Matthew 20:28 [fullscreen]


transitive verb:

  1. to deliver especially from sin or its penalty
  2. to free from captivity or punishment by paying a price


  1. a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity
  2. the act of ransoming In the biblical example:

28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” ~ Matthew 20:28 (ESV) . Our captive souls were redeemed by at a cost beyond compare, hence our debt is not “cancelled, but paid. . .

Acts 2:38 [mobile-1262x1262].png

38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ~Acts 2:38 (ESV)

The preaching of Peter is the fulfillment of the expectation of Jesus. He was told to baptize in the Jesus’ name and his exhortation closes down with that same refrain!


#bible #Christian #faith #timelesstruth #Jesus #transformation

Eyes of your Heart

Ephesians 1:18 [mobile-1262x1262]

18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, ~ Ephesians 1:18 (ESV)

One of Paul’s prayers for the believers in Ephesus should be our own. The ability to see with genuine spiritual discernment is a window to great spiritual success. How we see what surrounds up will always drive us to the choices we make on our journey to be evermore like Christ. When we begin to value our spiritual blessings beyond our temporal surroundings hope will abound beyond compare.

What does heart look like?

Hebrews 12:1 [fullscreen]

We recently had the privilege to spend time with family and friends in Texas. I’m not sure if everyone knows this or not, but it is often pretty warm in a Texas summer, and pretty humid. So, what would you think about getting out and plugging in some miles to build yourself into a stronger runner while there? Pretty crazy if you ask me. But that’s just what James (age 10) asked me to help him do. Sure, it was hot and running is hard, but he got out and did the work. (about 2.5 miles 2x while there.)

“Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we van imperishable.” ~ 1 Corinthians 9:24–25 (ESV)

What about us? The work our Lord wants us to be busy at isn’t always easy. Sometimes we have to endure heartache unplanned, survive the pain of growth and reach new heights (and valleys, but the work is worth it. The journey is worth it. Heaven is worth it.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,” ~ Hebrews 12:1 (ESV)

I’ll never be a Paul…

I’ve heard this over the years spoken by believers smothered by their weakness and oppressed by not only the world, by well intended but misguided fellow believers as well.

We are far more like Paul than we ever allow ourselves to realize.

  • When you stand for Christ, despite the sway of your family’s religious history.
  • When you seek to follow Christ, even though you were obstinate and slow to walk with him.
  • When you speak of Christ, even when it feels like you are alone.

At some point we allow the devil to chip away at our faith, lying to ourselves that personal perfection is the goal. It’s not, but in Christ we can be made perfect…

Stop letting your faith be shipwrecked, You are Paul, you are Moses, You are Abraham… they too were just as we are, men. They let their faith in God work with whatever and whomever they were to be whom God needed. So should we.

P.W. Martin

Baptism: A Death, Burial, and Resurrection, by Doy Moyer


“Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. But John tried to prevent Him, saying, ‘I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?’ But Jesus answering said to him, ‘Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he permitted Him. After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well- pleased.’” (Matt 3:13-17)

In one sense, the baptism of Jesus fits what is sometimes called the “principle of embarrassment” (which actually increases the credibility of the text). Why would Jesus come to John to be baptized? Why would Jesus need baptism at all? John’s baptism was “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). If Jesus didn’t need repentance and forgiveness, then why would He be coming to John for baptism? John recognized this difficulty, reacting with surprise and attempting to prevent it. Jesus told Him to permit it “at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” There is something about His baptism that is connected to the fulfillment or completion of righteousness.

There are likely several reasons why Jesus came to be baptized by John. This was, indeed, a special time of fulfillment. The Messiah has come! This action serves as the inauguration of His public ministry, identifying Him explicitly as the Son of God. This would also identify Jesus with those who were awaiting the kingdom. Recall that John’s preaching entailed the message, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 3:2). In preaching the kingdom, he was pointing to the Messiah, the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). It was this action, coupled with the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus, telling John that Jesus was the expected One (John 1:29-34). By doing this, Jesus identified Himself with John’s mission and validated the work John was doing. It also serves as an example to all who would follow Jesus. This is just the beginning.

With all the possible reasons that could be given for the purpose of Jesus’ baptism, the one we wish to focus on is how His baptism foreshadowed His own work. Paul later makes the point that baptism is a death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:3-7, a passage we’ll come back to). Through baptism, Jesus foreshadows His purpose for coming into the world as the Son of God: to die and rise again.

That the resurrection is ultimately in view is confirmed by what the Father said: “This is My beloved Son.” This statement comes from Psalm 2:7. Psalm 2 is messianic and focuses on the kingship of the Anointed One. “He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You.’” This very passage was taken by Paul to refer, not to the birth of Jesus as the Son, but to His resurrection:

“And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are MY Son; today I have begotten You.’ As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’” (Acts 13:32-34)

The second part of what the Father said (“in whom I am well-pleased”) comes from Isaiah 42:1, another messianic passage that speaks to the fact that He was endowed with the Spirit, bringing justice to the nations (cf. Matt 12:15-21). In Jesus’ baptism, He shows that His work as the Servant would culminate in His own death, burial, and resurrection.

