVE FINNELL

Is baptism essential to receive forgiveness of sins or is it simply an act of obedience?

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (NKJV)

Baptism is essential to forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them , "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (NKJV)

Baptism is not simply an act of obedience it is in order to receive forgiveness from sins.

ACTS OF OBEDIENCE THAT ARE NOT FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

1. Attending worship services.

2. Acts of evangelism.

3. Financial support of the Lord's church.

4. Doing good works.

5. Loving your neighbor as yourself

Simple acts of obedience are not in order to the forgiveness of sins.

ACTS OF OBEDIENCE THAT SAVE MEN.

1. Faith: John 3:16

2. Repentance: Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19

3. Confession: Romans 10:9-10

4. Immersion in water: Marl 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16

BAPTISM IS NOT SIMPLY AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE. THERE IS A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN BAPTISM AND SALVATION

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

7:44 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

WATER BAPTISM DENIERS BY STEVE FINNELL

Water baptism deniers claim that you can ignore Mark 16:16 because some of the earliest manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20. The problem is there are 60+ Bible translations that include those verses. I know of no English translation of the Bible that omits Mark 16:9-20. Yes, these same deniers have Mark 16:16 in the Bible they read. That does not keep them from explaining away that truth of Mark 16:16.

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (NKJV)

If the deniers cannot convince you that Mark 16:16 is not the inspired word of God. They will deny that "and" is a conjunction.

And Defined: A conjunction is used to grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses.[Ref. Dictionary.com]

Examples

1. Mark 16:16  He who believes and is baptized will be saved..(NKJV)

2. Acts 2:38 ...Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...(NKJV)

3. You need an engine and gasoline to start your automobile. You cannot start your car by the engine alone.

4. Your doctor says you need surgery and a blood transfusion in order to live. You cannot live by surgery alone.

5. You must have a house with walls, and a roof and a heating system to keep your house warm in winter. You cannot keep warm by a house with walls alone.

Denying that the Bible includes Mark 16:16 does not prove that water baptism is not essential in order to be saved.

Denying that "and" is a conjunction does not mean that you can have your sins forgiven without being baptized in water.

It takes a skilled professional to convince men that immersion in water (that is baptism) is not essential in order to be saved from the penalty of sin.

Honestly seeking God's truth trumps the erroneous teaching of skilled professionals every time it is tried.      

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:41 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

DOES PREACHING THE TRUTH PROMOTE HARMONY AND UNITY?----BY STEVE FINNELL

Does preaching the Biblical truth found in the new testament Scriptures lead to harmony, unity, and acceptance by the world and by believers in Jesus Christ? No, it does not.

Matthew 10:34-36 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.(NASB)

Anyone who has the audacity to preach or teach

the truth as found in the new testament Scriptures will not only be criticized by family members, but ostracized by fellow Christians and the world as well.

The truth in Christ promotes conflict with those who reject God's written word.

Jesus was crucified for not only preaching truth, but for being the Truth.

Eleven out of the twelve apostles were executed for preaching the truth.

Truth that causes conflict.

1. Teaching that immersion in water is essential to salvation. (Mark 16:16)

2. Proclaiming that Jesus is the only way to heaven. (John 14:6)

3. Teaching that is a sin to worship by praying to the Virgin Mary.(Matthew 4:10)

4. Teaching that Christians can lose their salvation.(1 Timothy 4:1-5)

5. Teaching that Christians should avoid those who cause division by teaching false doctrine. (Romans 16:17)

6. Teaching that men have the free-will to accept or reject the gospel. (John 3:16)

Preaching God's truth does not promote peace among those who do not love the truth.(2 Thessalonians 2:10 and with all deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.)NASB

         Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:39 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 2016

TRUST GOD OR NOT? BY STEVE FINNELL

When Christians are ask if they trust God; most would respond in the affirmative. Do Christians really believe God is trustworthy?

How do Christian respond when asked, do they believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? For many, the trust, in God starts to wane at this point. An all too common reply, is of course the Bible is God's word, however, the Scriptures were recorded and translated into other languages my mere men. We know men make mistakes.

What is mystifying to me is how believers in Christ can proclaim that they believe God created the heavens and the earth, but do not believe God has the power to direct men to record and translate His word without error. Would that be a God you could trust?

Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone , but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'" (NASB)

Jesus said men should live on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. How would that be possible if the Bible is not the infallible word of God?

1 John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.(NASB)

John said we know Jesus if we keep His commandments. If the Bible is not God's incontrovertible truth, how can we know we are keeping the commandments of Jesus?

THE GOD I WORSHIP HAS THE POWER TO PRODUCE A BIBLE THAT IS INERRANT, FACTUAL, INFALLIBLE, FREE FROM ERROR, LITERAL IN HISTORICAL ACCURACY, TRANSLATED CORRECTLY, AND YES, INSPIRED BY GOD HIMSELF.

There those who agree that the Bible is the inerrant word of God but then state that you have to be a Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scholar to understand the meaning of Scripture.

In order to understand the Bible you have to understand whatever language translation you are reading. If English is your first language then you should use an English translation, if German is your primary language then read a German translation, if you are Greek then read a Greek translation etc.

It is not ironic that they do not believe you have be a Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scholar to under Joshua 10:13, however, in order to understand Acts 2:38 you have be not only have to be a Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scholar, but an English professor as well.

Joshua 10:13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.

The "scholar police" accept Joshua 10:13 at face value; as well they should.

The "scholar police" believe you have to be a Greek scholar and an English professor to understand Acts 2:38.

The "scholar police" have an agenda. There goal is to convince the world that water baptism is not essential to have sins forgiven.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(The Thompson Chain -Reference Bible NIV)

You do not have to be a Greek scholar or an English professor to understand what "so that your sins may be forgiven" means.

Acts 2:38 Peter told them, "you must repent  and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus , so that you may have your sins forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(The New Testament in Modern English by J. B. Phillips)

If you have a fifth grade reading level you are capable of understand the meaning of "so that you may have your sins forgiven."

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Let each one of you repent and be immersed, in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to the remission of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (The Better Version of The New Testament by Chester Estes)

"In order to the remission of sins" means the same thing whether you are a Greek scholar, a professor in English or a novice Christian.

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NASB)

It does not matter if you are a Greek scholar, or an English professor; "for the forgiveness or your sins" means exactly what it says.

DO NOT LET THE "SCHOLAR POLICE" CONVINCE YOU, THAT ONLY AN ELITE FEW CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE.

CONTRARY TO THE "SCHOLAR POLICE" WATER BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL TO HAVE YOUR SINS FORGIVEN!      

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:00 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

SUNDAY, AUGUST 28, 2016

EVOLUTION OR CREATION?   BY STEVE FINNELL

Where did mankind come from? Evolution Or God?

Evolutionists claim man came from bacteria through monkeys.(A theory)

The Bible claims man was created by God through Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 3:9....God who created all things through Jesus Christ; NKJV)

Two choices. Only one answer.

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

1:14 PM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

IS INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY?  BY STEVE FINNELL

Is it possible to teach God's truth about Jesus Christ and be intellectually dishonest?

Example: Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NASB)

Would it be intellectually honest to say that baptized for the forgiveness of sins actually means you are baptized because your sins have already been forgiven?

Would it be intellectually honest to say that to repent for the forgiveness of sins actually means you have repented because your sins have already been forgiven? [Repentance is the intellectual commitment to turn from sin and to repent of unbelief and to turn toward God]

When you take an aspirin "for" a headache you are not taking an aspirin because your headache has already been cured.

To say that "for" in Acts 2:38 does not mean "in order to" is being intellectually dishonest.

Matthew 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins, (NASB)

It would be intellectually dishonest to assert that Jesus shed His blood because the sins of men had already been forgiven. Jesus shed His blood "for" [in order to] the forgiveness of sins.

     Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

11:45 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

SATURDAY, AUGUST 27, 2016

13 Objections to Baptismby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

S

ome churches historically have taught that water immersion is the dividing line between the lost and the saved. This means that a penitent believer remains unforgiven of sin until buried in the waters of baptism (Romans 6:4). Much of the denominational world disagrees with this analysis of Bible teaching, holding instead that one is saved at the point of “belief,” before and without water baptism. Consider some of the points that are advanced in an effort to minimize the essentiality of baptism for salvation.

OBJECTION #1: “JESUS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS BECAUSE HE WAS SINLESS; THEREFORE, PEOPLE TODAY ARE NOT BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO BE FORGIVEN. THEY MERELY IMITATE JESUS’ EXAMPLE.”

The baptism to which Jesus submitted Himself was John’s baptism (Matthew 3:13; Mark 1:9). John’s baptism was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). This truth is particularly evident from the fact that when Jesus presented Himself to John for baptism, John sought to deter Him, noting that, if anything, Jesus needed to baptize John (Matthew 3:14). Jesus did not correct John, as many seek to do today, by falsely arguing that baptism is not for remission of sins. Rather, Jesus, in effect, agreed with John, but made clear that His baptism was an exception to the rule.Jesus’ baptism was unique and not to be compared to anyone else’s baptism. Jesus’ baptism had the unique purpose of “fulfilling all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). In other words, it was necessary for Jesus to submit to John’s baptism (1) to show His contemporaries that no one is exempt from submitting to God’s will and (2) more specifically, Christ’s baptism was God’s appointed means of pinpointing for the world the precise identity of His Son. It was not until John saw the Spirit of God descending on Jesus and heard the voice (“This is My Son...”) that he knew that “this is the Son of God” (John 1:31-34; Matthew 3:16-17).Of course, John’s baptism is no longer valid (Acts 18:24-19:5). John’s baptism paralleled New Testament baptism in the sense that both were for the forgiveness of sins. But John’s baptism was transitional in nature, preparing Jews for their Messiah. Baptism after the cross is for all people (Matthew 28:19), in Jesus’ name (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 19:5), into His death (Romans 6:3), in order to be clothed with Him (Galatians 3:27), and added to His church (Acts 2:47; 1 Corinthians 12:13). We must not use Jesus’ baptism to suggest that salvation occurs prior to baptism.

OBJECTION #2: “THE THIEF ON THE CROSS WAS NOT BAPTIZED, AND HE WAS SAVED.”

When we “handle aright the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), we see that the thief was not subject to the New Testament command of immersion because this command was not given until after the thief’s death.¹ It was not until Christ was resurrected that He said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). It was not until Christ’s death that the Old Testament ceased, signified by the tearing of the Temple curtain (Matthew 27:51). When Jesus died, He took away the Old Testament, “nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14).The word “testament” means “covenant” or “will.” The last will and testament of Christ is the New Testament, which consists of those teachings that apply to people after the death of Christ. If we expect to receive the benefits of the New Testament (salvation, forgiveness of sin, eternal life), we must submit to the terms of the will for which Christ is mediator (Hebrews 9:15), for “where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator; for a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives” (Hebrews 9:16-17).So prior to the Lord’s death and the sealing of the New Testament, the baptism for the forgiveness of sins that would be in effect after the crucifixion was not a requirement for those who sought to be acceptable to God. Indeed, while Jesus was on Earth in person, He exercised His authority to forgive sin (Matthew 9:6). People now, however, live during the Christian era of religious history. Prior to Christ’s death, there were no Christians (Acts 11:26). For a person to reject water baptism as a prerequisite to salvation on the basis of what the thief did or did not do, is comparable to Abraham seeking salvation by building an ark—because that’s what Noah did to please God. It would be like the rich young ruler (Matthew 19) refusing Christ’s directive to sell all his possessions—because wealthy King David did not have to sell his possessions in order to please God.The thief on the cross could not have been baptized the way the new covenant stipulates you and I must be baptized. Why? Romans 6:3-4 teaches that if we wish to acquire “newness of life,” we must be baptized into Christ’s death, be buried with Christ in baptism, and then be raised from the dead. There was no way for the thief to comply with this New Testament baptism—Christ had not died! Christ had not been buried! Christ had not been raised! In fact, none of God’s ordained teachings pertaining to salvation in Christ (2 Timothy 2:10), and in His body the Church (Acts 2:47; Ephesians 1:22-23), had been given. The church, which Christ’s shed blood purchased (Acts 20:28), had not been established, and was not set up until weeks later (Acts 2).

