Baptized

“But, if I get baptized for the forgiveness of my sins as God demands in Acts 2:38, I’ll be condemning my parents (or siblings, or children, etc) who didn’t/don’t believe that!”

Probably if we as faithful preachers and teachers of the word of God in the Lord’s church had a dollar for every time we have heard similar, sad, self-deceived responses from the lips of those with man-made denominational backgrounds when they are finally brought face to face with the hard and fast Biblical fact that no one in Scripture, since the inception of the New Covenant of Christ and the establishment of His one New Testament church in Acts 2, was ever saved and added to His saved/ church by simply saying a prayer – we’d be a lot more financially stable to be sure. But it is the soul-deep sadness we experience at such satanic self-delusion that is always so overwhelming, because we recognize how totally Satan has such a one deceived and dancing on his sadistic string! Consider:

If a dearly beloved and departed family member never accepted God’s gift of grace and forgiveness on God’s terms as outlined in His holy word, then they are judged already. And there is absolutely nothing we can do about where they are, and absolutely nothing we can do or don’t do, which can or does affect where they already are (See Luke 16:19-31) – NOTHING!

On the other hand, a person who believes that they will somehow “condemn” their living loved ones who do not believe or accept the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through obedient faith – including baptism for the forgiveness of sins – is even more sadly deceived and here’s why. Their decision to personally deny the biblical essentiality of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, actually helps seal the fate of condemnation of those very ones they claim to love, as well as for themselves, because it only serves to strengthen said satanically inspired deception! It is only through their faithfully, personally, obeying the gospel and accepting God’s forgiveness as written, that one can display the power of its necessity and essentiality, and then perhaps preach and teach it to their deceived and currently unforgiven and condemned loved ones, in an effort see them truly saved!

The sad, satanic, and sadistic fact of the matter is this: It is not those who finally see that one must be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins and does it that condemns their loved ones – but just the opposite! It is those who stubbornly refuse to obey the gospel by being baptized specifically for the forgiveness of their sins as God demands, who in all actuality, truly help condemn their loved ones, by perpetuating the lie and giving it life… something they will not have with God in the end – and they guarantee it by their continued disobedience to what they know from His word must be done!

 

Posted in Doug Dingley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Baptized

Permitted?

“Everything Is Permitted, If . . .”

The world envisioned by many is one where every person has the right to do whatever he likes. The philosophy is summed up in these words, “What right does anyone have to tell me what is right or wrong? What right do you have to judge my behavior?” As we look at the world around us, we see the world buying into the view of life where I can do anything I want to do and no one has any right to judge me or set standards of actions which I must follow.

Without thinking this through, one might think that the philosophy might be right. However, stop long enough to see the fruit of such an idea. Does anyone have the right tell others that robbery is wrong? Does not the thief have the right to say, “I can do anything I want to and no one has any right to judge me or set standards of actions which I must follow”?  What about murderers, rapists, scam operators, liars or a host of other lifestyles one might choose?

One of the most renowned philosophers of the twentieth century was the Frenchman, Jean-Paul Sartre. He was an atheist when he died in 1980 (ever consider that after death no man is an atheist), but his words actually help us understand just why everything is not permitted. He said, “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist.”

If God does not exist, what gives any individual, group of individuals, culture, society or government the right to set standards of actions for me? My view of right and wrong has just as much merit as the view of others! There is no absolute truth. There is no eternal truth. There is no universal truth. Because morality is constantly changing, there is no morality! Who decides what is right and wrong?

Perhaps this is why society often tries to remove God from our lives. Why were copies of the Ten Commandments removed from the classroom and from public display? Why were prayer and Bible reading removed from our schools? Why are some trying to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency? Why is prayer forbidden at high school football games? Why is there an ever increasing mockery of Christians on TV and in movies? Remove God, and everything is permitted!

Now, think of the implication of Mr. Sartre’s words. If God does exist, everything is not permitted! However, if there is a Creator, then He has a right to govern me. He determines what behavior He expects of me. Neither I nor any group of individuals on this earth determines morality. He governs morality! I seek to mirror in my life the holiness He has shown in the life of Jesus. Think of the moral struggle facing our nation. It is God who judges. This land is not my land, it is His!  He is the sovereign Creator of each of us!

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Permitted?

The Basis For our Faith

In the creation / evolution controversy, it is often the case that non-believers consider creationists to be superstitious fools who cling to a mythical God.  But when the facts are brought to light, it is actually those who do not believe in God who’s faith is ill-placed.  The basis for the Christian faith is far more than just a whim or gut feeling.  Our faith is backed up with reasonable scientific evidence which makes it the more logical choice than the faith of the unbelievers.