Our Baptism

Baptism, then, is both symbolic and a very real action. In other words, it is not just getting wet. In this case, our own baptism is itself a way of following after the footsteps of Jesus as He went to the cross and rose again from the dead. Baptism, for the believer, is also a death, burial, and resurrection:

“Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection.” (Rom 6:3-5)

“Death” is a word used in several ways. We are dead in transgressions and sins (Eph 2:1). Yet, when we respond to God’s will in baptism, we die again, only this time we die to our sins (instead of being dead in our sins). Paul began Romans 6 by making this very point: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it” (vv 1-2). The old self is then said to be crucified with Christ so that we would no longer be slaves of sin, “for he who has died is freed from sin” (vv 6-7). Paul continues, “Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again” (vv. 8-9).

This is the point Paul makes about baptism: it is our own death, burial, and resurrection, following the same pattern of Jesus both in His baptism and in His physical death and resurrection. It is an identification with everything that Christ is and stands for, primarily as He died for sin and rose again. Our being baptized says that, by the grace of God, we have died to our sins and we are raised up to walk a new life with Him.

Baptism is, likewise, making a commitment to the new life resulting from death, burial, and resurrection. If we really have died to sin, how shall we keep living in it?

“Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.” (Rom 6:11-13)

Elsewhere, Paul makes a similar point: “Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.” (Col 3:1-4)

By being baptized into Christ, we are making a vow to serve Him. We are dead to sin and alive in Him. We have buried the old man who was dead in sin and we have been raised up to be new creatures in Christ. “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor 5:17). Baptism is our pledge that, by God’s strength, we will no longer be controlled by sin. We are a new creation.

Once again, we should be able to see the great significance of baptism. It is, through God’s grace, our inaugural act that identifies us with us the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. It also identifies us with that same kingdom preached by both John and Jesus. Further, baptism is done with repentance and for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), and anyone who wishes to follow to Jesus will gladly do it (Acts 2:41). Many ask, “is baptism necessary?” The answer should be obvious if we substitute the word “baptism” with how Paul discusses it in Romans 6: “Is it necessary to die to sin, be buried with Christ, and be raised to walk a new life?” But even more, wouldn’t the one who desires to follow the Lord eagerly do what He says? Let us, then, be committed to the crucified and raised life.

Doy Moyer

For more on baptism, see also Baptism: Washing with Water


Via: http://www.mindyourfaith.com/1/post/2014/04/baptism-a-death-burial-and-resurrection.html

Oh Those Pesky Stars, Species, and Other Questions from the Nye vs. Ham Debate, By Dr. Brad Harrub

Oh Those Pesky Stars, Species, and Other Questions from the Nye vs. Ham Debate
By Dr. Brad Harrub

Having prepared for debates in the past I know how daunting it is to try and remember every detail and be prepared for every possible question. During the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham there were several points brought up by evolutionist Bill Nye that to many in the audience may have appeared as good questions or points. I wanted to take a moment to address those questions and give a solid scientific answer that does not conflict in any way with the Biblical account of creation.


One of the beauties of living out in a more rural area is the night sky appears to explode with stars on clear nights. Man, from a very young age, has glanced up toward the stars, often in search for the answers to some of life’s most important questions. It’s those same stars that many evolutionists turn to in an effort to support an ancient cosmos—and ultimately their godless theory. In debates such as the one between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the question will often arise: “How can you believe the Earth is young when we are able to see starlight from stars millions of light years away? Wouldn’t that indicate the starlight that we are seeing today left those stars millions of years ago? Additionally, if the universe is expanding doesn’t that prove the Big Bang theory?”

Two men proved the universe is expanding: Edwin Hubble and Albert Einstein. This expansion proves that the universe is not eternal. In other words, it must have had a beginning. The Bible mentions at least eleven different times that God “stretched out” or “stretches out” the heavens (e.g., Isaiah 44:24 “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;” See also Isaiah 48:13). Thus, if the Bible were correct one would expect to discover this expansion. But couldn’t this expansion also represent evidence for the Big Bang? Yes, one would expect to see an expansion from that central explosion. But after the initial energy has expended itself one would not expect an acceleration of the stars today—which is what we see happening in the universe. Allegedly, the Big Bang happened billions of years ago, and the matter is no longer receiving energy from that initial blast. So things should be decelerating. But that is not we observe in science. There are many stars that are accelerating which would go against the expectations of the Big Bang. The only thing that makes logical sense is that God continues to stretch out the universe, defying many of the laws of physics that man tries to apply to the universe.