2

We must not look to the thief as an example of salvation. Instead, we must obey “from the heart that form of doctrine” (Romans 6:17)—the form of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection through baptism (Romans 6:3-4). Only then can we be “made free from sin to become the servants of righteousness” (Romans 6:18).

OBJECTION #3: “THE BIBLE SAYS, ‘CHRIST STANDS AT THE DOOR OF YOUR HEART,’ AND ALL WE HAVE TO DO TO BE FORGIVEN OF SIN AND BECOME A CHRISTIAN IS TO INVITE HIM INTO OUR HEARTS.”

It is no doubt startling to discover that the Bible simply does not say such a thing. The phraseology is reminiscent of Revelation 3:20—the passage usually invoked to support the idea. But examine what Revelation 3:20 actually teaches. Revelation chapters 2 and 3 consist of seven specific messages directed to seven churches of Christ in Asia Minor in the first century. Thus, at the outset, we must recognize that Revelation 3:20 is addressed toChristians—not non-Christians seeking conversion to Christ.Second, Revelation 3:20 is found among Christ’s remarks to the church in Laodicea. Jesus made clear that the church had moved into a lost condition. The members were unacceptable to God since they were “lukewarm” (3:16). They had become unsaved since their spiritual condition was “wretched and miserable and poor” (3:17). Thus, in a very real sense, Jesus had abandoned them by removing His presence from their midst. Now He was on the outside looking in. He still wanted to be among them, but the decision was up to them. They had to recognize His absence, hear Him knocking for admission, and open the door—all of which is figurative language indicating their need to repent (3:19). They needed to return to the obedient lifestyle essential to sustaining God’s favor (John 14:21,23).Observe that Revelation 3:20 in no way supports the idea that non-Christians merely have to “open the door of their heart” and “invite Jesus in” with the assurance that the moment they mentally/verbally do so, Jesus comes into their heart and they are simultaneously saved from all past sin and have become Christians. The context of Revelation 3:20 shows that Jesus was seeking readmission into an apostate church.Does the Bible teach that Christ comes into a person’s heart? Yes, but not in the way the religious world suggests. For instance, Ephesians 3:17 states that Christ dwells in the heartthrough faith. Faith can be acquired only by hearing biblical truth (Romans 10:17). When Bible truth is obeyed, the individual is “saved by faith” (Hebrews 5:9; James 2:22; 1 Peter 1:22). Thus Christ enters our lives when we “draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience [i.e, repentance—DM] and our bodies washed with pure water [i.e., baptism—DM]” (Hebrews 10:22).

OBJECTION #4: “A PERSON IS SAVED THE MOMENT HE ACCEPTS CHRIST AS HIS PERSONAL SAVIOR—WHICH PRECEDES AND THEREFORE EXCLUDES WATER BAPTISM.”

To suggest that all one has to do to receive the forgiveness of God and become a Christian is to mentally accept Jesus into his heart and make a verbal statement to that effect, is to dispute the declaration of Jesus in Matthew 7:21—“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” To be sure, oral confession of Christ is one of the prerequisites to salvation (Romans 10:10). But Jesus said there is more to becoming a blood-bought follower of His than verbally “calling on his name”

3

or “inwardly accepting Him as Savior.” He stated that before we can even consider ourselves as God’s children (Christians), we must show our acceptance of His gift through outward obedience—“He that does the will of My Father.” Notice the significant contrast Jesus made: the difference between mental/verbal determination to accept and follow the Lord, versus verbal confession coupled with action or obedience (cf. James 2:14,17). This is why we must do everything the Lord has indicated must be done prior to salvation. Jesus is telling us that it is possible to make the mistake of claiming we have found the Lord, when we have not done what He plainly told us to do.Jesus said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Jesus also stated: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Honestly, have you accepted Christ as your personal savior—in the way He said it must be done? He asks: “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46, emp. added).

OBJECTION #5: “WE ARE CLOTHED WITH CHRIST AND BECOME HIS CHILDREN WHEN WE PLACE OUR FAITH IN HIM.”

Read Galatians 3:26-27: “You are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” The words “put on” (NKJV) are a translation of the Greek verb enduo which signifies “to enter into, get into, as into clothes, to put on.” Can we be saved prior to “putting Christ on” or “being clothed” with Christ? Of course not. But when and how does one put on Christ—according to Paul? When one is baptized in water. Those who teach we can be saved before baptism are, in reality, teaching we can be saved while spiritually naked and without Christ! Paul affirms that we “put on” Christ at the point of our baptism—not before.Paul wrote these words to people who were already saved. They had been made “sons of God by faith.” But how? At what point had they “been clothed with Christ”? When were they made “sons of God by faith”? When were they saved? Paul makes the answer to these questions very plain: they were united with Christ, had put on Christ, and were clothed with Christ—when they were baptized. Ask yourself if you have been clothed with Christ.

OBJECTION #6: “BAPTISM IS LIKE A BADGE ON A UNIFORM THAT MERELY GIVES EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON IS ALREADY SAVED.”

The New Testament nowhere expounds the idea that baptism is merely a “badge” or “outward sign of an inward grace.” Yes, baptism can biblically be referred to as a symbolicact; but what does it symbolize? Previous forgiveness? No! Romans 6 indicates that baptism symbolizes the previous death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Thus the benefits of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (remember, Jesus’ blood, which blots out sin, was shed in the context of His death, burial, and resurrection) are realized and received by the individual when he obediently (in penitent faith) submits to a similar ordeal, i.e., the death of his own “old man” or “body of sin” (Romans 6:6), burial (immersion into a watery tomb), and resurrection (rising from the watery tomb).Denominational doctrine maintains that forgiveness of sin is received prior to baptism. If so, the “new life” of the saved individual would also begin prior to baptism. Yet Paul said the “new life” occurs after baptism. He reiterated this to the Colossians. The “putting off of the body of the flesh by Christ’s circumcision” (Colossians 2:11) is accomplished in the context of water immersion and being “risen with Him” (Colossians 2:12). Chapter 3 then draws the important observation: “If then you were raised with Christ [an undeniable reference to baptism—DM], seek those things which are above” [an undeniable reference to the new life which follows—not precedes—baptism].

OBJECTION #7: “BAPTISM IS A MERITORIOUS WORK, WHEREAS WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE, NOT WORKS.”

“Works” or “steps” of salvation do not imply that one “merits” his salvation upon obedient compliance with those actions. Rather, “steps” or “a process” signifies the biblical concept of preconditions, stipulations of faith, or acts of obedience—what James called “works” (James 2:17). James was not saying that one can earn his justification (James 2:24). Rather, he was describing the active nature of faith, showing that saving faith, faith that is alive—as opposed to dead and therefore utterly useless (2:20)—is the only kind that is acceptable to God, a faith that obeys whatever actions God has indicated must be done. The obedience of both Abraham and Rahab is set forth as illustrative of the kind of faith James says is acceptable. They manifested their trust by actively doing what God wanted done. Such obedient or active trust is the only kind that avails anything. Thus, an obedient response is essential.The actions themselves are manifestations of this trust that justifies, not the trust itself. But notice that according to James, you cannot have one without the other. Trust, or faith, isdead, until it leads one to obey the specifications God assigned. Here is the essence of salvation that separates those who adhere to biblical teaching from those who have been adversely influenced by the Protestant reformers. The reformers reacted to the unbiblical concept of stacking bad deeds against good deeds in an effort to offset the former by the latter (cf. Islam). Unfortunately, the reactionary reformers went to the equally unacceptable, opposite extreme by asserting that man need “only believe” (Luther) or man can do nothing at all (Calvin). The truth is between these two unbiblical extremes.From Genesis to Revelation, faith is the trusting, obedient reaction that humans manifest in response to what God offers. This is the kind of “justification by faith” that Paul expounded in Romans. Like red flags at the very beginning (1:5) and at the end (16:26) of his divinely inspired treatise, he defined what he meant by “faith” with the words “obedient faith” (hupakoeinpisteos), i.e., faith that obeys, obedience which springs from faith.

4

This fact is precisely why God declared His willingness to fulfill the promises He made to Abraham: “because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5). Hence, in Romans Paul could speak of the necessity of walking “in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had” (Romans 4:12). Until faith obeys, it is useless and cannot justify.The Hebrews writer made the same point in Hebrews 11. The faith we see in Old Testament “men of faith” availed only after they obeyed God-given stipulations. God rewards those who “diligently seek Him” in faith (vs. 6). Noah “became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” when he “prepared an ark.” If he had not complied with divine instructions, he would have been branded as “unfaithful.” The thing that made the difference, that constituted the line of demarcation between faith and lack of faith, was obedient action—what James called “works,” and Paul called “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). In this sense, even faith is a “work” (John 6:29). Hebrews 11 repeatedly reinforces this eternal principle: (1) God offers grace (which may at any point in history consist of physical blessings, e.g., healing, salvation from enemies, land or property, etc., or spiritual blessings, e.g., justification, forgiveness, salvation from sin, being made righteous, etc.); (2) man responds in obedient trust (i.e., “faith”) by complying with the stipulated terms; and (3) God bestows the blessing.It would be wrong to think that man’s obedient response earns or merits the subsequent blessing. Such simply does not logically follow. All blessings God bestows on man are undeserved (Luke 17:10). His rich mercy and loving grace is freely offered and made available—though man never deserves such kindness (Titus 2:11). Still, a non-meritorious response is absolutely necessary if unworthy man is to receive certain blessings.

OBJECTION #8: “NOT ONLY IS BAPTISM NONESSENTIAL TO SALVATION, EVEN FAITH IS A GIFT FROM GOD TO A PERSON. MAN IS SO DEPRAVED THAT HE IS INCAPABLE OF BELIEVING.”

Surely, God’s infinite justice would not permit Him to force man to desire God’s blessings. God’s intervention into man’s woeful condition was not in the form of causing man to desire help or miraculously generating faith within man. God intervened by giving His inspired Word, which tells how He gave His Son to make a way for man to escape eternal calamity. Faith is then generated in the individual by God’s words which the person must read and understand (Romans 10:17; Acts 8:30). The individual then demonstrates his faith in obedience.Did the walls of Jericho fall down “by faith” (Hebrews 11:30)? Absolutely. But the salient question is: “When?” Did the walls fall the moment the Israelites merely “believed” that they would fall? No! Rather, when the people obeyed the divine directives. The walls fell “by faith”after the people met God’s conditions. If the conditions had not been met, the walls would not have fallen down “by faith.” The Israelites could not claim that the walls fell by their own effort, or that they earned the collapse of the walls. The city was given to them by God as an undeserved act of His grace (Joshua 6:2). To receive the free gift of the city, the people had to obey the divinely stipulated prerequisites.Notice the capsuling nature of Hebrews 11:6. Faith or belief is not given by God. It is something that man does in order to please God. The whole chapter is predicated on the fundamental idea that man is personally responsible for mustering obedient trust. God does not “regenerate man by His call, thus enabling man to respond.” God “calls” individuals through, by means of, His written Word (2 Thessalonians 2:14). In turn, the written Word can generate faith in the individual (Romans 10:17). How unscriptural to suggest that man is so “totally depraved” that he cannot even believe, thus placing God in the position of demanding something from man (John 8:24) of which man is inherently incapable. But the God of the Bible would not be guilty of such injustice.Some people approach passages like Romans 10:17 in this fashion: (1) God chooses to save an individual; (2) God gives him the free gift of faith; and (3) God uses the Gospel to stir up the faith which He has given the person. Yet neither Romans 10:17, nor any other passage, even hints at such an idea. The text states explicitly that faith comes from hearing Christ’s Word. Notice verse 14, where the true sequence is given: (1) the preacher preaches; (2) the individual hears the preached word; and (3) believes. This sequence is a far cry from suggesting that God miraculously imparts faith to a person, and then the Holy Spirit “stirs up” the faith. Such a notion has God giving man a defective faith which then needs to be stirred up. The text makes clear that God has provided for faith to be generated (i.e., originated) by the preached Word. God does not arbitrarily intervene and impose faith upon the hearts of a select group of individuals.According to 1 Corinthians 1:21, mankind did not know God, so God transmitted His message through inspired preachers so that those who respond in faith would be saved. Paul wrote in Romans 1:16 that this gospel message is God’s power to save those who believe it. Notice that the Gospel is what Paul preached (vs. 15). Thus the preached message from God generates faith and enables people to be saved.We see the same in Acts 2:37. What pierced the hearts of the listeners? Obviously, the sermon. Acts 2:37 is a demonstration of Romans 10:17—“faith comes by hearing…the word of God.” God did not change the hearts of the people miraculously; Peter’s words did. If denominational doctrine is correct, when the Jews asked the apostles what they should do, Peter should have said: “There’s nothing you can do. You are so totally depraved, you can’t do anything. God will regenerate you; He will cause you to believe (since faith is His ‘free gift’).” Yet, quite to the contrary, Peter told them that they needed to do some things. And they were things that God could not do for them.First, they were required to “repent.” Biblical repentance is a change of mind (Matthew 21:29). A “turning” follows repentance (Acts 3:19) and consists of some specified action subsequent to the change of mind. John the Baptizer called this turning activity, which follows repentance and serves as evidence that repentance has occurred, “fruits” (Matthew 3:8). After being convicted (Acts 2:37—i.e., believing the truth of Peter’s contentions), they were told to “repent,” to change their minds about their previous course of life. What else were they to do?Peter did not tell them to “repent and believe.” Their belief was already abundantly evident in their pricked hearts and their fervent petition for instructions. What was lacking? Peter said (i.e., God said) they still lacked baptism. Remember, the only difference between dead faith and saving faith is outward action—compliance with all actions that God specifies as necessary before He will freely bestow unmerited favor in the form of forgiveness.Thus baptism marked the point at which God would count them righteous if they first believed and repented. Baptism served as the line of demarcation between the saved and the lost. Jesus’ blood could wash their sins away only at the point of baptism.