It’s sometimes difficult when we look at the naturalistic world we live in and come to the conclusion that there must be something out there that is supernatural.  We don’t see supernatural things going on around us.  Everything we see working in nature today has a natural explanation for how it functions so it is difficult to grasp something supernatural because we never get to see it in action.   What nature cannot explain is how the universe and everything in it came to exist.

All matter in the universe has specific behaviors with no known exceptions.  These behaviors have been identified and have been given descriptions which we call the laws of nature.   The law of Gravity is one of them.  These behaviors of matter are what gives us the order and functionality we have in nature today.  If it were not for the law of gravity, life could not exist.  And so it is for the other laws of nature as well.

Something has been in existence forever.  We know this to be true because if ever there were a time in our history when nothing existed, then nothing would now exist.   The law of Cause and effect states that for every material cause there must be an adequate prior cause.  There are no known exceptions to this law.  Something is out there that has to have existed forever.   Something exists now, therefore something has to have existed forever.  What is it?

There are only 3 possible answers to explain our origins.  Either the universe has always existed, or the universe created itself out of nothing, or the universe was created.   We have already eliminated the second option so that leaves only 2.

Has the universe always existed?    The law of Conservation of Energy and Matter states that matter and energy cannot be created in nature.  Matter and energy can be changed back and forth from one form to the other but it cannot be created or destroyed.   Simply stated, what we have in existence today is all we have ever had and all that we will ever have.   The law of increased entropy states that usable energy is becoming less and less available.  The hydrogen which fuels our sun and the stars is being consumed and not being replenished.   The fossil fuels we use here on earth are being consumed and are not being replenished.  Eventually, all of this usable energy is going to run out.  The stars will die, the sun will go out and our universe will become a dark, dead, lifeless place.   These two laws of nature tell us that what we have now is what we have always had and that it is slowly running down.  Has the universe always existed?  No it has not.  Not in this form anyway.  Something, or someone, had to get it here, wind it up and jump start it.   Something adequate to the task had to cause it to exist.

Option #1 has been eliminated.  That leaves only one option left to explain our origins.  The universe was created.

When all of this is considered together, it is evident that the existence of our universe is not possible under the laws of nature which govern the behavior of all matter.  The creationists have faith in an intelligent all knowing all powerful supernatural creator.  The atheistic naturalists have faith in a naturally occurring supernatural event.   Neither of these have ever been observed therefore both require e a degree of faith.

When I look around at nature with its order, beauty, complexity and symmetry, I do not see a natural occurring supernatural event which caused the existence of our universe.  Rather, I see the handiwork of an intelligent all knowing all powerful supernatural creator.

I’m basing my faith on the more probable and intelligent choice.

Psalms 14:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Written by David Hersey

 

 

Posted in David Hersey | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Basis For our Faith

The First Moon of Spring Bunny

It’s Easter time again: a time for candy, colored eggs, more candy, egg hunts, some more candy…  While many observe this holiday in some religious way, to a lot of people Easter is just another day of festivities for children.  (And as far as secular holidays go, it’s definitely a fun day for kids).  As Santa Claus is to Christmas, the fictitious Easter Bunny is the central figure of this particular spring holiday.  Being that Easter is usually considered by the religious world at large to be a celebration of the resurrection of Christ, we may wonder why people don’t call that bunny “The Resurrection of Christ Bunny.”  But the truth is that would be incorrect anyway, for (as far as the Bible is concerned) Easter has nothing to do with the resurrection of Christ at all.

While it is true that the English term “Easter” is mentioned once in the King James Version of the Bible (in Acts 12:4), it is not in reference to any Christian holy day.  In fact, the New Testament Greek word for Easter is “pascha” meaning “Passover” (a Jewish holy period).  Of the 28 other times “pascha” is used in the Greek New Testament, the KJV translators correctly translated it “Passover.”  Yet in Acts 12:4 (possibly at the command of King James) they used the term “Easter.”  As the context of the passage proves, Acts 12:4 makes no reference to the resurrection of Christ at all, but rather deals with King Herod’s persecution of Christians at the time of the Passover (vv.1-3). Neither would Herod temporarily cease persecuting Christians so that he could observe a Christian holy day.  How absurd!