But still, the question of starlight and time is a stumbling block for many Christians. The assumption is that the light we are witnessing today “must” be millions of years old. The Bible is clear that the stars were created on Day 4 (Genesis 1:16)—an inspired truth that negates the possibility of the Big Bang theory. We also know starlight was visible to the early patriarchs, as God told Abraham that his descendants would be numbered like the stars: “Then He brought him outside and said, ‘Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.’ And He said to him, ‘So shall your descendants be’” (Genesis 15:5). God’s Word also provides man with an idea of the size of the universe when the prophet Jeremiah reveals that the stars cannot be numbered (Jeremiah 33:22). But what about the starlight reaching the Earth?

The distance to stars is often recorded in light years. One light year is the distance light can travel in a vacuum in one year (approximately 5.88 trillion miles). Thus, we often read reports of stars being X light-years away. Evolutionists and those who believe the Earth is millions of years old argue that it would take millions of years for light from distant galaxies to reach us on Earth. However, the “starlight and time” argument has several flaws and assumptions of which Christians should be aware :

  1. God created everything mature. We know from Genesis 2 that the trees were already producing fruit, and, given that Adam was naming the animals before Eve was created (Genesis 2:19-20), one can logically deduce that God created Adam grown and not as a helpless infant unable to communicate. This same truth can also be applied to the stars and heavenly bodies.
  2. The Universe is expanding. This is a scientific fact that can easily be proven by the movement of modern-day stars. This movement indicates the Universe is not eternal, but rather is expanding outward. This constant expansion means that some of the light we are observing today originated from distant galaxies that were closer in the past. In other words, the light we see today must have began its journey when galaxies were closer (and also much smaller and less energetic) than today.
  3. It is a scientific fact that gravity plays a role on time, and could also play a role on the speed of light. We know that clocks on top of skyscrapers or mountains run faster than those closer to sea-level due to the fact that the lower elevation is closer to the Earth—the source of gravity. Some have suggested that the Earth is in a “gravitational well” and is located in the center of the Universe. If that is the case, this gravitational well would mean we experience things slower (like the clock at sea-level) than things further out in space.
  4. While light travels at a constant speed (186,000 miles per second) on Earth, we are not certain how (or how fast) light travels in distant space. In 2000, the Associated Press recounted how scientists had broken the speed of light. The report noted that: “an experiment in Princeton, New Jersey, physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light — supposedly an ironclad rule of nature — can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. In other words, this “constant” does not always behave as a constant. If the speed of light is not the constant then our calculations for how far stars are from the Earth would be incorrect. Bear in mind that no one knows for sure how light behaves in deep space.
  5. In addition to the speed of light being variable, it is also unknown as to whether light has traveled at the same speed throughout the history of the universe. Dr. Lisle observed, “At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly assume that the rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past.” Again, if the speed of light has not been uniform throughout the history of the universe, then all of our calculations for starlight and time would hold no value.
  6. Some scientists have suggested that time synchronization may play an important factor in the starlight and time problem. This concept is best explained by considering the different time zones across the United States. For instance, on a normal weekend I fly home through the airport in Atlanta, Georgia. Normally the time I leave Atlanta is almost exactly the same time I arrive in Nashville due to a one-hour time change – leave Atlanta at 9:00pm and arrive in Nashville at 9:00pm, for example. From the perspective of a clock, it appears the trip was instantaneous. However, in looking at the actual time spent on a plane, it is obvious that the trip included an hour of travel. So looking at it this way, the trip began and concluded at the same time using “local time” (because I was traveling west), but it took an hour using “universal time.”
  7. Other theories have been given, such as the idea that the Universe may be curved and thus light travels more quickly along curved pathways. This concept of a curved universe is known as Riemannian Space and was first proposed by Parry Moon and Domina Spencer in 1953.

But the evidence is clear that several possibilities exist—and with those scientific possibilities, one need not be worried with the puzzle of starlight and time.


But what about all the different species? During the debate Bill Nye posted some rather impressive numbers regarding how many species there are—challenging Ken Ham to explain how all those could have appeared since the Global Food. The problem in answering Nye’s straw man argument is how he defines the terms. Ken Ham tried to demonstrate to the audience the difference between “kinds” and “species.” (Keep in mind man has come up with the species designation.) Consider the following question: How many species of dogs are there in the world?

A strict scientific answer would be one–Canis familiaris, a decendant of the wolf. However if you meant how many “dogs” in the dog family Canidae then we jump up to at least 36 (excluding what many would designate prehistoric dogs). However, if you meant individual breeds of dogs then that number explodes to more than 400. However, Ken Ham’s point was correct. If you have a single pair of dogs (Canis familiaris) then over the succeeding 4500 years through reproduction and cross-breeding you can get hundreds of different breeds.

So how do we explain Bill Nye’s numbers? Take this one example of dogs and multiply it out for each different “kind” of animal on the ark. Then allow those animals to breed (and some may be able to cross-breed) for approximately 4500 years and you begin to see why we have so much variation today. Many people still get shocked by the massive numbers. Surely those numbers required millions of years. Well consider that the first census recorded in the United States was performed in 1790, and it revealed 3.9 million people living in the United States at that time. Fast forward just 200 hundred years to 1990 and we learn that the population in the United States has exploded to 249 million. And that’s just within the past 200 years.