OBJECTION #9: “THE PREPOSITION ‘FOR’ IN THE PHRASE ‘FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS’ IN ACTS 2:38 MEANS ‘BECAUSE OF.’ HENCE, THEY WERE BAPTIZED BECAUSE OF SINS FOR WHICH THEY WERE FORGIVEN WHEN THEY BELIEVED.”

The English word “for” has, as one of its meanings, “because of.” However, the Greek preposition eis that underlies the English word “for” never has a causal function. It always has its primary, basic, accusative thrust: unto, into, to, toward. We must not go to the text, decide what we think it means, and assign a grammatical meaning that coincides with our preconceived understanding. We must begin with the inspired grammar and seek to understand every text in light of the normal, natural, common meaning of the grammatical and lexical construction. The same grammatical construction of Acts 2:38 is found in Matthew 26:28—“into the remission of sins” (eisaphesin hamartion). Jesus’ blood, the blood of the covenant, was undeniably shed for many “in order to acquire remission of sins.” This is the natural and normal meaning of the Greek preposition—toward, in the direction of. Had the Holy Spirit intended to say that baptism is “because of” or “on account of” past forgiveness, He would have used the Greek preposition that conveys that very idea: dia with the accusative.Similarly, in Acts 2:38, if repentance is not “because of” remission of sins, neither is baptism. Regardless of person and number considerations, Peter told his hearers to do both things. The act of baptism (connected to the act of repentance by the coordinate conjunction) cannot be extricated from the context of remission of sins by any stretch.

OBJECTION #10: “WHEN THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER ASKED WHAT TO DO TO BE SAVED, HE WAS SIMPLY TOLD TO BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.”

As further proof that God does not miraculously bestow faith on a person through the Holy Spirit, observe that Paul told the jailer that he (the jailer) had to believe; he did not answer the jailer’s question with: “You don’t have to do anything. God will give you faith.” On the contrary, Paul and Silas told him that he had to manifest faith in Jesus. But was this pagan jailer in a position at that moment to do so? No, he would have to be taught Who, how, and what to believe. No wonder, then, Luke records immediately: “they spoke the word of the Lord to him” (Acts 16:32). If Romans 10:17 can be trusted, the words which Paul and Silas proclaimed generated faith in the jailer. And those same words surely included the necessity of repentance and baptism, because the jailer immediately manifested the fruit of repentance (by washing their stripes), and likewise was immediately baptized (not waiting until morning or the weekend). Observe carefully Luke’s meticulous documentation, that it was only afterthe jailer believed, repented, and was baptized, that the jailer was in a position to rejoice. Only then did Luke describe the jailer as “having believed in God” (vs. 34), i.e., now standing in a state of perfected belief.

5

OBJECTION #11: “SAUL WAS SAVED BEFORE AND WITHOUT BAPTISM WHILE HE WAS ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS WHEN JESUS APPEARED TO HIM.”

The actual sequence of events delineated in Acts shows that Saul was not saved while on the road to Damascus. Jesus identified Himself and then accused Saul of being a persecutor (Acts 9:5). Saul “trembled” and was “astonished” (hardly the description of a saved individual), and pleadingly asked what he should do—a clear indication that he had just been struck with his lost and undone condition.This question has the exact same force as the Pentecostians’ question (Acts 2:37) and the jailer’s question (Acts 16:30). All three passages are analogous in their characterization of individuals who had acted wrongly (i.e., the Pentecostians had crucified Jesus, Saul was persecuting Christians, and the jailer had kept innocent Christians jailed). Likewise, in each instance, the candidates for conversion are portrayed as unhappy (i.e., the Pentecostians were “cut to the heart,” Saul “trembled” and “was astonished,” and the jailer “came trembling”—i.e., he was frightened). They were scared, miserable individuals, suddenly brought face to face with their horribly unacceptable status before God. Such is hardly an apt description for saved individuals. Where is the joy, peace, and excitement that comes when one’s sins have been washed away?Saul was not forgiven on the road to Damascus—he still needed to be told what he “must do” (Acts 9:6). He still lacked “hearing the word of the Lord.” The only way for Saul to hear the Gospel was through the agency of a preacher (Romans 10:14; 1 Corinthians 1:21).  Similarly, an angel told Cornelius (Acts 10:4) that his prayers and money had gone up for a memorial before God—yet he was unsaved. He needed to contact an inspired preacher, Peter, “who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved” (Acts 11:14). Likewise, before Saul could learn of God’s plan that he be the great “apostle of the Gentiles,” he first needed to hear the Gospel expounded and told how to respond to what God offered in Christ.Rather than tell him what he needed to do to be saved, Jesus told him to go into the city, where a preacher (Ananias) would expound to him the necessity of salvation. Notice: Saul waited in Damascus for three days without food and drink, and was still blind. Here’s an individual who was still miserable, unhappy, and unsaved, awaiting instructions on how to change his unfortunate status. Acts 9:18 condenses Saul’s response to the preached Word, while Acts 22 elaborates a little further on the significance of Saul’s response. Ananias said, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).Notice Ananias’ inspired connection between baptism and sins being cleansed. If Saul was saved prior to baptism, it was wrong for Ananias to say that Saul still had sins that needed to be washed away. Ananias did not congratulate Saul because his sins already were washed away, and tell him that he needed to be baptized only as a “badge” or “outward symbol” or “picture” of what had already occurred. He plainly said Saul’s sins yet needed to be washed away. That can be accomplished only by Jesus’ blood in the act of baptism. The water does not cleanse the sin-stained soul—Jesus does. And Ananias clearly stated when(not how or by Whom) that occurs. If Saul’s penitent faith would not lead him to submit to water immersion, he could not have had his sins washed away by Jesus. Instead, he would have remained in opposition to Jesus. Remember, Scripture never portrays baptism as symbolic of previous sin removal. The only symbolism ever attached to the act of baptism is its (1) likeness to Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5); (2) its comparison to the removal of sin like circumcision removes skin (Colossians 2:12); and (3) its likeness to Noah’s emergence from a sinful world (1 Peter 3:20-21). God literally (not symbolically) removes sin and justifies the individual by grace, through faith, at the point of baptism.

OBJECTION #12: “IF BAPTISM IS NECESSARY TO SALVATION, JESUS WOULD HAVE SAID, ‘BUT HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE AND IS NOT BAPTIZED WILL BE CONDEMNED’ IN MARK 16:16. AND BESIDES, THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK 16 ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE OLDEST AND BEST GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.”

The omission of “and is not baptized” in Mark 16:16 is completely logical and necessary. The first phrase (“he who believes and is baptized”) describes man’s complete response necessitated by the preaching of the Gospel: Faith must precede baptism, since obviously one would not submit to baptism if he did not first believe. It is non-essential to ascribe condemnation in the second clause to the individual who is not baptized, since the individual being condemned is the one who does not initially believe. The person who refuses to believe “is condemned already” (John 3:18) and certainly would not be interested in the next item of compliance—baptism. He who does not believe would obviously not be baptized—and even if he would, his failure to first believe disqualifies him from being immersed. Only penitent believers are candidates for baptism. An exact grammatical parallel would be: “He who goes to the store and buys coffee for his father will receive $5.00. He who does not go to the store will be spanked.” Obviously, if the child refuses to go to the store, he would not be in a position to buy coffee, and it would be redundant—even grammatically and linguistically inappropriate—to include the failure to purchase the coffee in the pronouncement of an impending spanking.Are the last verses of Mark 16 uninspired? The textual evidence supporting the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is exceptional in light of the vast sources available for establishing the original text. While it is true that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit the last 12 verses, it is positively misleading to assume that “the validity of these verses is weak.” In fact, the vast number of witnesses are in favor of the authenticity of verses 9-20. The rejection ofVaticanus is less weighty in light of its comparable exclusion of the Pastoral Epistles, the last part of Hebrews, and Revelation. The rejection of Sinaiticus is similarly unconvincing, since it includes some of the Apocryphal books.

6

OBJECTION #13: “ROMANS 10:9-10 INDICATES THAT ALL ONE NEEDS TO DO IS BELIEVE AND CONFESS JESUS.”