It is also noteworthy to mention that the term “Easter” (originally “Eostre,” an Anglo-Saxon term meaning “goddess of spring,” or “fertility”) is of pagan origin. Furthermore, the day itself is calculated by the first full moon of spring (not the Passover, as some assume).  Thus, the word “Easter” is an inappropriate term supplied by the KJV translators, and this has caused much and needless confusion over many generations.  So maybe instead of calling that bunny the “Easter Bunny,” perhaps people should call it the “Passover Bunny” or (more to the point) the “Pagan Bunny” or the “First Moon of Spring Bunny.”  Though the “bunny” is a secular symbol, these designations would at least be more truthful.

Posted in Aaron Veyon | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The First Moon of Spring Bunny

Stem Cell Research

Stem Cell Research: Needless Death

Politicians who believe a particular “cause” will increase their odds in a voting booth can often be heard (loudly) beating the drum for that cause on the campaign trial. If a public poll appears to indicate that Americans are in favor of something—a check of the wind, so-to-speak—many politicians adopt that cause with gusto. But occasionally, it would be nice if the politicians would check the facts rather than checking the wind and popular opinion. Americans would be better informed and better served if those nominated for office would educate themselves on the facts.

For instance, embryonic stem cell research has been a political hot button for several years. Many elected officials and celebrities take pleasure in locking arms together and demanding that the government fund embryonic stem cell research. To hear their rhetoric, one might believe that these cells harvested from human embryos could not only cure Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, but also give us peace on Earth and resolve gridlock on the nation’s interstates. Surely the average person can see through this political grandstanding. [One wonder’s how much money the abortion lobbyists have funneled into this debate to keep the issue in the headlines.]

In reality, we know today that those embryonic stem cells are totally unnecessary. Stem cell research can continue without the destruction of innocent embryos. Adult stem cells provide the answer. Initially, the controversy was allegedly whether or not the stem cells were “pluripotent”—meaning cells that have the ability to become almost any cell in the body. These special cells can become healthy heart tissue or nervous tissue which could potentially be used to treat congestive heart failure or various brain disorders respectively. Currently stem cells are collected from four different sources: adult tissue, umbilical cords, aborted fetuses, and leftover embryos stored from in vitro fertilization procedures. The real controversy surrounds where the stem cells are collected from.

Prior to 2001, it was believed that only embryonic stem cells—that is, cells collected from aborted fetuses or embryos—were pluripotent. However, in the past six years, several peer-reviewed research studies have clearly shown that adult stem cells are also pluripotent. In fact, in January 2007 researchers demonstrated they could derive human stem cells from the amniotic fluid surrounding babies in the womb. Adult stem cells collected from this method would potentially provide an endless source of stem cells that are easily available for research. According to USA Today staff writer Elizabeth Weise, “The researchers at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C., were able to get the amniotic cells to differentiate into fat, bone, muscle, blood, nerve and liver cells.” Simply put, we do not need embryonic stem cells. The current “score” is 72 to 0—meaning there are currently seventy-two conditions successfully being treated using adult stem cells (see http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm), whereas embryonic stem cells have still yet to show any benefit in treating human conditions.

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho wrote a paper comparing the “score” between embryonic (ES) and adult stem cells.  After reviewing studies employing embryonic stem cells she concluded: “These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas (tumors—BH) and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities.” This is not exactly the scorecard that the media has been presenting the general public.

The American people should be bold enough to hold politicians and the mainstream media accountable: “Why promote embryonic stem cells if the adult stem cells work?”Why do individuals continue to promote the “potential” benefit of embryonic stem cells when it has been unmistakably shown that adult stem cells are working better? What does this tell us about the value our society is placing on human life? Have we forgotten that the first step toward the Nazi Holocaust was when physicians began to selectively determine which lives were worth living? Much of the moral decay we are witnessing today is a direct result of society in which human life is no longer valued. Robert Reily observed: “The problem is that, by denying the possibility of a relationship between God and man, atheism also denies the possibility of a just relationship between men…. Human life is sacred only if there is a God to sanctify it. Otherwise man is just another collection of atoms and can be treated as such” (1988). Children (and adults) need to be taught that life is precious, and reminded that God views life to begin before birth (see Isaiah 49: 1,5; Jeremiah 1:5; Psalm 139:13-14; Job 3:13-16, etc.). Otherwise, without intervention, society will continue to treat humans as simply a collection of atoms—and we will continue to watch the onslaught of needless deaths.

For a more detailed review of the stem cell controversy please see the January 2006 issue of Think available online.

Posted in Brad Harrub | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Stem Cell Research