What Bill Nye failed to explain during the debate was how evolution accounts for that many species. Consider how many beneficial mutations would be required to account for such diversity. Why don’t we see species changing/evolving today?


One familiar evolutionary icon, and a staple in many textbooks, is ice core dating. Bill Nye touched on this several times during the debate. Between 1990-1992 a joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) was carried out in Greenland. They recovered an ice core sample 3000 meters in length. The belief was that by counting the cloudy layers (representing snowfall) and clear layers (representing summer thawing) they could establish history and learn about what elements were present in the past.

This dating method (as with most evolutionary dating methods) depends on uniformity throughout the ages. Much of the field of geology has been based on assumptions and the theory of uniformitarianism—the belief that everything has basically been the same since the earth came into existence. But what if each layer does not represent a complete winter—but rather one snow event. Anyone living in colder climates recognizes you can have many different snow events during one calendar year. And yet, evolutionists still clinge to uniformitarianism.

William Stansfield observed, “Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth’s history” 1977, p. 614, The Science of Evolution (New York, NY: Macmillian).]

It is a cardinal tenet of evolutionary biology. For instance, geologist Charles Felix observed:
Uniformitarianism is the great underlying principle of modern geology! …Uniformitarianism endures, partly because it seems reasonable and the principle is considered basic to other fields of study, but it also persists because this is the only way to arrive at the enormous time-frame required for placement of slow evolutionary processes. It is probably correct to state that evolution depends on the unqualified acceptance of Uniformitarianism! (1988, p. 29-30).

The physical evidence rejects uniformitarianism. Honest scientists recognize this earth has experienced catastrophes like the Ice Age or the explosion of Mt. Saint Helens. So why would I argue Bill Nye was scientifically inaccurate to use ice core’s as an example of an ancient earth? Simple—the evidence does not back him up.

In 1942, a squadron of p-38 airplanes had to make an emergency landing on the ice of Greenland’s east coast. The crew were eventually rescued by dog sleds, but the planes had to be left behind. Forty-two years later, in 1988 the planes were discovered using a sophisticated form of radar. Then came the herculean task of trying to recover the planes. After melting a hole in to reach the planes the researchers were amazed to discover that the fleet of planes had been covered in 250 feet of ice (75 meters)—in just fifty years!
What does this mean? It means the ice-core recovered by the GRIP team that measured 3000 meters would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation! Given that the Flood happened more than 4,000 years ago, there would have been ample time for such a massive sheet of ice to build up.


During the debate Bill Nye challenged Ken Ham saying that we never found fossils out of place, which we would expect if man had been on the earth from the beginning of creation as the Bible indicates. Again, one wonders if Bill Nye has really looked at the archaeological evidence that doesn’t “fit” with the evolutionary theory (entire books have been written about “out of place” fossils). Consider just a few examples:

Metallic Vase from Dorchester, Massachusetts

In 1852, Scientific American featured an article titled “A Relic of a Bygone Age,” that described a discovery that poses a serious challenge to the Darwinian theory. The article stated:

A few days ago a powerful blast was made in the rock at Meeting House Hill, in Dorchester, a few rods south of Rev. Mr. Hall’s meeting house. The blast threw out an immense mass of rock, some of the pieces weighing several tons, and scattered fragments in all directions. Among them was picked up a metallic vessel in two parts, rent asunder by the explosion. On putting the two parts together it formed a bell-shaped vessel, 4-1/2 inches high, 6-1/2 inches at the base, 2-1/2 inches at the top, and about an eighth of an inch in thickness. The body of this vessel resembles zinc in color, or a composition of metal, in which there is a considerable portion of silver. On the side there are six figures or a flower, or bouquet, vine, or wreath, also inlaid with silver. The chasing, carving, and inlaying are exquisitely done by the art of some cunning workman. This curious and unknown vessel was blown out of the solid pudding stone, fifteen feet below the surface. It is now in the possession of Mr. John Kettell. Dr. J.V.C. Smith, who has recently traveled in the East, and examined hundreds of curious domestic utensils, and has drawings of them, has never seen anything resembling this. He has taken a drawing and accurate dimensions of it, to be submitted to the scientific. There is not doubt but that this curiosity was blown out of the rock, as above stated; but will Professor Agassiz, or some other scientific man please tell us how it came there? The matter is worthy of investigation, as there is no deception in the case (Scientific American, 1852, p. 298).

At the conclusion of the article the editors of Scientific American stated: “The above is from the Boston Transcript and the wonder is to us, how the Transcript can suppose Prof. Agassiz qualified to tell how it got there any more than John Doyle, the blacksmith. This is not a question of zoology, botany, or geology, but one relating to an antique metal vessel perhaps made by Tubal Cain, the first inhabitant of Dorchester” (p. 298, emp. added).
After consulting a recent U.S. Geological Survey map of the Boston-Dorchester area Cremo and Thompson determined that the pudding stone mentioned in the article is considered to come from the Precambrian Age—over 600 million years old (1996, p. 107). According to evolutionary timelines, that would place the vase over 300 million years before dinosaurs, and over 590 million years before man allegedly made his appearance on the earth. The physical evidence proves that the vase was blown out of the rock. The date assigned to those rocks is not as certain.