The use of eis in Romans 10:10 cannot mean “because of.” Verse nine explicitly says one will be saved “if” he confesses and believes in the heart. Confession and faith are therefore prerequisites to forgiveness. They are God-ordained “responses” to the preached Word (vs. 8) and must occur before salvation is imparted by God. In other words, one’s soul is purified when he obeys the truth (1 Peter 1:22). Jesus provides eternal salvation to those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:9).But is baptism excluded from salvation since only faith and confession are mentioned in Romans 10:9-10? Notice, four chapters earlier, the order of Romans 6:17-18: (1) slaves to sin; (2) person obeys; (3) made free from sin (righteous). Item (3) cannot occur unless item (2) occurs first. The “whole” of man is to reverence God and keep His commands(Ecclesiastes 12:13). To whom does God give the Holy Spirit? To those whom He arbitrarily chooses, without any consideration of the individual’s necessitated response? No. Acts 5:32 says God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. God has always conditioned the bestowal of spiritual blessing upon prior obedient response (Jeremiah 7:23; Genesis 26:4-5). Deuteronomy 5:10 says God shows mercy to those who love Him and keep His commands.In Romans 10, Paul is not stressing the specific aspects of the conversion process. That is not the context. Rather, the context addresses whether one is acceptable to God in the Christian dispensation due to physical heritage (i.e., race/ethnicity), versus whether one is saved when one complies with God’s instruction. Paul was stressing that their nationality could not bring the Jews into God’s favor. Rather, people are saved when they render obedience to the Gospel. He quoted Joel 2:32, where the emphasis is on the word “whosoever” in contrast to “Jews only.” Verse 12 argues that God does not distinguish on the basis of race. The individual’s response to the preached Word is the deciding factor. However, Romans 10 does not reveal all of the details of that obedient response. One must be willing to search out the whole truth on such a subject.If repentance is essential to salvation, one must concede that such teaching must come from some passage other than Romans 10. Does Romans 10:10 mean that repentance is unnecessary, just because it is unmentioned in the text? No, since repentance is required in chapter 2:4. If not, then why assume baptism to be nonessential simply because it is not mentioned in this particular text? It is enjoined in chapter 6:3-4. To ascertain the significance of baptism in God’s sight, one must go to passages that discuss that subject, rather than dismiss them in deference to verses on faith. If God says, “faith saves” (Romans 5:1), let us accept that truth. If God says, “baptism saves” (1 Peter 3:21), let us accept that truth, too! Jesus Himself said: belief + baptism = salvation (Mark 16:16), not belief = salvation + baptism.Notice also, Romans 10:10,13 does not say that salvation can be acquired by mere verbal confession (e.g., “I accept Jesus into my heart as my personal Savior”). Why?(1) Nowhere is the statement, “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior,” found in Scripture.(2) Jesus forever dashed the idea of salvation by mental acceptance/verbal profession alone in Matthew 7:21 and Luke 6:46, where He showed that oral confession alone is unacceptable. In every age, there have been specified actions of obedience that God has required before He would count individuals as pleasing or acceptable. In fact, if faith is not coupled with the appropriate obedient action (like baptism), then such faith is unable to justify. Such faith is imperfect (James 2:17,20,26) and therefore cannot save!(3) The phrase “call on the name of the Lord” is an idiomatic way to say: “respond with appropriate obedient actions.” It is the figure of speech known as synecdoche (i.e., the part stands for the whole). To “call” on God’s name is equivalent to saying, “Do what He tells you to do.” Isaiah 55:6 told the Jews of Isaiah’s day to call on God. Verse 7 explains how: (1) forsake wicked ways, (2) forsake wicked thoughts, (3) return to the Lord. To obey these three stipulations constituted “calling on God.”Likewise, those in Jerusalem who “called on the Lord’s name” (Acts 9:14,21) had done so, not solely by verbal confession, but by repentance and baptism for forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Similarly, Paul himself became a Christian, that is, he “called on the name of the Lord”—not by verbally confessing Christ—but by being baptized (Acts 22:16). For Paul, “calling on the Lord’s name” was equivalent to (not precedent to) being baptized. God washed his sins away by the blood of Jesus at the point of his baptism.

CONCLUSION

Though the bulk of Christendom for centuries has veered off into Calvinism and other post-first century theological thought, the meaning and design of baptism is determined by the New Testament. The verses in the New Testament that speak about baptism are definitive. They indicate that water immersion precedes salvation—along with faith, repentance, and confession of Christ’s deity. No objection has ever overturned this divinely intended function.

ENDNOTES

1

Although the thief may well have submitted to the precursor to NT baptism, i.e., John’s baptism, it also was “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).

2

See also Dave Miller (2003), “The Thief on the Cross,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1274&topic=86

.

3

Cf. Eric Lyons (2004), “Calling on the Name of the Lord,”

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/597

.

4

Rudolf Bultmann (1968), “πιστεύω,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982 reprint), 6:206; Fredrick William Danker (2000), “ὑπακοη,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition, p. 1028; James Denny (no date), “St. Paul’s Epistles to the Romans” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:587; J.B. Lightfoot (1895), Notes on Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan), p. 246; H.P.V. Nunn (1912), A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 42; Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor (1944), “A Note on ‘είς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως’ in Romans 1.5 and xvi.26,” The Expository Times, 55:305-306; A.T. Robertson (1931), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press), 4:324; Marvin Vincent (1946), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 3:5; W.E. Vine (1966), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell), p. 123.

5

W.M. Ramsay (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Houghton and Stoughton), p. 165.

6

For a more thorough discussion of this matter, see Dave Miller (2005), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25[12]:89-95, December,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780

.

Copyright © 2016 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or 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) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (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, excepting brief quotations, 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 [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

[christianstevefinnell]

THE DEVIL IS THE FATHER OF DECEIT  BY STEVE FINNELL

Satan was a liar from the beginning in the Garden of Eden. Satan deceived Eve and Eve convinced Adam that that deception was factually correct.  (Genesis 3:1-13.....And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done? And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me and I ate."'NKJV)

The Devil is the father of lies. He is the great deceiver. (John 8:44 "You are of your father the devil.....When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. NKJV)

Men are still being deceived by the Devil and in turn are deceiving others. It does not matter if a person is deceived and then deceives others, the results are the same for both of them.

There are some so-called Christians who claim Jesus is just one of many ways to heaven.

If you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God you will died in your sins. (John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in yours."NKJV)

If the master of deception convinces men that immersion in water is not essential for salvation and the deceived teach others the same, then, they are both dupes of duplicity.(Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved...)

Adam and Eve were both deceived. The, I was deceived by the serpent excuse, did not save them from death.

If what men are being taught is contrary to Scriptures, then, they are being deceived. What will be the consequences of accepting doctrine contrary to the Bible?

Pride and the lack of honest prayer and dishonest Bible study leaves people subject to becoming dupes of duplicity.

Satan is the father of deceit!

IS JESUS GOD THE FATHER? ---BY STEVE FINNELL

Jesus is God, however, He is not God the Father!

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NASB)

Yes, Jesus was and is God.

Matthew 24:35-36 Heaven and earth will pass away...36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.(NASB)

Jesus does not know the end of time date. Only the Father knows. Jesus is not God the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28 But now Christ has been raised from the dead....24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and authority and power.........28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (NASB)

Jesus is God, however, He is not God the Father.    

5 Reasons Racism is Ridiculousby

Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Atheism has no rational basis upon which to call anything objectively just or unjust, including racism. If mankind is merely the result of billions of years of mindless evolution and is nothing more than animals (as atheistic evolution contends; Marchant, 2008), then man can logically make evolutionary-based racist remarks that are consistent with the godless General Theory of Evolution. In fact, Charles Darwin’s “Bulldog,” atheist Thomas Huxley, did just that in his 1865 essay, “Emancipation—Black and White.” He alleged, for example, “no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less superior, of the white man.” In truth, if there is no God, mankind could just as easily look down upon and mistreat others (whom he deems are less evolved), as he does roaches, rats, and orangutans (

Lyons

, 2011;

Lyons and Butt

, 2009). Those who are Christians, however, logically contend that since (1) God exists, and (2) the Bible is the Word of God, racism is morally wrong—and completely ridiculous for the following five reasons.

#1—ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

Not only did God specially create Adam and Eve in His image and vastly different than all other living things on Earth (Genesis 1:26-27), since then, every human being has been made according to God’s likeness. While preaching to Gentiles in Athens thousands of years after the Creation, Paul, a Jew, did not contend that man was once the offspring of God; he said, “We are” the offspring of God (Acts 17:28-29). [The Greek word esmen in 17:28 is the first person plural of eimi (to be). This recognition of being God’s offspring served as a basis for his argument, as the next verse indicates: “Being then the offspring of God….”]James wrote: “But the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren these things ought not so to be” (3:8-9, ASV, emp. added). [The English verb “are made” (ASV) derives from the Greek gegonotas, which is the perfect participle of the verbginomai. The perfect tense in Greek is used to describe an action brought to completion in the past, but whose effects are felt in the present (Mounce, 1993, p. 219).] The thrust of the expression, “who are made after the likeness of God” (Greek kath’ homoisosin theou gegonotas), is that humans in the past have been made according to the likeness of God, andthey are still bearers of that likeness. For this reason, praising the Creator at one moment, while hurling unkind, racist remarks at another time, is terribly inconsistent in a most unChristlike way. All human beings (of every color and ethnicity) are divine image bearers.

#2—GOD ONLY MADE ONE RACE—THE HUMAN RACE

Although people come in different colors, shapes, and sizes, and although they often associate more closely with those whom they find more similar in ways to themselves, the fact is, there is only one human race. Racism is ridiculous because we are all related, not by means of naturalistic evolution, but by special Creation. No one person is inherently of more value than another person. We are all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve—the specially created couple whom God made thousands of years ago in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:20). What’s more, we are also sons and daughters of Noah and his wife, through whom the Earth was repopulated after the worldwide Flood of Genesis 6-8.As the apostle Paul informed the idolatrous Athenians 2,000 years ago, God “made from oneblood every nation to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Adam and Eve had children, who had children, who had children…who had you and me. We are all physically related. We are all of one race—the one human race. We are all (as modern science classifies us) of the same human species—Homo sapiens. We all trace our ancestry back to Noah, and then back to Adam. We may have different skin color, facial features, hair texture, etc., but we are all brothers and sisters! We are family—a part of the same human race.

#3—GOD DOESN’T PLAY FAVORITES…AND NEITHER SHOULD WE

Although God is omnipotent, He is actually color-blind. His all-loving, perfectly just nature will not allow Him to love someone more than another based upon the color of a person’s skin or the nation in which one was born. Similar to how God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), God cannot show favoritism.Moses wrote: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:17-19). Peter said: “God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35, emp. added). According to Paul, God “does not receive a face” (Galatians 2:6, NASB literal footnote rendering); that is, “God does not judge by external appearance” (Galatians 2:6, NIV).In short, it is impossible to hold “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, (the Lord) of glory, with respect of persons” (James 2:1, ASV). The Christian’s care and concern for his fellow brother by Creation and by Christ is to be color-blind.

#4—LOVE IS NOT RACIST

Whereas racism is fueled by earthly ignorance and hate, the Christian is filled with the fruit of Heaven’s Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). The child of God is directed by an omniscient, omni-benevolent Father Who expects His children to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). To the Philippians Paul wrote, “And this I pray,that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God” (1:9-11, emp. added). In two of the more challenging sections of Scripture, Paul wrote: “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:4-6, ESV). “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another…. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse…. Repay no one evil for evil…. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:9-18).No Christian can be a racist, and any racist who claims to be a Christian is, in truth, a liar. As the apostle John explained, “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also” (1 John 4:20-21).“[W]hatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor [regardless of his or her color and ethnicity—EL]. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:9-10, NIV).

#5—JESUS IS EVERYONE’S SAVIOR

In one of the earliest Messianic prophecies, God promised Abraham that it would be through One of his descendants that “all the nations” and “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 22:18; 12:3, emp. added). It certainly was an honor for Abraham’s family to be chosen as the one through whom the Savior of the world would come, but Jesus did not come only to save the Jews. God did not enact a plan of salvation to save one particular color of people. He did not send Jesus to take away the sins of a particular ethnic group or nation. Jesus is the answer to the whole world’s sin problem; He is “the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14). “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, thatwhoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16-17, emp. added).“God…desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4, emp. added). For this reason, “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations” (Luke 24:47, emp. added)—to people of all colors, in all cultures, in whatever countries.The Gospel “is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16, emp. added). And when individuals in the world “obey the Gospel” (2 Thessalonians 1:8; see

Lyons and Butt

, n.d.) and are added to the Lord’s Church by God Himself (Acts 2:47), we allbecome one in Christ Jesus. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:29).

CONCLUSION

I do not claim to be an expert on race relations, but I know that some people genuinely struggle with the sin of racism. Some struggle with being the recipients of racism, which in turn may cause them to be tempted to react in racist ways. Others struggle with cowardly silence as they tolerate the sin of racism in their homes, churches, schools, businesses, and communities. Still others seem so preoccupied with advancing their own racial agenda that they appear to hastily interpret most everything as a racial problem, when most things are not.Jesus once taught the hypocrites of His day, saying, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). May God help us to see as He sees: “for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). What a better world this would be if everyone realized the foolishness of judging a book by its cover. Racism really is ridiculous.

REFERENCES

Huxley, Thomas (1865), “Emancipation—Black and White,” http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE3/B&W.html.Lyons, Eric (2011), “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101&topic=95

.Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (no date), Receiving the Gift of Salvation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press),

http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Receiving%20the%20Gift%20of%20Salvation.pdf

.Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2009), “Darwin, Evolution, and Racism,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2654

.Marchant, Jo (2008), “We Should Act Like the Animals We Are,” New Scientist, 200[2678]:44-45, October 18-24.Mounce, William D. (1993), Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Copyright © 2015 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in part or 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) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (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, excepting brief quotations, 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 [phone]

#read more at steve-finnell.blogspot.com

[christianstevefinnell]

THE DEVIL IS THE FATHER OF DECEIT  BY STEVE FINNELL

Satan was a liar from the beginning in the Garden of Eden. Satan deceived Eve and Eve convinced Adam that that deception was factually correct.  (Genesis 3:1-13.....And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done? And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me and I ate."'NKJV)

The Devil is the father of lies. He is the great deceiver. (John 8:44 "You are of your father the devil.....When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. NKJV)

Men are still being deceived by the Devil and in turn are deceiving others. It does not matter if a person is deceived and then deceives others, the results are the same for both of them.