Grooved Spheres from South Africa

February 25, 1996 the late Charlton Heston hosted a one-hour special on NBC titled “The Mysterious Origins of Man.” During that show he discussed grooved spheres that were discovered in South Africa. He noted:

In Klerksdorp, South Africa, hundreds of metallic spheres were found by miners in Precambrian strata said to be a fantastic 2.8 billion years old. The controversy centers around fine grooves encircling some of the spheres. Lab technicians were at a loss to explain how they could have been formed by any known, natural process.
Even though Heston got the city wrong (they were unearthed in quarries closer to Ottosdal, West Transvaal rather than “Kerksdorp”), he did get one thing correct: lab technicians (and scientists) are at a loss to explain how these grooved spheres could have been formed by any natural process.

The physical evidence has been all but ignored by evolutionists, who instead offer up pitiful speculations such as the spheres are artificial or the grooves were cut after having been discovered. Arguing that a groove can be cut into a sphere “naturally” requires a great deal of conjecture. But to explain how three parallel grooves could have found their way encompassing an extremely hard sphere requires gymnastic tongue-work from professional spin-doctors who are more interested in defending their beloved theory rather than accepting the really obvious. The physical evidence does not lie.

Chalk Ball found near Laon, France

Maximilien Melleville, the Vice President of the Société Academique de Laon (France) and author of Dictionnaire historique du département de l’Aisne wrote a report in the April 1862, issue of The Geologist. His report described the discovery of a chalk ball from an early Eocene lignite bed. While finding a ball of chalk may seem unimportant or even trivial to some, consider that this chalk ball was found at a place and time that should have precluded any man-made objects. The conventional date assigned by evolutionists for these beds is 45 to 55 million years old. Melleville indicated that the chalk ball was discovered about 246 feet below the surface. There was no doubt that the ball was genuine, as it had been stained a black color by contact with the lignite. Cremo and Thompson reported:

In August of 1861, workmen digging at the far end of the shaft, 225 feet below the surface of the hill, saw a round object fall down from the top of the excavation. The object was about 6 centimeters (2.36 inches) in diameter and weighed 310 grams (about 11 ounces). Melville stated: “They looked to see exactly what place in the strata it had occupied, and they are able to state that it did not come from the interior of the ‘ash,’ but that it was imbedded at its point of contact with the roof of the quarry, where it had left its impression indented” (1996, pp. 107-108).

Evolutionists have no explanation for this physical evidence.

Letters in Marble Block, Philadelphia

Workers at the Henderson Quarry near Norristown, 12 miles northwest of Philadelphia, cut a block of marble found at a depth of 60-70 feet and alleged to be approximately eight million years old in November 1829. It was only after workmen began sawing into the block that they discovered a rectangular indentation, about 1½ inches wide by ⅝ inch high, with two raised characters inside it (Corliss, 1978, p. 657). Some have suggested these raised letters are the Greek letters pi and iota (ΠΙ). Marble is often cut using diamond blades or special cutting devices in order cut through this material. Horizontal and vertical lines in marble are the product of work and energy—and these were cut prior to the days of diamond blades. Also bear in mind that these letters were discovered inside the marble slab.

This discovery was reported in the American Journal of Science (Browne, 1831). In his report on the discovery, Browne remarked:

In the month of November last, a block of marble measuring upwards of thirty cubic feet, was taken out from the depth between sixty and seventy feet, and sent to Mr. Savage’s marble saw mill in Norristown to be cut in slabs. One was taken off about three feet wide and about six feet long, and in the body of the marble, exposed by the cutting, was immediately discovered an indentation, about one and a half inches long and about five eighths of an inch wide, in which were two raised characters. Fortunately, several of the most respectable gentlemen residing in Norristown were called upon to witness this remarkable phenomenon, without whose testimony it might have been difficult, if not impossible, to have satisfied the public, that an imposition had not been practiced by cutting the indentation and carving the letters after the slab was cut off (p. 361).
Is the physical evidence of these letters hard to explain? They are hard to explain if one is tied to the geologic timeline espoused by evolutionists. Once again, the physical evidence of these marble letters is undisputable, but the same cannot be said for the age attributed to the marble slab.

Metallic Tubes from Chalk in France

In 1968, molded metallic tubes were found in “Cretaceous Chalk” by Y. Druet and H. Salfati (see Corliss, 1978, pp. 652-653; Cremo and Thompson, 1993, pp. 809-810). They reported:
We would like to bring to your attention the following facts, and hope you will give our discovery some consideration. As speleologists and investigators, we have studied for several years the Pay d’ Auge region of Calvados. During the year 1968 we discovered some metallic nodules in a hollow in an Aptian chalk bed in a quarry being worked in Saint-Jean de Livet. These metallic nodules have a reddish brown color, a form absolutely identical (semi-ovoid), but are of different size. A central section had a form corresponding with the exterior form. These nodules at first seemed to be fossils, but having examined them carefully we became conscious of their entirely metallic nature. Experiments at the forge showed that the carbon content was higher than castings of today. We were lead to consider the hypothesis that they were meteorites, but five pieces were found all of the same nature, which lead us to reject this hypothesis. There remains only an intelligent intervention in the Secondary Era (the end of the Cretaceous) of beings who could cast such objects. These objects, then, prove the presence of intelligent life on earth long before the limits given today by prehistoric archeology.
P.S.: The Geomorphology Laboratory of the University of Caen is now studying these objects which we have sent them (without great hopes) [as quoted in Corliss, 1978, pp. 652-653].

Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson described that the chalk bed, exposed in a quarry at Saint-Jean de Livet, France is estimated to be at least “65 million years old” (1996, p. 117). That would imply that either intelligent beings existed 65 million years ago who could produce these metallic tubes, or the man-made and man-assigned evolutionary dating system is wrong. The physical evidence does not lie.

Shoe Sole From Nevada

While shoe prints are not exactly front-page news, a shoe print that was allegedly found in five million year old rock would be. An amateur geologist discovered the fossilized imprint of a shoe complete with thread marks and broken heel in Fisher Canyon, Pershing County, Nevada. On October 8, 1922, the “American Weekly” section of the New York Sunday American ran an article titled “Mystery of the Petrified ‘Shoe Sole,’” written by Dr. W. H. Ballou.

Some time ago, while he was prospecting for fossils in Nevada, John T. Reid, a distinguished mining engineer and geologist, stopped suddenly and looked down in utter bewilderment and amazement at a rock near his feet. For there, a part of the rock itself, was what seemed to be a human footprint! Closer inspection showed that it was not a mark of a naked foot, but was, apparently, a shoe sole which had been turned into stone. The forepart was missing. But there was the outline of at least two-thirds of it, and around this outline ran a well-defined sewn thread which had, it appeared, attached the welt to the sole. Further on was another line of sewing, and in the center, where the foot would have rested had the object really been a shoe sole, there was an indentation, exactly such as would have been made by the bone of the heel rubbing upon and wearing down the material of which the sole had been made. Thus was found a fossil which is the foremost mystery of science today. For the rock in which it was found is at least 5 million years old (p. 2).

A five million year old rock containing well-defined sewn thread? The fossil is physical evidence and is unquestionable. The date assigned to the rock however came from evolutionary assumptions.

Again, these were just a few examples. So why can’t school children be exposed to this physical evidence in the textbooks? Mr Nye, if you seek to really set the record straight why not allow young people the chance to critically evaluate the evidence and discern for themselves which theory is more logical. Of course, we can’t do that—because if we did many students would make the logical choice that there must be a God.

The evidence is clear. Real science—true science point back toward a creature and supports the Biblical account of creation

via: http://www.focuspress.org/ZCreationDebateBrad.html


A Stable Foundation

stbhic5a1I recently caught just a bit of “the Herd with Colin Cowherd”. Colin had a radio show in Portland when I was preaching with the church at Wilsonville, Or. When he moved on to the larger stage of ESPN, his time slot changed, and it was no longer convenient to listen in to the broadcast. Colin always has a wide range of subject matter that he incorporates into his thoughts that have centered around professional sports. (though he had a more non-sporting material with his local show).

Colin was extrapolating how recent studies like this one “Homeownership boosts children’s educational achievement” (and others done at USC and UC San Diego) correlate stability to success from academics, to teen pregnancy, poverty, etc. Colin argued that stability was the primary key to success for modern NFL franchises noting the coaching shuffle for the bottom of the brackets and perennial winners had a stable coaching staff.

It is not really that big of stretch to link this simple concept:

24  “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
25  “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.
26  “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
27  “The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Mt 7:24–27). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

So my suggestion is to build stability in your life, heart, and home. It clearly begets success

Phillip W. Martin


Stewing In Our Own Juice, by Robert F. Turner

When someone’s sinful conduct rebounded upon him, my dad would sometimes say, “He is stewing in his own juice.” Dad meant he was reaping what he had sown. This is a Bible concept, in both the good and bad sense. We do not really 46get away” with anything. Our deeds and thoughts are “naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13). Since we are in God’s world, where the very character of God is manifested in his creation; and since we will be eventually judged by our Creator; we should know that our well-being, now and in eternity, depends upon our living according to his rules. Three times in the first chapter of the Roman letter Paul indicates “God gave up” the pagan world to the consequences of their own conduct. He allowed them to “stew in their own juice.” There is a practical principle here for all of us: we carry in ourselves the seed of harvest, both temporal and eternal.