There are some so-called Christians who claim Jesus is just one of many ways to heaven.

If you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God you will died in your sins. (John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in yours."NKJV)

If the master of deception convinces men that immersion in water is not essential for salvation and the deceived teach others the same, then, they are both dupes of duplicity.(Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved...)

Adam and Eve were both deceived. The, I was deceived by the serpent excuse, did not save them from death.

If what men are being taught is contrary to Scriptures, then, they are being deceived. What will be the consequences of accepting doctrine contrary to the Bible?

Pride and the lack of honest prayer and dishonest Bible study leaves people subject to becoming dupes of duplicity.

Satan is the father of deceit!

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

10:56 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

IS JESUS GOD THE FATHER? ---BY STEVE FINNELL

Jesus is God, however, He is not God the Father!

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NASB)

Yes, Jesus was and is God.

Matthew 24:35-36 Heaven and earth will pass away...36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.(NASB)

Jesus does not know the end of time date. Only the Father knows. Jesus is not God the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28 But now Christ has been raised from the dead....24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and authority and power.........28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (NASB)

Jesus is God, however, He is not God the Father.    

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:14 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2016

5 Reasons Racism is Ridiculousby

Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Atheism has no rational basis upon which to call anything objectively just or unjust, including racism. If mankind is merely the result of billions of years of mindless evolution and is nothing more than animals (as atheistic evolution contends; Marchant, 2008), then man can logically make evolutionary-based racist remarks that are consistent with the godless General Theory of Evolution. In fact, Charles Darwin’s “Bulldog,” atheist Thomas Huxley, did just that in his 1865 essay, “Emancipation—Black and White.” He alleged, for example, “no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less superior, of the white man.” In truth, if there is no God, mankind could just as easily look down upon and mistreat others (whom he deems are less evolved), as he does roaches, rats, and orangutans (

Lyons

, 2011;

Lyons and Butt

, 2009). Those who are Christians, however, logically contend that since (1) God exists, and (2) the Bible is the Word of God, racism is morally wrong—and completely ridiculous for the following five reasons.

#1—ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

Not only did God specially create Adam and Eve in His image and vastly different than all other living things on Earth (Genesis 1:26-27), since then, every human being has been made according to God’s likeness. While preaching to Gentiles in Athens thousands of years after the Creation, Paul, a Jew, did not contend that man was once the offspring of God; he said, “We are” the offspring of God (Acts 17:28-29). [The Greek word esmen in 17:28 is the first person plural of eimi (to be). This recognition of being God’s offspring served as a basis for his argument, as the next verse indicates: “Being then the offspring of God….”]James wrote: “But the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren these things ought not so to be” (3:8-9, ASV, emp. added). [The English verb “are made” (ASV) derives from the Greek gegonotas, which is the perfect participle of the verbginomai. The perfect tense in Greek is used to describe an action brought to completion in the past, but whose effects are felt in the present (Mounce, 1993, p. 219).] The thrust of the expression, “who are made after the likeness of God” (Greek kath’ homoisosin theou gegonotas), is that humans in the past have been made according to the likeness of God, andthey are still bearers of that likeness. For this reason, praising the Creator at one moment, while hurling unkind, racist remarks at another time, is terribly inconsistent in a most unChristlike way. All human beings (of every color and ethnicity) are divine image bearers.

#2—GOD ONLY MADE ONE RACE—THE HUMAN RACE

Although people come in different colors, shapes, and sizes, and although they often associate more closely with those whom they find more similar in ways to themselves, the fact is, there is only one human race. Racism is ridiculous because we are all related, not by means of naturalistic evolution, but by special Creation. No one person is inherently of more value than another person. We are all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve—the specially created couple whom God made thousands of years ago in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:20). What’s more, we are also sons and daughters of Noah and his wife, through whom the Earth was repopulated after the worldwide Flood of Genesis 6-8.As the apostle Paul informed the idolatrous Athenians 2,000 years ago, God “made from oneblood every nation to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Adam and Eve had children, who had children, who had children…who had you and me. We are all physically related. We are all of one race—the one human race. We are all (as modern science classifies us) of the same human species—Homo sapiens. We all trace our ancestry back to Noah, and then back to Adam. We may have different skin color, facial features, hair texture, etc., but we are all brothers and sisters! We are family—a part of the same human race.

#3—GOD DOESN’T PLAY FAVORITES…AND NEITHER SHOULD WE

Although God is omnipotent, He is actually color-blind. His all-loving, perfectly just nature will not allow Him to love someone more than another based upon the color of a person’s skin or the nation in which one was born. Similar to how God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), God cannot show favoritism.Moses wrote: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:17-19). Peter said: “God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35, emp. added). According to Paul, God “does not receive a face” (Galatians 2:6, NASB literal footnote rendering); that is, “God does not judge by external appearance” (Galatians 2:6, NIV).In short, it is impossible to hold “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, (the Lord) of glory, with respect of persons” (James 2:1, ASV). The Christian’s care and concern for his fellow brother by Creation and by Christ is to be color-blind.

#4—LOVE IS NOT RACIST

Whereas racism is fueled by earthly ignorance and hate, the Christian is filled with the fruit of Heaven’s Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). The child of God is directed by an omniscient, omni-benevolent Father Who expects His children to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). To the Philippians Paul wrote, “And this I pray,that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God” (1:9-11, emp. added). In two of the more challenging sections of Scripture, Paul wrote: “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:4-6, ESV). “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another…. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse…. Repay no one evil for evil…. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:9-18).No Christian can be a racist, and any racist who claims to be a Christian is, in truth, a liar. As the apostle John explained, “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also” (1 John 4:20-21).“[W]hatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor [regardless of his or her color and ethnicity—EL]. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:9-10, NIV).

#5—JESUS IS EVERYONE’S SAVIOR

In one of the earliest Messianic prophecies, God promised Abraham that it would be through One of his descendants that “all the nations” and “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 22:18; 12:3, emp. added). It certainly was an honor for Abraham’s family to be chosen as the one through whom the Savior of the world would come, but Jesus did not come only to save the Jews. God did not enact a plan of salvation to save one particular color of people. He did not send Jesus to take away the sins of a particular ethnic group or nation. Jesus is the answer to the whole world’s sin problem; He is “the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14). “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, thatwhoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16-17, emp. added).“God…desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4, emp. added). For this reason, “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations” (Luke 24:47, emp. added)—to people of all colors, in all cultures, in whatever countries.The Gospel “is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16, emp. added). And when individuals in the world “obey the Gospel” (2 Thessalonians 1:8; see

Lyons and Butt

, n.d.) and are added to the Lord’s Church by God Himself (Acts 2:47), we allbecome one in Christ Jesus. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:29).

CONCLUSION

I do not claim to be an expert on race relations, but I know that some people genuinely struggle with the sin of racism. Some struggle with being the recipients of racism, which in turn may cause them to be tempted to react in racist ways. Others struggle with cowardly silence as they tolerate the sin of racism in their homes, churches, schools, businesses, and communities. Still others seem so preoccupied with advancing their own racial agenda that they appear to hastily interpret most everything as a racial problem, when most things are not.Jesus once taught the hypocrites of His day, saying, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). May God help us to see as He sees: “for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). What a better world this would be if everyone realized the foolishness of judging a book by its cover. Racism really is ridiculous.

REFERENCES

Huxley, Thomas (1865), “Emancipation—Black and White,” http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE3/B&W.html.Lyons, Eric (2011), “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101&topic=95

.Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (no date), Receiving the Gift of Salvation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press),

http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Receiving%20the%20Gift%20of%20Salvation.pdf

.Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2009), “Darwin, Evolution, and Racism,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2654

.Marchant, Jo (2008), “We Should Act Like the Animals We Are,” New Scientist, 200[2678]:44-45, October 18-24.Mounce, William D. (1993), Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Copyright © 2015 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in part or 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) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (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, excepting brief quotations, 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 [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

8:38 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

IS BAPTISM SIMPLY AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE?---BY STEVE FINNELL

Is baptism essential to receive forgiveness of sins or is it simply an act of obedience?

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (NKJV)

Baptism is essential to forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them , "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (NKJV)

Baptism is not simply an act of obedience it is in order to receive forgiveness from sins.

ACTS OF OBEDIENCE THAT ARE NOT FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

1. Attending worship services.

2. Acts of evangelism.

3. Financial support of the Lord's church.

4. Doing good works.

5. Loving your neighbor as yourself

Simple acts of obedience are not in order to the forgiveness of sins.

ACTS OF OBEDIENCE THAT SAVE MEN.

1. Faith: John 3:16

2. Repentance: Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19

3. Confession: Romans 10:9-10

4. Immersion in water: Marl 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16

BAPTISM IS NOT SIMPLY AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE. THERE IS A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN BAPTISM AND SALVATION

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

7:44 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

WATER BAPTISM DENIERS BY STEVE FINNELL

Water baptism deniers claim that you can ignore Mark 16:16 because some of the earliest manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20. The problem is there are 60+ Bible translations that include those verses. I know of no English translation of the Bible that omits Mark 16:9-20. Yes, these same deniers have Mark 16:16 in the Bible they read. That does not keep them from explaining away that truth of Mark 16:16.

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (NKJV)

If the deniers cannot convince you that Mark 16:16 is not the inspired word of God. They will deny that "and" is a conjunction.

And Defined: A conjunction is used to grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses.[Ref. Dictionary.com]

Examples

1. Mark 16:16  He who believes and is baptized will be saved..(NKJV)

2. Acts 2:38 ...Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...(NKJV)

3. You need an engine and gasoline to start your automobile. You cannot start your car by the engine alone.

4. Your doctor says you need surgery and a blood transfusion in order to live. You cannot live by surgery alone.

5. You must have a house with walls, and a roof and a heating system to keep your house warm in winter. You cannot keep warm by a house with walls alone.

Denying that the Bible includes Mark 16:16 does not prove that water baptism is not essential in order to be saved.

Denying that "and" is a conjunction does not mean that you can have your sins forgiven without being baptized in water.

It takes a skilled professional to convince men that immersion in water (that is baptism) is not essential in order to be saved from the penalty of sin.

Honestly seeking God's truth trumps the erroneous teaching of skilled professionals every time it is tried.      

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:41 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

DOES PREACHING THE TRUTH PROMOTE HARMONY AND UNITY?----BY STEVE FINNELL

Does preaching the Biblical truth found in the new testament Scriptures lead to harmony, unity, and acceptance by the world and by believers in Jesus Christ? No, it does not.

Matthew 10:34-36 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.(NASB)

Anyone who has the audacity to preach or teach

the truth as found in the new testament Scriptures will not only be criticized by family members, but ostracized by fellow Christians and the world as well.

The truth in Christ promotes conflict with those who reject God's written word.

Jesus was crucified for not only preaching truth, but for being the Truth.

Eleven out of the twelve apostles were executed for preaching the truth.

Truth that causes conflict.

1. Teaching that immersion in water is essential to salvation. (Mark 16:16)

2. Proclaiming that Jesus is the only way to heaven. (John 14:6)

3. Teaching that is a sin to worship by praying to the Virgin Mary.(Matthew 4:10)

4. Teaching that Christians can lose their salvation.(1 Timothy 4:1-5)

5. Teaching that Christians should avoid those who cause division by teaching false doctrine. (Romans 16:17)

6. Teaching that men have the free-will to accept or reject the gospel. (John 3:16)

Preaching God's truth does not promote peace among those who do not love the truth.(2 Thessalonians 2:10 and with all deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.)NASB

         Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:39 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 2016

TRUST GOD OR NOT? BY STEVE FINNELL

When Christians are ask if they trust God; most would respond in the affirmative. Do Christians really believe God is trustworthy?

How do Christian respond when asked, do they believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? For many, the trust, in God starts to wane at this point. An all too common reply, is of course the Bible is God's word, however, the Scriptures were recorded and translated into other languages my mere men. We know men make mistakes.

What is mystifying to me is how believers in Christ can proclaim that they believe God created the heavens and the earth, but do not believe God has the power to direct men to record and translate His word without error. Would that be a God you could trust?

Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone , but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'" (NASB)

Jesus said men should live on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. How would that be possible if the Bible is not the infallible word of God?

1 John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.(NASB)

John said we know Jesus if we keep His commandments. If the Bible is not God's incontrovertible truth, how can we know we are keeping the commandments of Jesus?

THE GOD I WORSHIP HAS THE POWER TO PRODUCE A BIBLE THAT IS INERRANT, FACTUAL, INFALLIBLE, FREE FROM ERROR, LITERAL IN HISTORICAL ACCURACY, TRANSLATED CORRECTLY, AND YES, INSPIRED BY GOD HIMSELF.

There those who agree that the Bible is the inerrant word of God but then state that you have to be a Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scholar to understand the meaning of Scripture.

In order to understand the Bible you have to understand whatever language translation you are reading. If English is your first language then you should use an English translation, if German is your primary language then read a German translation, if you are Greek then read a Greek translation etc.

It is not ironic that they do not believe you have be a Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scholar to under Joshua 10:13, however, in order to understand Acts 2:38 you have be not only have to be a Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scholar, but an English professor as well.

Joshua 10:13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.

The "scholar police" accept Joshua 10:13 at face value; as well they should.

The "scholar police" believe you have to be a Greek scholar and an English professor to understand Acts 2:38.

The "scholar police" have an agenda. There goal is to convince the world that water baptism is not essential to have sins forgiven.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(The Thompson Chain -Reference Bible NIV)

You do not have to be a Greek scholar or an English professor to understand what "so that your sins may be forgiven" means.

Acts 2:38 Peter told them, "you must repent  and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus , so that you may have your sins forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(The New Testament in Modern English by J. B. Phillips)

If you have a fifth grade reading level you are capable of understand the meaning of "so that you may have your sins forgiven."

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Let each one of you repent and be immersed, in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to the remission of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (The Better Version of The New Testament by Chester Estes)

"In order to the remission of sins" means the same thing whether you are a Greek scholar, a professor in English or a novice Christian.

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NASB)

It does not matter if you are a Greek scholar, or an English professor; "for the forgiveness or your sins" means exactly what it says.

DO NOT LET THE "SCHOLAR POLICE" CONVINCE YOU, THAT ONLY AN ELITE FEW CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE.

CONTRARY TO THE "SCHOLAR POLICE" WATER BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL TO HAVE YOUR SINS FORGIVEN!      

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:00 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

SUNDAY, AUGUST 28, 2016

EVOLUTION OR CREATION?   BY STEVE FINNELL

Where did mankind come from? Evolution Or God?

Evolutionists claim man came from bacteria through monkeys.(A theory)

The Bible claims man was created by God through Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 3:9....God who created all things through Jesus Christ; NKJV)

Two choices. Only one answer.

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

1:14 PM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

IS INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY?  BY STEVE FINNELL

Is it possible to teach God's truth about Jesus Christ and be intellectually dishonest?

Example: Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NASB)

Would it be intellectually honest to say that baptized for the forgiveness of sins actually means you are baptized because your sins have already been forgiven?

Would it be intellectually honest to say that to repent for the forgiveness of sins actually means you have repented because your sins have already been forgiven? [Repentance is the intellectual commitment to turn from sin and to repent of unbelief and to turn toward God]

When you take an aspirin "for" a headache you are not taking an aspirin because your headache has already been cured.

To say that "for" in Acts 2:38 does not mean "in order to" is being intellectually dishonest.

Matthew 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins, (NASB)

It would be intellectually dishonest to assert that Jesus shed His blood because the sins of men had already been forgiven. Jesus shed His blood "for" [in order to] the forgiveness of sins.

     Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

11:45 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

SATURDAY, AUGUST 27, 2016

13 Objections to Baptismby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

S

ome churches historically have taught that water immersion is the dividing line between the lost and the saved. This means that a penitent believer remains unforgiven of sin until buried in the waters of baptism (Romans 6:4). Much of the denominational world disagrees with this analysis of Bible teaching, holding instead that one is saved at the point of “belief,” before and without water baptism. Consider some of the points that are advanced in an effort to minimize the essentiality of baptism for salvation.

OBJECTION #1: “JESUS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS BECAUSE HE WAS SINLESS; THEREFORE, PEOPLE TODAY ARE NOT BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO BE FORGIVEN. THEY MERELY IMITATE JESUS’ EXAMPLE.”

The baptism to which Jesus submitted Himself was John’s baptism (Matthew 3:13; Mark 1:9). John’s baptism was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). This truth is particularly evident from the fact that when Jesus presented Himself to John for baptism, John sought to deter Him, noting that, if anything, Jesus needed to baptize John (Matthew 3:14). Jesus did not correct John, as many seek to do today, by falsely arguing that baptism is not for remission of sins. Rather, Jesus, in effect, agreed with John, but made clear that His baptism was an exception to the rule.Jesus’ baptism was unique and not to be compared to anyone else’s baptism. Jesus’ baptism had the unique purpose of “fulfilling all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). In other words, it was necessary for Jesus to submit to John’s baptism (1) to show His contemporaries that no one is exempt from submitting to God’s will and (2) more specifically, Christ’s baptism was God’s appointed means of pinpointing for the world the precise identity of His Son. It was not until John saw the Spirit of God descending on Jesus and heard the voice (“This is My Son...”) that he knew that “this is the Son of God” (John 1:31-34; Matthew 3:16-17).Of course, John’s baptism is no longer valid (Acts 18:24-19:5). John’s baptism paralleled New Testament baptism in the sense that both were for the forgiveness of sins. But John’s baptism was transitional in nature, preparing Jews for their Messiah. Baptism after the cross is for all people (Matthew 28:19), in Jesus’ name (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 19:5), into His death (Romans 6:3), in order to be clothed with Him (Galatians 3:27), and added to His church (Acts 2:47; 1 Corinthians 12:13). We must not use Jesus’ baptism to suggest that salvation occurs prior to baptism.

OBJECTION #2: “THE THIEF ON THE CROSS WAS NOT BAPTIZED, AND HE WAS SAVED.”

When we “handle aright the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), we see that the thief was not subject to the New Testament command of immersion because this command was not given until after the thief’s death.¹ It was not until Christ was resurrected that He said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). It was not until Christ’s death that the Old Testament ceased, signified by the tearing of the Temple curtain (Matthew 27:51). When Jesus died, He took away the Old Testament, “nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14).The word “testament” means “covenant” or “will.” The last will and testament of Christ is the New Testament, which consists of those teachings that apply to people after the death of Christ. If we expect to receive the benefits of the New Testament (salvation, forgiveness of sin, eternal life), we must submit to the terms of the will for which Christ is mediator (Hebrews 9:15), for “where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator; for a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives” (Hebrews 9:16-17).So prior to the Lord’s death and the sealing of the New Testament, the baptism for the forgiveness of sins that would be in effect after the crucifixion was not a requirement for those who sought to be acceptable to God. Indeed, while Jesus was on Earth in person, He exercised His authority to forgive sin (Matthew 9:6). People now, however, live during the Christian era of religious history. Prior to Christ’s death, there were no Christians (Acts 11:26). For a person to reject water baptism as a prerequisite to salvation on the basis of what the thief did or did not do, is comparable to Abraham seeking salvation by building an ark—because that’s what Noah did to please God. It would be like the rich young ruler (Matthew 19) refusing Christ’s directive to sell all his possessions—because wealthy King David did not have to sell his possessions in order to please God.The thief on the cross could not have been baptized the way the new covenant stipulates you and I must be baptized. Why? Romans 6:3-4 teaches that if we wish to acquire “newness of life,” we must be baptized into Christ’s death, be buried with Christ in baptism, and then be raised from the dead. There was no way for the thief to comply with this New Testament baptism—Christ had not died! Christ had not been buried! Christ had not been raised! In fact, none of God’s ordained teachings pertaining to salvation in Christ (2 Timothy 2:10), and in His body the Church (Acts 2:47; Ephesians 1:22-23), had been given. The church, which Christ’s shed blood purchased (Acts 20:28), had not been established, and was not set up until weeks later (Acts 2).

2

We must not look to the thief as an example of salvation. Instead, we must obey “from the heart that form of doctrine” (Romans 6:17)—the form of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection through baptism (Romans 6:3-4). Only then can we be “made free from sin to become the servants of righteousness” (Romans 6:18).

OBJECTION #3: “THE BIBLE SAYS, ‘CHRIST STANDS AT THE DOOR OF YOUR HEART,’ AND ALL WE HAVE TO DO TO BE FORGIVEN OF SIN AND BECOME A CHRISTIAN IS TO INVITE HIM INTO OUR HEARTS.”

It is no doubt startling to discover that the Bible simply does not say such a thing. The phraseology is reminiscent of Revelation 3:20—the passage usually invoked to support the idea. But examine what Revelation 3:20 actually teaches. Revelation chapters 2 and 3 consist of seven specific messages directed to seven churches of Christ in Asia Minor in the first century. Thus, at the outset, we must recognize that Revelation 3:20 is addressed toChristians—not non-Christians seeking conversion to Christ.Second, Revelation 3:20 is found among Christ’s remarks to the church in Laodicea. Jesus made clear that the church had moved into a lost condition. The members were unacceptable to God since they were “lukewarm” (3:16). They had become unsaved since their spiritual condition was “wretched and miserable and poor” (3:17). Thus, in a very real sense, Jesus had abandoned them by removing His presence from their midst. Now He was on the outside looking in. He still wanted to be among them, but the decision was up to them. They had to recognize His absence, hear Him knocking for admission, and open the door—all of which is figurative language indicating their need to repent (3:19). They needed to return to the obedient lifestyle essential to sustaining God’s favor (John 14:21,23).Observe that Revelation 3:20 in no way supports the idea that non-Christians merely have to “open the door of their heart” and “invite Jesus in” with the assurance that the moment they mentally/verbally do so, Jesus comes into their heart and they are simultaneously saved from all past sin and have become Christians. The context of Revelation 3:20 shows that Jesus was seeking readmission into an apostate church.Does the Bible teach that Christ comes into a person’s heart? Yes, but not in the way the religious world suggests. For instance, Ephesians 3:17 states that Christ dwells in the heartthrough faith. Faith can be acquired only by hearing biblical truth (Romans 10:17). When Bible truth is obeyed, the individual is “saved by faith” (Hebrews 5:9; James 2:22; 1 Peter 1:22). Thus Christ enters our lives when we “draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience [i.e, repentance—DM] and our bodies washed with pure water [i.e., baptism—DM]” (Hebrews 10:22).

OBJECTION #4: “A PERSON IS SAVED THE MOMENT HE ACCEPTS CHRIST AS HIS PERSONAL SAVIOR—WHICH PRECEDES AND THEREFORE EXCLUDES WATER BAPTISM.”

To suggest that all one has to do to receive the forgiveness of God and become a Christian is to mentally accept Jesus into his heart and make a verbal statement to that effect, is to dispute the declaration of Jesus in Matthew 7:21—“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” To be sure, oral confession of Christ is one of the prerequisites to salvation (Romans 10:10). But Jesus said there is more to becoming a blood-bought follower of His than verbally “calling on his name”

3

or “inwardly accepting Him as Savior.” He stated that before we can even consider ourselves as God’s children (Christians), we must show our acceptance of His gift through outward obedience—“He that does the will of My Father.” Notice the significant contrast Jesus made: the difference between mental/verbal determination to accept and follow the Lord, versus verbal confession coupled with action or obedience (cf. James 2:14,17). This is why we must do everything the Lord has indicated must be done prior to salvation. Jesus is telling us that it is possible to make the mistake of claiming we have found the Lord, when we have not done what He plainly told us to do.Jesus said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Jesus also stated: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Honestly, have you accepted Christ as your personal savior—in the way He said it must be done? He asks: “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46, emp. added).

OBJECTION #5: “WE ARE CLOTHED WITH CHRIST AND BECOME HIS CHILDREN WHEN WE PLACE OUR FAITH IN HIM.”

Read Galatians 3:26-27: “You are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” The words “put on” (NKJV) are a translation of the Greek verb enduo which signifies “to enter into, get into, as into clothes, to put on.” Can we be saved prior to “putting Christ on” or “being clothed” with Christ? Of course not. But when and how does one put on Christ—according to Paul? When one is baptized in water. Those who teach we can be saved before baptism are, in reality, teaching we can be saved while spiritually naked and without Christ! Paul affirms that we “put on” Christ at the point of our baptism—not before.Paul wrote these words to people who were already saved. They had been made “sons of God by faith.” But how? At what point had they “been clothed with Christ”? When were they made “sons of God by faith”? When were they saved? Paul makes the answer to these questions very plain: they were united with Christ, had put on Christ, and were clothed with Christ—when they were baptized. Ask yourself if you have been clothed with Christ.

OBJECTION #6: “BAPTISM IS LIKE A BADGE ON A UNIFORM THAT MERELY GIVES EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON IS ALREADY SAVED.”

The New Testament nowhere expounds the idea that baptism is merely a “badge” or “outward sign of an inward grace.” Yes, baptism can biblically be referred to as a symbolicact; but what does it symbolize? Previous forgiveness? No! Romans 6 indicates that baptism symbolizes the previous death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Thus the benefits of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (remember, Jesus’ blood, which blots out sin, was shed in the context of His death, burial, and resurrection) are realized and received by the individual when he obediently (in penitent faith) submits to a similar ordeal, i.e., the death of his own “old man” or “body of sin” (Romans 6:6), burial (immersion into a watery tomb), and resurrection (rising from the watery tomb).Denominational doctrine maintains that forgiveness of sin is received prior to baptism. If so, the “new life” of the saved individual would also begin prior to baptism. Yet Paul said the “new life” occurs after baptism. He reiterated this to the Colossians. The “putting off of the body of the flesh by Christ’s circumcision” (Colossians 2:11) is accomplished in the context of water immersion and being “risen with Him” (Colossians 2:12). Chapter 3 then draws the important observation: “If then you were raised with Christ [an undeniable reference to baptism—DM], seek those things which are above” [an undeniable reference to the new life which follows—not precedes—baptism].

OBJECTION #7: “BAPTISM IS A MERITORIOUS WORK, WHEREAS WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE, NOT WORKS.”

“Works” or “steps” of salvation do not imply that one “merits” his salvation upon obedient compliance with those actions. Rather, “steps” or “a process” signifies the biblical concept of preconditions, stipulations of faith, or acts of obedience—what James called “works” (James 2:17). James was not saying that one can earn his justification (James 2:24). Rather, he was describing the active nature of faith, showing that saving faith, faith that is alive—as opposed to dead and therefore utterly useless (2:20)—is the only kind that is acceptable to God, a faith that obeys whatever actions God has indicated must be done. The obedience of both Abraham and Rahab is set forth as illustrative of the kind of faith James says is acceptable. They manifested their trust by actively doing what God wanted done. Such obedient or active trust is the only kind that avails anything. Thus, an obedient response is essential.The actions themselves are manifestations of this trust that justifies, not the trust itself. But notice that according to James, you cannot have one without the other. Trust, or faith, isdead, until it leads one to obey the specifications God assigned. Here is the essence of salvation that separates those who adhere to biblical teaching from those who have been adversely influenced by the Protestant reformers. The reformers reacted to the unbiblical concept of stacking bad deeds against good deeds in an effort to offset the former by the latter (cf. Islam). Unfortunately, the reactionary reformers went to the equally unacceptable, opposite extreme by asserting that man need “only believe” (Luther) or man can do nothing at all (Calvin). The truth is between these two unbiblical extremes.From Genesis to Revelation, faith is the trusting, obedient reaction that humans manifest in response to what God offers. This is the kind of “justification by faith” that Paul expounded in Romans. Like red flags at the very beginning (1:5) and at the end (16:26) of his divinely inspired treatise, he defined what he meant by “faith” with the words “obedient faith” (hupakoeinpisteos), i.e., faith that obeys, obedience which springs from faith.

4

This fact is precisely why God declared His willingness to fulfill the promises He made to Abraham: “because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5). Hence, in Romans Paul could speak of the necessity of walking “in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had” (Romans 4:12). Until faith obeys, it is useless and cannot justify.The Hebrews writer made the same point in Hebrews 11. The faith we see in Old Testament “men of faith” availed only after they obeyed God-given stipulations. God rewards those who “diligently seek Him” in faith (vs. 6). Noah “became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” when he “prepared an ark.” If he had not complied with divine instructions, he would have been branded as “unfaithful.” The thing that made the difference, that constituted the line of demarcation between faith and lack of faith, was obedient action—what James called “works,” and Paul called “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). In this sense, even faith is a “work” (John 6:29). Hebrews 11 repeatedly reinforces this eternal principle: (1) God offers grace (which may at any point in history consist of physical blessings, e.g., healing, salvation from enemies, land or property, etc., or spiritual blessings, e.g., justification, forgiveness, salvation from sin, being made righteous, etc.); (2) man responds in obedient trust (i.e., “faith”) by complying with the stipulated terms; and (3) God bestows the blessing.It would be wrong to think that man’s obedient response earns or merits the subsequent blessing. Such simply does not logically follow. All blessings God bestows on man are undeserved (Luke 17:10). His rich mercy and loving grace is freely offered and made available—though man never deserves such kindness (Titus 2:11). Still, a non-meritorious response is absolutely necessary if unworthy man is to receive certain blessings.

OBJECTION #8: “NOT ONLY IS BAPTISM NONESSENTIAL TO SALVATION, EVEN FAITH IS A GIFT FROM GOD TO A PERSON. MAN IS SO DEPRAVED THAT HE IS INCAPABLE OF BELIEVING.”

Surely, God’s infinite justice would not permit Him to force man to desire God’s blessings. God’s intervention into man’s woeful condition was not in the form of causing man to desire help or miraculously generating faith within man. God intervened by giving His inspired Word, which tells how He gave His Son to make a way for man to escape eternal calamity. Faith is then generated in the individual by God’s words which the person must read and understand (Romans 10:17; Acts 8:30). The individual then demonstrates his faith in obedience.Did the walls of Jericho fall down “by faith” (Hebrews 11:30)? Absolutely. But the salient question is: “When?” Did the walls fall the moment the Israelites merely “believed” that they would fall? No! Rather, when the people obeyed the divine directives. The walls fell “by faith”after the people met God’s conditions. If the conditions had not been met, the walls would not have fallen down “by faith.” The Israelites could not claim that the walls fell by their own effort, or that they earned the collapse of the walls. The city was given to them by God as an undeserved act of His grace (Joshua 6:2). To receive the free gift of the city, the people had to obey the divinely stipulated prerequisites.Notice the capsuling nature of Hebrews 11:6. Faith or belief is not given by God. It is something that man does in order to please God. The whole chapter is predicated on the fundamental idea that man is personally responsible for mustering obedient trust. God does not “regenerate man by His call, thus enabling man to respond.” God “calls” individuals through, by means of, His written Word (2 Thessalonians 2:14). In turn, the written Word can generate faith in the individual (Romans 10:17). How unscriptural to suggest that man is so “totally depraved” that he cannot even believe, thus placing God in the position of demanding something from man (John 8:24) of which man is inherently incapable. But the God of the Bible would not be guilty of such injustice.Some people approach passages like Romans 10:17 in this fashion: (1) God chooses to save an individual; (2) God gives him the free gift of faith; and (3) God uses the Gospel to stir up the faith which He has given the person. Yet neither Romans 10:17, nor any other passage, even hints at such an idea. The text states explicitly that faith comes from hearing Christ’s Word. Notice verse 14, where the true sequence is given: (1) the preacher preaches; (2) the individual hears the preached word; and (3) believes. This sequence is a far cry from suggesting that God miraculously imparts faith to a person, and then the Holy Spirit “stirs up” the faith. Such a notion has God giving man a defective faith which then needs to be stirred up. The text makes clear that God has provided for faith to be generated (i.e., originated) by the preached Word. God does not arbitrarily intervene and impose faith upon the hearts of a select group of individuals.According to 1 Corinthians 1:21, mankind did not know God, so God transmitted His message through inspired preachers so that those who respond in faith would be saved. Paul wrote in Romans 1:16 that this gospel message is God’s power to save those who believe it. Notice that the Gospel is what Paul preached (vs. 15). Thus the preached message from God generates faith and enables people to be saved.We see the same in Acts 2:37. What pierced the hearts of the listeners? Obviously, the sermon. Acts 2:37 is a demonstration of Romans 10:17—“faith comes by hearing…the word of God.” God did not change the hearts of the people miraculously; Peter’s words did. If denominational doctrine is correct, when the Jews asked the apostles what they should do, Peter should have said: “There’s nothing you can do. You are so totally depraved, you can’t do anything. God will regenerate you; He will cause you to believe (since faith is His ‘free gift’).” Yet, quite to the contrary, Peter told them that they needed to do some things. And they were things that God could not do for them.First, they were required to “repent.” Biblical repentance is a change of mind (Matthew 21:29). A “turning” follows repentance (Acts 3:19) and consists of some specified action subsequent to the change of mind. John the Baptizer called this turning activity, which follows repentance and serves as evidence that repentance has occurred, “fruits” (Matthew 3:8). After being convicted (Acts 2:37—i.e., believing the truth of Peter’s contentions), they were told to “repent,” to change their minds about their previous course of life. What else were they to do?Peter did not tell them to “repent and believe.” Their belief was already abundantly evident in their pricked hearts and their fervent petition for instructions. What was lacking? Peter said (i.e., God said) they still lacked baptism. Remember, the only difference between dead faith and saving faith is outward action—compliance with all actions that God specifies as necessary before He will freely bestow unmerited favor in the form of forgiveness.Thus baptism marked the point at which God would count them righteous if they first believed and repented. Baptism served as the line of demarcation between the saved and the lost. Jesus’ blood could wash their sins away only at the point of baptism.

OBJECTION #9: “THE PREPOSITION ‘FOR’ IN THE PHRASE ‘FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS’ IN ACTS 2:38 MEANS ‘BECAUSE OF.’ HENCE, THEY WERE BAPTIZED BECAUSE OF SINS FOR WHICH THEY WERE FORGIVEN WHEN THEY BELIEVED.”

The English word “for” has, as one of its meanings, “because of.” However, the Greek preposition eis that underlies the English word “for” never has a causal function. It always has its primary, basic, accusative thrust: unto, into, to, toward. We must not go to the text, decide what we think it means, and assign a grammatical meaning that coincides with our preconceived understanding. We must begin with the inspired grammar and seek to understand every text in light of the normal, natural, common meaning of the grammatical and lexical construction. The same grammatical construction of Acts 2:38 is found in Matthew 26:28—“into the remission of sins” (eisaphesin hamartion). Jesus’ blood, the blood of the covenant, was undeniably shed for many “in order to acquire remission of sins.” This is the natural and normal meaning of the Greek preposition—toward, in the direction of. Had the Holy Spirit intended to say that baptism is “because of” or “on account of” past forgiveness, He would have used the Greek preposition that conveys that very idea: dia with the accusative.Similarly, in Acts 2:38, if repentance is not “because of” remission of sins, neither is baptism. Regardless of person and number considerations, Peter told his hearers to do both things. The act of baptism (connected to the act of repentance by the coordinate conjunction) cannot be extricated from the context of remission of sins by any stretch.

OBJECTION #10: “WHEN THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER ASKED WHAT TO DO TO BE SAVED, HE WAS SIMPLY TOLD TO BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.”

As further proof that God does not miraculously bestow faith on a person through the Holy Spirit, observe that Paul told the jailer that he (the jailer) had to believe; he did not answer the jailer’s question with: “You don’t have to do anything. God will give you faith.” On the contrary, Paul and Silas told him that he had to manifest faith in Jesus. But was this pagan jailer in a position at that moment to do so? No, he would have to be taught Who, how, and what to believe. No wonder, then, Luke records immediately: “they spoke the word of the Lord to him” (Acts 16:32). If Romans 10:17 can be trusted, the words which Paul and Silas proclaimed generated faith in the jailer. And those same words surely included the necessity of repentance and baptism, because the jailer immediately manifested the fruit of repentance (by washing their stripes), and likewise was immediately baptized (not waiting until morning or the weekend). Observe carefully Luke’s meticulous documentation, that it was only afterthe jailer believed, repented, and was baptized, that the jailer was in a position to rejoice. Only then did Luke describe the jailer as “having believed in God” (vs. 34), i.e., now standing in a state of perfected belief.

5

OBJECTION #11: “SAUL WAS SAVED BEFORE AND WITHOUT BAPTISM WHILE HE WAS ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS WHEN JESUS APPEARED TO HIM.”

The actual sequence of events delineated in Acts shows that Saul was not saved while on the road to Damascus. Jesus identified Himself and then accused Saul of being a persecutor (Acts 9:5). Saul “trembled” and was “astonished” (hardly the description of a saved individual), and pleadingly asked what he should do—a clear indication that he had just been struck with his lost and undone condition.This question has the exact same force as the Pentecostians’ question (Acts 2:37) and the jailer’s question (Acts 16:30). All three passages are analogous in their characterization of individuals who had acted wrongly (i.e., the Pentecostians had crucified Jesus, Saul was persecuting Christians, and the jailer had kept innocent Christians jailed). Likewise, in each instance, the candidates for conversion are portrayed as unhappy (i.e., the Pentecostians were “cut to the heart,” Saul “trembled” and “was astonished,” and the jailer “came trembling”—i.e., he was frightened). They were scared, miserable individuals, suddenly brought face to face with their horribly unacceptable status before God. Such is hardly an apt description for saved individuals. Where is the joy, peace, and excitement that comes when one’s sins have been washed away?Saul was not forgiven on the road to Damascus—he still needed to be told what he “must do” (Acts 9:6). He still lacked “hearing the word of the Lord.” The only way for Saul to hear the Gospel was through the agency of a preacher (Romans 10:14; 1 Corinthians 1:21).  Similarly, an angel told Cornelius (Acts 10:4) that his prayers and money had gone up for a memorial before God—yet he was unsaved. He needed to contact an inspired preacher, Peter, “who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved” (Acts 11:14). Likewise, before Saul could learn of God’s plan that he be the great “apostle of the Gentiles,” he first needed to hear the Gospel expounded and told how to respond to what God offered in Christ.Rather than tell him what he needed to do to be saved, Jesus told him to go into the city, where a preacher (Ananias) would expound to him the necessity of salvation. Notice: Saul waited in Damascus for three days without food and drink, and was still blind. Here’s an individual who was still miserable, unhappy, and unsaved, awaiting instructions on how to change his unfortunate status. Acts 9:18 condenses Saul’s response to the preached Word, while Acts 22 elaborates a little further on the significance of Saul’s response. Ananias said, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).Notice Ananias’ inspired connection between baptism and sins being cleansed. If Saul was saved prior to baptism, it was wrong for Ananias to say that Saul still had sins that needed to be washed away. Ananias did not congratulate Saul because his sins already were washed away, and tell him that he needed to be baptized only as a “badge” or “outward symbol” or “picture” of what had already occurred. He plainly said Saul’s sins yet needed to be washed away. That can be accomplished only by Jesus’ blood in the act of baptism. The water does not cleanse the sin-stained soul—Jesus does. And Ananias clearly stated when(not how or by Whom) that occurs. If Saul’s penitent faith would not lead him to submit to water immersion, he could not have had his sins washed away by Jesus. Instead, he would have remained in opposition to Jesus. Remember, Scripture never portrays baptism as symbolic of previous sin removal. The only symbolism ever attached to the act of baptism is its (1) likeness to Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5); (2) its comparison to the removal of sin like circumcision removes skin (Colossians 2:12); and (3) its likeness to Noah’s emergence from a sinful world (1 Peter 3:20-21). God literally (not symbolically) removes sin and justifies the individual by grace, through faith, at the point of baptism.

OBJECTION #12: “IF BAPTISM IS NECESSARY TO SALVATION, JESUS WOULD HAVE SAID, ‘BUT HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE AND IS NOT BAPTIZED WILL BE CONDEMNED’ IN MARK 16:16. AND BESIDES, THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK 16 ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE OLDEST AND BEST GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.”

The omission of “and is not baptized” in Mark 16:16 is completely logical and necessary. The first phrase (“he who believes and is baptized”) describes man’s complete response necessitated by the preaching of the Gospel: Faith must precede baptism, since obviously one would not submit to baptism if he did not first believe. It is non-essential to ascribe condemnation in the second clause to the individual who is not baptized, since the individual being condemned is the one who does not initially believe. The person who refuses to believe “is condemned already” (John 3:18) and certainly would not be interested in the next item of compliance—baptism. He who does not believe would obviously not be baptized—and even if he would, his failure to first believe disqualifies him from being immersed. Only penitent believers are candidates for baptism. An exact grammatical parallel would be: “He who goes to the store and buys coffee for his father will receive $5.00. He who does not go to the store will be spanked.” Obviously, if the child refuses to go to the store, he would not be in a position to buy coffee, and it would be redundant—even grammatically and linguistically inappropriate—to include the failure to purchase the coffee in the pronouncement of an impending spanking.Are the last verses of Mark 16 uninspired? The textual evidence supporting the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is exceptional in light of the vast sources available for establishing the original text. While it is true that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit the last 12 verses, it is positively misleading to assume that “the validity of these verses is weak.” In fact, the vast number of witnesses are in favor of the authenticity of verses 9-20. The rejection ofVaticanus is less weighty in light of its comparable exclusion of the Pastoral Epistles, the last part of Hebrews, and Revelation. The rejection of Sinaiticus is similarly unconvincing, since it includes some of the Apocryphal books.

6

OBJECTION #13: “ROMANS 10:9-10 INDICATES THAT ALL ONE NEEDS TO DO IS BELIEVE AND CONFESS JESUS.”

The use of eis in Romans 10:10 cannot mean “because of.” Verse nine explicitly says one will be saved “if” he confesses and believes in the heart. Confession and faith are therefore prerequisites to forgiveness. They are God-ordained “responses” to the preached Word (vs. 8) and must occur before salvation is imparted by God. In other words, one’s soul is purified when he obeys the truth (1 Peter 1:22). Jesus provides eternal salvation to those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:9).But is baptism excluded from salvation since only faith and confession are mentioned in Romans 10:9-10? Notice, four chapters earlier, the order of Romans 6:17-18: (1) slaves to sin; (2) person obeys; (3) made free from sin (righteous). Item (3) cannot occur unless item (2) occurs first. The “whole” of man is to reverence God and keep His commands(Ecclesiastes 12:13). To whom does God give the Holy Spirit? To those whom He arbitrarily chooses, without any consideration of the individual’s necessitated response? No. Acts 5:32 says God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. God has always conditioned the bestowal of spiritual blessing upon prior obedient response (Jeremiah 7:23; Genesis 26:4-5). Deuteronomy 5:10 says God shows mercy to those who love Him and keep His commands.In Romans 10, Paul is not stressing the specific aspects of the conversion process. That is not the context. Rather, the context addresses whether one is acceptable to God in the Christian dispensation due to physical heritage (i.e., race/ethnicity), versus whether one is saved when one complies with God’s instruction. Paul was stressing that their nationality could not bring the Jews into God’s favor. Rather, people are saved when they render obedience to the Gospel. He quoted Joel 2:32, where the emphasis is on the word “whosoever” in contrast to “Jews only.” Verse 12 argues that God does not distinguish on the basis of race. The individual’s response to the preached Word is the deciding factor. However, Romans 10 does not reveal all of the details of that obedient response. One must be willing to search out the whole truth on such a subject.If repentance is essential to salvation, one must concede that such teaching must come from some passage other than Romans 10. Does Romans 10:10 mean that repentance is unnecessary, just because it is unmentioned in the text? No, since repentance is required in chapter 2:4. If not, then why assume baptism to be nonessential simply because it is not mentioned in this particular text? It is enjoined in chapter 6:3-4. To ascertain the significance of baptism in God’s sight, one must go to passages that discuss that subject, rather than dismiss them in deference to verses on faith. If God says, “faith saves” (Romans 5:1), let us accept that truth. If God says, “baptism saves” (1 Peter 3:21), let us accept that truth, too! Jesus Himself said: belief + baptism = salvation (Mark 16:16), not belief = salvation + baptism.Notice also, Romans 10:10,13 does not say that salvation can be acquired by mere verbal confession (e.g., “I accept Jesus into my heart as my personal Savior”). Why?(1) Nowhere is the statement, “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior,” found in Scripture.(2) Jesus forever dashed the idea of salvation by mental acceptance/verbal profession alone in Matthew 7:21 and Luke 6:46, where He showed that oral confession alone is unacceptable. In every age, there have been specified actions of obedience that God has required before He would count individuals as pleasing or acceptable. In fact, if faith is not coupled with the appropriate obedient action (like baptism), then such faith is unable to justify. Such faith is imperfect (James 2:17,20,26) and therefore cannot save!(3) The phrase “call on the name of the Lord” is an idiomatic way to say: “respond with appropriate obedient actions.” It is the figure of speech known as synecdoche (i.e., the part stands for the whole). To “call” on God’s name is equivalent to saying, “Do what He tells you to do.” Isaiah 55:6 told the Jews of Isaiah’s day to call on God. Verse 7 explains how: (1) forsake wicked ways, (2) forsake wicked thoughts, (3) return to the Lord. To obey these three stipulations constituted “calling on God.”Likewise, those in Jerusalem who “called on the Lord’s name” (Acts 9:14,21) had done so, not solely by verbal confession, but by repentance and baptism for forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Similarly, Paul himself became a Christian, that is, he “called on the name of the Lord”—not by verbally confessing Christ—but by being baptized (Acts 22:16). For Paul, “calling on the Lord’s name” was equivalent to (not precedent to) being baptized. God washed his sins away by the blood of Jesus at the point of his baptism.

CONCLUSION

Though the bulk of Christendom for centuries has veered off into Calvinism and other post-first century theological thought, the meaning and design of baptism is determined by the New Testament. The verses in the New Testament that speak about baptism are definitive. They indicate that water immersion precedes salvation—along with faith, repentance, and confession of Christ’s deity. No objection has ever overturned this divinely intended function.

ENDNOTES

1

Although the thief may well have submitted to the precursor to NT baptism, i.e., John’s baptism, it also was “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).

2

See also Dave Miller (2003), “The Thief on the Cross,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1274&topic=86

.

3

Cf. Eric Lyons (2004), “Calling on the Name of the Lord,”

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/597

.

4

Rudolf Bultmann (1968), “πιστεύω,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982 reprint), 6:206; Fredrick William Danker (2000), “ὑπακοη,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition, p. 1028; James Denny (no date), “St. Paul’s Epistles to the Romans” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:587; J.B. Lightfoot (1895), Notes on Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan), p. 246; H.P.V. Nunn (1912), A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 42; Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor (1944), “A Note on ‘είς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως’ in Romans 1.5 and xvi.26,” The Expository Times, 55:305-306; A.T. Robertson (1931), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press), 4:324; Marvin Vincent (1946), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 3:5; W.E. Vine (1966), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell), p. 123.

5

W.M. Ramsay (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Houghton and Stoughton), p. 165.

6

For a more thorough discussion of this matter, see Dave Miller (2005), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25[12]:89-95, December,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780

.

Copyright © 2016 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or 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) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (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, excepting brief quotations, 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 [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org