We are often self-deceived: thinking possessions can make us happy; our cunningness can reap the benefits of true wisdom; the snares we set for others can give us freedom. This is to proceed without reckoning with God and his principles of righteousness. Greed only heaps up treasures that “moth and rust corrupt.” The cunning are caught by others more cunning, and are usually overcome by the strength of honorable wisdom. The book of Proverbs is literally filled with such admonitions. “The rich man’s wealth is his strong city . . . ” but the destruction of the poor (by which he gain ed his wealth) eventually becomes his poverty (Prov. 10:15). “The integrity of the upright shall guide them; but the perverseness of the treacherous shall destroy them” (11:3). If evil-doers seem to prosper (as indeed they do) remember the advice of the Psalmist: “Fret not thyself. “Evil-doers shall be cut off” (Psa. 37:7-11).

The prophet Habakkuk affords an excellent example of the principle we are discussing. Habakkuk recognized the sins of his people and cried out to God to do something about them. God revealed he was sending the Chaldeans to overrun and punish Judah for her sins. Habakkuk objected, “Holdest thy peace when the wicked swalloweth up the man that is more righteous than he?” (1:13) He was told “the righteous shall live by his faith” (f.n. “in his faithfulness,” 2:4). God has not forgotten his own.

But that is not all. The wicked Chaldeans, used by God to punish Judah, were still accountable for their deeds. The wine (of greed and pride) is treacherous. The very nations they had conquered would “take up a parable . . . a taunting proverb” against them (2:5f). There follows five “woes” promising them the fruit of their own wickedness. Habakkuk learned the true meaning of faith. He waited patiently for the punishment due Judah’s wickedness, and said, “Yet I will rejoice in Jehovah, I will joy in the God of my salvation” (3:16f). He was now attuned to God’s judgments.

Reaping what we sow is also applicable in far less dramatic cases. Some girls use extreme makeup and tight clothing to throw themselves at the boys. They get a cheap date, cheap popularity, and eventually a cheap husband who likely holds marriage as a “cheap” arrangement. Later the divorced mother with children to support “stews in her own juice,” and just can’t figure out why it happened. I remember talking with a divorcee who told me each of her three husbands were alcoholics. I asked, “Where do you get. your husbands?” and was told she met them where she worked – in a bar. I do not say all divorces have such obvious cause-effect relations, but the general principle remains true: we sow the seed of our own harvest. The boy who is lazy, changes jobs-often, does sloppy work, and is a “clock watcher, ” finds it hard to understand why he finally runs out of jobs. The world does not treat him fairly; or does it?

Preachers try to “win debates” with trickery, character assassination, or unfair use of papers or pulpit – and are shunned or held at arms length by many brethren. Of course they can always say those brethren can not take “sound” teaching, but I wonder if they never take a look deep inside themselves. It is equally true that those who compromise truth and repeatedly excuse ungodly conduct may finally find themselves in the “liberal” camp. How did they get there? The “seed” produced their fruit. They may not feel the “stewing” now, but ultimate consequences are inevitable.

Retribution and judgment lie woven into the nature of creation, and are an integral part of God’s revealed will. We “program” our own destinies far more than we may realize, and we should not have to wait for the unchangeable final judgment to do something about it. Instead of blaming fate or “others” for our plight, we should take a hard look at our past, the seed of our present. In our yesterdays we were mixing the ingredients of today. We are storing up our eternal future by present lifestyles and response to God. That is one reason it is so hard to truly repent, to turn about, to “kill the old man.” But God’s goodness can have a great influence if we but give it consideration (Rom. 2:4f). We still have life, and with Christ that means hope. It is up to each of us to trust him, and begin sowing the seeds of an eternal inheritance.
Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, p. 455
August 6, 1987

via: http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume31/GOT031198.html



The twin fallacies of composition and division assume that what is true of the parts is true of the whole (composition), and what is true of the whole is true of the individual parts (division). Composition would take the basic form, “Individual pieces of x have characteristics Y and Z; therefore all of X has characteristics Y and Z.” This is not always fallacious, but it cannot be assumed to be true without proper warrant. For example, one might reason that since particular players are the best at their position, then putting all the players together necessarily makes the best team (though they might not play so well as a team). Division would reverse composition. For example, since this is the best team in the league, then all the individual players are the best players at their position. (These are common illustrations.)

These fallacies can be instructive when thinking about the relationship of the individual to the congregation. It would be fallacious, for example, to say that what is true of the individual Christian is true of the congregation of which he is a part. Likewise, it is fallacious to say that whatever is true of the congregation as a whole is true of each individual Christian who is part of the group.

Once again we should be able to see how these fallacies might be committed. For example:

“These Christians are hypocrites; therefore the whole church is hypocritical.”
“The church is evangelistic; therefore each Christian is evangelistic.”

Both of these statements are fallacious. Hypocrites within a congregation do not make the entire group hypocritical, and a congregation that is overall actively evangelistic does not mean each individual is actively participating very well.

It is not uncommon to hear the argument, “Because the church is made up of individuals, then whatever the individual can do (or is doing), the church can do (or is doing).” This is the fallacy of composition. We can understand how the fallacy is made. The church is comprised of Christians, but individual Christians acting is not identical to the organized group as a whole acting. This is seen in passages like 1 Timothy 5, where believers are told to care for their own needy first (widows) so that the church is not burdened: “If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed” (vs. 16). This would make no sense at all if there is no distinction to be made between individual action and organized group action. Individuals act in their capacity as business associates, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, citizens, neighbors, etc. These actions are independent of the organized group. No one would reasonably argue that since a husband and wife, both of whom are Christians, share an intimate relationship, this means the entire church shares that same relationship. Clearly, individuals can act on their own without their actions being that of the group. In matters of money, Peter told Ananias, who had just lied, that his land and money were under his (Ananias’) control. We can understand that an individual maintains control of his own possessions and finances until relinquished to the group.

The church (group) is not an institution separate from people (as we have previously argued), but the group still does exist with organization and authorized actions; in this sense the church is an organization (i.e., a group of people organized for a particular goal or work). This organization need not be complicated, and we aren’t using the term here to imply some massive business model. Organization means that there is order to what is going on, under leadership, and has a goal and purpose to which all are attending. Is there biblical evidence for this?

1. The evidence for local congregations is found throughout the New Testament documents, particularly from Acts on. When congregations are addressed, these epistles take on more than simply the idea of Christians who all happen to live in the same city. The epistles were intended to be read in assemblies, implying that they met in order to hear God’s word read and taught. The church at Corinth, for example, came together as a group (or were supposed to) with the intention of edifying, teaching, and participation in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:18ff; 14) . Instead of chaos, and since God is not the God of confusion (14:33), order and organization within the assembly itself was required.

2. The evidence for elders and deacons shows God’s desire for local organization (Acts 20; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3; Titus 1). If we are to put ourselves under the “leaders” (Heb 13:17), who keep watch for our souls, this cannot be done without some level of organization. They cannot do this if they do not know who it is that they are supposed to watching for. This implies some kind of record, knowledge, roll, or something of which they would be aware. People often shy away from “membership” terms, but the idea is simply that the Christians know who is part of their group so they can help encourage and share their activities.

3. The evidence for organized, congregational action is strong. The very fact of assembling together for edification, hearing God’s word, participating in the Lord’s Supper, etc., is evidence of specified group action. Paul wrote of the “churches of Macedonia” acting by collecting funds to send back to needy saints in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:1ff; note that the plural form of ekklesia here implies local groups acting; if all Paul was doing was talking about Christians generally in the area, why would he use the plural form?). He directed the “churches of Galatia,” and then the church at Corinth, to collect funds for needy saints (1 Cor 16:1-4). Any actions like these require some organization.

Authorization for individual action is not identical to authorization for congregational action. If the church is not to be burdened with some matters that the individual has an obligation toward, then this is proof enough of the point. The congregation exists for a purpose, and God has provided for particular activities within a congregational setting—Christians coming together for His purposes, and in which all are expected to participate in organized action.

The point is that we should not conflate individual action and authority with congregational action and authority. We understand this principle in other matters. If we gave funds to a hospital with an expectation that these funds are used for helping the sick, and they take these funds and form a softball team with it, we would likely be fairly upset with such a misuse. Does this mean we wouldn’t support a softball team in another context? Of course not. This is simply recognizing the context and purpose for which a particular group or organization exists.

God wants Christians banding together in a congregational setting to worship Him and encourage one another in the things of Christ. We don’t find congregations in Scripture acting in any and every way that individuals might act separately, though they are sometimes chastised for the way certain individuals act (e.g, 1 Corinthians; Revelation 2-3). “When you come together as a church” is instructive (1 Cor 11:18), and they were limited by God’s orders as to what they were to do in such a setting (1 Cor 14:37). If no distinction is to be made between church and individual settings, then there would be no context in which the women could speak up (vs. 34).

Everyone participates in various organizations and relationships with different contexts and purposes. Christians might join together to form a business in one context (e.g., a donut shop), but this does not mean the “church” as a whole (congregational or universal) is in the donut business (composition fallacy). Christians working in conjunction with each other in education generally does not put the church in the education business. Context and purpose are everything (as in biblical interpretation, so in life application). In the capacity of a local congregation, there is a context and purpose that differs from other actions that may involve multiple Christians. Again, we recognize this principle in other areas of life. Players on the Giants going to the movies together does not mean the “Giants” are going to the movies (this would imply a more official, organized context and purpose). There is a reason people speak about government abuses, where they recognize that there are limits to what a government ought to be able to do in relation to the individuals of the state. Again, organizations exist for different purposes and in different contexts. Why would this be any different when it comes to local congregations that exist on God’s authority?

Though the congregation is comprised of individuals, the congregation as an organized group is not identical to the individual (division) and the individual is not identical to the congregation (composition). We do well to remember this in discussions about both individual and congregational activities.

Doy Moyer

Via: http://www.mindyourfaith.com/1/post/2013/12/the-individual-and-the-organized-congregation.html

%d bloggers like this: