jmwhalen

There is more than 1 piece of "good news" in the book. In this dispensation, the gospel of Christ is 1 Cor. 15:1-4, but that is not equivalent to "the gospel of the kingdom," which even Judas preached, per Mt. 10 ff, Luke 9:6, which included raising the dead.

You still have not demonstrated from Scripture that God changes the future or simply responds to events as they occur. You have not demonstrated Scripturally that God does not know our future decisions and choices. You are relying more on philosophy and philosophical assumptions than you are on Scripture. That would explain you cannot employ God's self-disclosure to support your view. God does not reveal Himself according to your limited and unbiblical view of Him. Books are written on this. I gave you links with many Scriptural comments. Some of these issues involve paradigms, principles, and philosophy since Scripture does not explicitly resolve or deal with them. We do not use the Bible to prove mathematical formulas. You are unfamiliar with the biblical evidence for Open Theism, so you wrongly assume it does not exist. I have looked at the many verses that support it and the lame counter-arguments (that impose a Calvinistic, deterministic view on them) and have made an informed decision. The exact nature of the kenosis, free will, sovereignty, etc. is not spelled out like a systematic theology text in Scripture (which is more historical narrative, biblical theology vs systematic, etc.), so we must bring to bear other disciplines in addition to proof texts. Scripture is the final authority, but it simply does not cover every area of relevant knowledge in detail. We agree that God is sovereign, omniscient, immutable, etc., but these things must be defined, qualified, tested, not just assumed (much tradition is not truth). Cliche spam. Look at all relevant verses without a wrong paradigm.Try a good commentary that will interpret these verses consistent with all relevant verses vs twisting out of context with a poor interpretation.The problem is your negative proof texting void of exegesis in contextTry a good commentary that will interpret these verses consistent with all relevant verses vs twisting out of context with a poor interpretation." Understand that this "god"rulz is a charlatan, a con artist, posing as a member of the boc.

Eternal Security (Sealing, adoption, circumcision) By John M. Whalen Those who deny the eternal security of the believer fail to understand the cross work of the Lord Jesus Christ, and it's finality. In fact, this is why the question arises, "Is once saved always saved" a true statement? I realize that this topic deserves more than just a few "random" verses thrown out in support of the doctrine of eternal security, but I will just focus on a few points: 1. 2 Cor 5:17-19 : "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." When Christ died two thousand years ago all our sin was still in the future. He paid for all sin, for all men, for all time. God is not imputing (charging to one's account) sin to anyone today. We are not saved by getting rid of our sin but by belief of the truth of the gospel which is "Christ died FOR our sins, was buried and rose again the third day"=the gospel of Christ- 1 Cor. 15:1-4. 2. The seal and pledge of the Holy Spirit is the guarantee of our redemption in Christ by God. In simple terms, a symbol is something that represents something else. Two of the symbols of the Holy Spirit are as a seal, and as a pledge. As a Seal: " Write ye also for the Jews, as it liketh you, in the king's name, and seal it with the king's ring: for the writing which is written in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, MAY NO MAN REVERSE (emphasis mine)." Esther 8:8 "And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might NOT BE CHANGED(emphasis mine) concerning Daniel." Daniel 6:17 "So she wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth." 1 Kings 21:8 Most frequently, a seal was a signet ring with a design or imprint on it peculiar to the owner and to authenticate official documents. Thus, a signet ring is a finger ring that bears an engraved seal(Genesis 41:42) For example, when the king's ring was pressed against the hot wax that sealed a document, the sealed scroll then bore an imprint that IDENTIFIED it with the king. This would be similar in our times to our signature on a check. No document was valid without it. It was used in the following ways: -It indicated a FINISHED transaction": In Jeremiah 32:9-11, the prophet Jeremiah purchases the field Hanameel with money as the LORD God had instructed him to do. After the price was set,, paid for, and the deed was signed, he sealed the deed. The seal was "evidence"(Jer. 32:10,11,12,14) that the purchase was official and complete-it was a FINISHED transaction(see also John 17:4 and 19:30). This is what Paul is telling us in 2 Cor. 1:22-God the Father and God the Son settled the matter of our salvation between themselves-we partake of the FINISHED work. God, at this point, gives us the Holy Spirit, showing us that salvation is a completed, finished transaction. -It obtains security: Notice in Esther 8:8, "...May no man reverse....", and Daniel 6:17, "...not be changed....". While the king was in power and lived, no one could change what was sealed by his own ring. Seals were the universal means of safeguarding, "securing" letters, treasures, "guaranteeing" legal evidence. This carried the authority of the king . In Daniel 6:15,17 the strict etiquette of the Persian court obliged the king never to revoke an order once given-the lion's den was sealed. In Matthew 27:66, the Lord Jesus Christ's tomb was sealed so that His body would be undisturbed-"...and made the sepulchre SURE, SEALING(emphasis mine) the stone". The context here shows that this was an official sealing that was intended to be so arranged that the seal could not be broken without detection. In the Revelation 7:2-4, one hundred and forty four thousand servants are sealed so they will be protected, secured from the impending judgment. In the Revelation 20:3, Satan is cast into the bottomless pit for 1000 years-his tenure here is made CERTAIN by the sealing of the pit. In all these cases, the seal is affixed in order to make sure, guarantee, someone or something is SECURE. Paul again uses this figure of the seal to the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 1:13, "...ye WERE(emphasis mine-past tense) sealed with that Holy Spirit of PROMISE(emphasis mine-guarantee of security)", and again in Ephesians 4:30, "...ye are sealed UNTO(emphasis mine-notice this is secure until we receive our redeemed bodies!) the day of redemption." The same principle applies to the King of Kings. God has sealed believers of today into the Body of Christ and now nothing can reverse that sealing. It is a secure seal-absolute security. -It indicates ownership: Again in Jeremiah 32:11, 12 explains of evidence of a completed purchase being taken to Baruch. In verse 13, 14, 15 Jeremiah tells Baruch to take the evidences of the purchase and put then in an earthen vessel- Jeremiah has the right to do this because he has OWNERSHIP of the land. In Haggai 2:23, "In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have CHOSE(emphasis mine) thee, saith the LORD of hosts." And hence, "For ye are bought with a price...."(1 Cor. 6:20) -It is used to identify something: In 2 Timothy 2:19 , the Holy Spirit through Paul says "the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that ARE HIS(emphasis mine)." God has ownership of a believer. The Holy Spirit has sealed the purchase. Thus, just as the king's imprint IDENTIFIED it with the king, the sealing ministry of the Holy Spirit IDENTIFIES us as the bought property, by blood, of the Lord Jesus Christ. As a Pledge: In 2 Cor. 5:5 we are told that God has given us "...the earnest of the Spirit.", and in Ephesians 1:14 we are told that the Holy Spirit "...is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possess...." The word "earnest" means "pledge", that is, first installment, deposit, or "down payment". This is a price laid down in advance to secure legal claim to an article. The purchaser was under legal obligation to make further payments until the purchase was complete. Thus, the LORD God is telling us that the presence of the Holy Spirit as a pledge is a symbol of telling us 1. "I claim you-you are my property"-again, 1 Cor. 6:19-20 builds on this theme, and 2. "I obligate myself-I guarantee to complete My work in every believer". The Holy Spirit's presence guarantees our inheritance per Eph. 1:14. Our inheritance encompasses all that the Lord Jesus Christ(including His righteousness) is and all that the Lord Jesus Christ has- "And if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ...."(Romans 8:17). This is fully guaranteed by God the Father, and the "warranty" is the Holy Spirit Himself. Per Ephesians 1:13, the sealing of the Holy Spirit takes place as a result of a person believing the gospel of salvation. Notice in this verse is that upon believing the gospel we are "sealed" into our salvation. This sealing takes place by the Holy Spirit, which is the third member of the Godhead. God promises us that upon our belief in the gospel, He will seal us into the Body of Christ. The Holy Spirit takes us and "places", or IDENTIFIES us into one body- the Body of Christ. This is called the baptism BY the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13 states "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." Please notice here that we are not baptized into the Holy Spirit(as at Pentecost where the Lord Jesus Christ is the baptizer), but rather the Holy Spirit is baptizing us into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13, 27). Ephesians 4:4 says, "There is one body" which is the Body of Christ, and which we are placed into, IDENTIFIED into, by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 4:5 states that there is "one baptism", and the baptism BY the Holy Spirit is this one baptism, which is our seal of salvation. Also notice that this is not a water baptism-it is a spiritual baptism(IDENTIFICATION) since it is performed by the Holy Spirit. The word "baptized" is often assumed to always be associated with water. However, we can conclude that this is not a water baptism- it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that seals our salvation. If we are to believe that the baptism referred to in I Corinthians 12:13 is with water, then we must also believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation. However, we know that NO physical works are required for salvation by reading Ephesians 2:8, and 9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Thus, it is the baptism by the Holy Spirit that seals our salvation. We know this because it is through our baptism into the Body of Christ that we receive IDENTIFICATION with Christ

Researchers know how to stimulate pleasure centres in the brain and they are busy determining how the mechanics of it works. My comment: Therefore, you admit you cannot measure the feeling of pleasure scientifically. And yet you "argue"

QUOTE You say, you argue, " we can measure all these things and can see their direct effect on the world." Show us how you measure love, hate, pain, pleasure......Can these be "measured or quantified"? Can love, hate, pain, pleasure...be heard, seen, touched, seen, or smelled? Only 1 out of 5 ? Show us how the effects of love, hate, pain, pleasure...can be proved, exist, based on one of the 5 senses used to classify, study, probe, and analyze empirically. John W Blood pressure, heart rate, serotonin levels, and so on. There are many ways to measure human response and I am sure more will be forthcoming in the future. Even for things that we may have difficulty quantifying there isn't a person anywhere who would argue there is no such thing as love. This argument does not work. We see human emotion around us all the time but we don't see God. Nor do we see the Easter Bunny, but I can check the literature and determin when the first reference to the bunny was made. I can do the same thing with God. I could write a history of God and show how the concept evolved, but I can't actually detect God, anymore than I could detect Thor. Human emotion of all stripes is there for the viewing, but not God.-Cycel My comment: Not true. You cannot scientifically prove, directly correlate, that high blood pressure means someone is in pain, for eg., that someone with a high heart rate is in pain.....; furthermore, you need someone to tell you that-In order to do a correlation, you must have two different things that coincide with each other.You must have a conscious first person report about his feelings before you can correlate those feelings with any particular activity. " Even for things that we may have difficulty quantifying there isn't a person anywhere who would argue there is no such thing as love."-Cycel My comment: This ends your "argument." 1. You admit that evidence does not have to include "quantifying"-science. 2. I have read of philosophers who say love does not exist. Are you saying that if "most" agree that (fill in the blank with anything) does exist, that is "proof"? Yes you are. 3. Therefore, most of the world thinks God exists. He therefore exists. "We see human emotion around us all the time but we don't see God."/"Human emotion of all stripes is there for the viewing, but not God."-Cycel My comment: No, you see the effects of emotion. You do not see any evidence of emotion using the 5 senses=empiracle data=science. In Christ, John M. Whalen

I would argue that ancient Israelites, perhaps the priests, wrote Genesis, and based their efforts on oral traditions. The most important reason you don't find any detail is that they had none to offer. The traditions are from the bronze age, and it shows. My comment: So, you agree that "physical sight" is not the only evidence required? Yes or no-no spin. Blood pressure, heart rate, serotonin levels, and so on. There are many ways to measure human response and I am sure more will be forthcoming in the future. Even for things that we may have difficulty quantifying there isn't a person anywhere who would argue there is no such thing as love. This argument does not work. We see human emotion around us all the time but we don't see God. Nor do we see the Easter Bunny, but I can check the literature and determin when the first reference to the bunny was made. I can do the same thing with God. I could write a history of God and show how the concept evolved, but I can't actually detect God, anymore than I could detect Thor. Human emotion of all stripes is there for the viewing, but not God. My comment: You did not answer the question. One more time:Show us how you measure love, hate, pain, pleasure......Can these be "measured or quantified"? Can love, hate, pain, pleasure...be heard, seen, touched, seen, or smelled? Only 1 out of 5 ? Show us how the effects of love, hate, pain, pleasure...can be proved, exist, based on one of the 5 senses used to classify, study, probe, and analyze empirically No, and you can't give me a jar with God in it. Neither are real. My comment: "Neither are real." No need to go further. This "poster" reflects Eccl. 10:13. But, just to demonstrate Judges 21:25, and the inevitable result of brain lock up/meltdown.... Darkness is not real. By that "argument", neither are you. You see this is something of a problem. Once it was assumed hail fell after God tossed it down from a warehouse in the sky. We now know there is no warehouse, and we know the God is not required for us to understand hail. You cannot point to a natural process that you can prove requires God to make if work. My comment: Again, Eccl. 10:13, This poster does not even know his own "argument"(loosely used here). These are his words, part of his premise("supporting walls"), not mine. I suggest you revise your argument, or I will quote your own words to confirm your hypocrisy. " we can measure all these things and can see their direct effect on the world." -Cycel So, are you going to jettison this premise, or not? If no, then I can use it for my argument. If not, you are a hypocrite. Which is it? Christians, Muslims, Jews....can say the same- We see the direct effect of God on the world. "Prove the soul exists. You can't do that. Are you saying the soul is the source of pleasure in the body? Then chimps have souls. They feel pain and pleasure. All mammals experience pain and pleasure, therefore all mammals have souls. Without the brain there is no experience. There is no evidence for the soul." My comment: No, reread my post. Prove pleasure, pain, taste..... exists, then, using empirical evidence. You cannot do it. You must have a conscious first person report about his feelings before you can correlate those feelings with any particular brain activity. Therefore, the two must be different. I One more time, but slower. Prove pleasure exists, then, using empirical evidence. You cannot do it. "Without the brain there is no experience. There is no evidence for the soul." Prove happy thoughts exist, w/o a person reporting it. We will wait. Not true. During some types of brain surgery parts of the brain are deliberately stimulated. People report long forgoten memories, smells, pleasure, and so on. Certain brain centres are responsible for our ability to recognize faces, for example. Damage those brain centres and faces become unrecognizable. The brain is the key. If these experiences were locked within a soul then damaging the brain through illness or trauma would hardly matter. The soul is a religious concept, not a scientific one. My comment: Yes true. Slower:Prove that neurological response produces pain or pleasure, without somebody telling you from their conscious experience. Prove, produce a physical test can meausuring "pain" , "pleasure".......We will wait... "People report": You just agreed with my argument. You cannot prove pain, pleasure.....without " somebody telling you from their conscious experience." And you just contradicted yourself. You said "Not true" when I argued: "But you don't know if that neurological response produces pain or pleasure until somebody tells you from their conscious experience, an experience that no imaginable physical test can ever get at", but say "People report long forgoten memories, smells, pleasure, and so on." Cycel Tilt. Prove "happy thoughts" from "brain activity" exist based on one of the 5 senses used to classify, study, probe, and analyze empirically. You cannot do it. Therfore, by your own "argument", they do not exist. On measuring minute changes in chemical brain receptors a lead scientist reports: "Because nobody ever had a way of making these kinds of measurements, we think this is really a big jump ahead," he said. "Often it is new technology that in fact drives new findings in science and medicine." This was from 1999. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990304052313.htm] The very things that you said can't be measured are in fact being meausred for the first time. My comment:Prove pain, pleasure, happy thoughts, love exist without someone reporting them. Prove they can be measured w/o "people reporting" them. You assert "The very things that you said can't be measured are in fact being meausred for the first time", but you offer no proof that this can be done w/o a person reporting it. We will wait. We will wait. In Christ, John M. Whalen

____ #3 and #4: (bold my emphasis) Consider the traditional story of the so-called "...wise men from the east..."(Matthew 2:1). The traditional "spin" given this story is that 3 wise men arrived on camels and visited the Lord Jesus Christ while he was a baby in a manger with the shepherds looking on. The only part of this statement that is true is that wise men did come from the east(Mt. 2:1)- they came to worship him and present him gifts befitting the King(Mt. 2:11). However, the following facts from the Bible are clear, and these facts need no "MBA from heaven" to understand: -The Bible does not tell us how many wise men came from the east, nor are they named(the names Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar are from legend/tradition). The "3 Wise men" most probably derives from the 3 gifts given to the Lord Jesus Christ of "...gold, frankincense, and myrrh"(Mt. 2:11). -Nothing in the Bible says that the wise men rode camels on their journey(they most probably rode horses) - The Bible does not say that the wise men found the "baby Jesus" in a manger with shepherds looking on. In fact, the wise men did not visit the Lord Jesus Christ until most probably, approximately 1-2 years after he was born, and they visited him in a "house", not in the manger(obviously the shepherds were not there)! The reasons: 1. When the arrived they did not find "...the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger"(Luke 2:12). Notice carefully the biblical account given in Mt. 2:8-11: " And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh." -notice the Lord Jesus Christ at the time of the wise mens' visit was a "young child"(said 3 times in scripture to emphasize this truth) , not "the babe" of Luke 2:12 whom the shepherds visited -notice that the wise men visited the Lord Jesus Christ to worship him and present gifts, they did so in "...the house...."(Mt. 2:11), not in the manger Thus, the scriptural account is that "... the star...."(Mt. 2:9) came over the place where the young child was, not over the place where the baby was. And when the wise men came into the house they saw the young Lord Jesus Christ, the "young child", with Mary his mother(no mention of Joseph)-they did not come into a stable/manger, nor did they see a baby. It is interesting to note Luke 2::22-24: " And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." It was a requirement of the Mosaic law that a certain # of days had to pass before a new mother could make the required sacrificial offerings to complete the rite of her purification per Leviticus 12:2-8(so much for the "doctrine" that Mary was sinless-apparently no one told Mary!-"...when the days of her PURIFICATION were over..."/"If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be UNCLEAN seven days...."Lev. 12:2)-these laws state that 40 days of purification were required for a male child, and 8 days for a female. The law required that 2 offerings were to be brought to the priest at the temple door. A yearling lamb was to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering unto the LORD, and either a young pigeon or a turtle dove as a sin-offering. If the family was poor and could not afford the yearling lamb, they could substitute 2 turtle doves or 2 young pigeons, one for the burnt-offering and the other for the sin-offering(Lev. 12:8). These requirements show that it was 40 days after the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ that Mary and Joseph came to the temple to present him unto the LORD, and they obviously were poor, because they offered sacrifices for Mary's purification in accordance with the provisions in the law for the poor(just to show that I am an "equal opportunity offender", so much for that "name and claim it"/" prosperity gospel" heresy). I make note of this for the following reason: this indicates that the wise men had not arrived at the time of purification. Had they already arrived, the family would not have had to offer only "...A pair of turtledoves,or two young pigeons"(Luke 2:24)-they would have had the gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh given to them by the wise men! Also note that Herod murdered all male children "...from two years old and under...."(Mt. 2:16). Both Herod and the wise men calculated the Lord Jesus Christ's birth from "...what time the star appeared...."(Mt. 2:7), i.e., the day Christ was born the star began shining. This explains Mt. 2:16 and the timeline-the wise men were following the star for perhaps 1-2years when they arrived in Jerusalem(not Bethlehem-Mt. 2:1). Thus, when they arrived, the Lord Jesus Christ was a "young child", not a "babe". Herod, to be safe, had all male children under 2 killed-he also believed this "...King of the Jews...."(Mt. 2:2) was "...the young child...."(Mt. 2:8), perhaps as old as 2 years! "...speaking the truth in love...."(Ephesians 4:15) In Christ, John M. Whalen

"Did you ever notice the LORD God spends relatively little time explaining "from whence/whom we came", including the fact that he exists as the Creator, in His word? That is, He devotes a few chapters to this question in Genesis, and very little going forward. Why is that?"- John W Why is that? I don't know. You tell me. -Cycel "My comment:For the same reason most reasonable(Is. 1:18) people spend very little time trying to explain whether or not electricity, wind, China, love, hate, love, pain, pleasure exist. and from whence they came. Ever "seen" the preceding?"-John W "I find it insulting that you consider the search for knowledge and understanding to be unreasonable. It is this attitude that ignorance is a virtue that has stood in the way of the advancement of humanity for thousands of years. Next time you go to the doctor and receive antibiotics, be thankful that Antonie van Leeuwenhoek was not one of your "reasonable people". As for the rest of your comment, we can measure all these things and can see their direct effect on the world. God on the other hand cannot be measured or quantified nor can the effects attributed to Him be verified. Additionally, we have evidence that "miracles" often attributed to God are in fact natural phenomena or hoaxes perpetrated by His followers."-Cycel One premise at a time: So. you agree, then, that evidence does not include only that which can be physically seen by the eye-one of the 5 senses used to classify, study, probe, and analyze empirically-correct? You cannot hear, taste, touch, smell light, for example. So, you agree, then, that evidence does not include only that which can be heard, tasted, or touched, or smelled?You cannot see electricity, wind, for example, you cannot smell it, you cannot taste it, nor hear it. You can observe the effect of it, and you can feel it. Correct? You say, you argue, " we can measure all these things and can see their direct effect on the world." Show us how you measure love, hate, pain, pleasure......Can these be "measured or quantified"? Can love, hate, pain, pleasure...be heard, seen, touched, seen, or smelled? Only 1 out of 5 ? Show us how the effects of love, hate, pain, pleasure...can be proved, exist, based on one of the 5 senses used to classify, study, probe, and analyze empirically. "we can measure all these things and can see their direct effect on the world...". Can you measure "darkness"?Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing, and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you give me a jar of darker darkness? "direct effect on the world " is not evidence according to the rules of empirical, stable, protocol, termed "science". The "scientific method" is the rational analysis of empirical data. In everyday English, science is how we find out what is true about the world, by observing things and doing experiments, and drawing rational (logical) conclusions from the evidence we gather. I can argue, then, by your own premise, that God exists, because I can "see His direct effect on the world." "God on the other hand cannot be measured or quantified nor can the effects attributed to Him be verified."-Cycel consider: Pleasure, for example, is not at all physical. You say, "What? Are you crazy? I eat food, it gives me pleasure." I understand that. "I have sex, it gives me pleasure." I understand that. You do things that are physical, that have an impact on your physical body, but the sensation of pleasure is not in your body. You know why? You know how I know this? Because you cannot measure pleasure by physical standards. How can you possibly measure such a thing? You might measure it in neurological activity. You know, C-fibers firing. I eat something, it tastes good, and we can track how the neurological activity takes place in my body when I am eating something that is pleasurable. But now a critical question. How do you know that this particular neurological activity--strawberries touching the tongue, creating a chemical response through the body--how does anyone know that that activity feels good? You can't know that by looking at your machine. Someone's got to tell you how it feels. That's how. You need the report so that you can correlate specific brain activity with the feeling of pleasure or the feeling of pain. Somebody's got to say that that particular sensation feels good or hurts, before you can judge whether any brain state is pleasurable or painful. In other words, the feelings must come first, then the scientific assessment because there is a correlation going on here. This makes the point that the pleasure isn't in the hardware. It's not in the neurological connections of the body. The pleasure is someplace else. It is in the soul. In order to do a correlation, you must have two different things that coincide with each other. In this case, neurological activity, nerve responses to a strawberry on the tip of your tongue, and a conscious feeling, the pleasurable taste of strawberry. They are two different things. You must have a conscious first person report about his feelings before you can correlate those feelings with any particular brain activity. Therefore, the two must be different. The first one is physical and can be measured and observed physically. Touching the strawberry to your tongue and measuring the neurological response. But you don't know if that neurological response produces pain or pleasure until somebody tells you from their conscious experience, an experience that no imaginable physical test can ever get at. It must be reported. The physical activity is in the body. The feeling is in the soul. The brain and the soul are two different things so science can't even measure a feeling of pleasure, only presumably the physical brain states that correlate with the pleasure. We all know this in a kind of rough and ready way. Somebody gives you a vigorous backrub. They have to ask whether it feel good or hurts? In other words, the physical state doesn't tell us by itself. You can put all kind of electrodes all over a person's body while you are giving them a tough, hard backrub and you will still have to ask them how it feels because none of the neurological testing can tell you how it feels. Does that feel good or does that hurt? We need a report from a conscious mind, a mind that can feel the difference. How about this response: It hurts, but it feels good. Have you ever said that? Now, you make sense out of that in a purely physicalist way. It's painful, but I like it. It's a good pain. You see, even if the pain could be reduced to a mere physiological, neurological response, even if the meters could show that pain was really being felt, there is still an additional element of passing judgment on it, making an assessment, and those things clearly are not physical. Truth, love, sex-these cannot be weighed, they do not have a shape, they do not have a physical texture, I cannot hear them..None of these can be classified, studied, probed, or analyzed empirically by the five senses using science. None of these are physical. If they are not physical, the senses cannot apprehend them. And if the senses cannot apprehend them, then science can't say anything about them. In other words, science can't say anything about any of these things. You cannot measure any of these by physical standards. Many "believe"(belief and the truth are independent), that science is the only thing that gives reliable information about the world, i.e., "I will stay with science, because that tells me true things about the world"= scientism. Why? In their understanding, only physical things exist, and science is best adapted to probe the physical world. This is false-it makes an assumption. A moment's reflection shows us that the most important things in the world are not physical at all(Truth, love,sex(actually sexual pleasure)) . And if they are not physical, and science measures only physical things, then science can't tell us anything about truth, love,sexual pleasure. Therefore, there is no scientific evidence that truth, love, sexual pleasure..... exist. How can I know (prove) PHYSICALLY whether someone is " in love"......? Again, indeed, for science to work at all, we need a soul on the inside to tell us what the outside feels like, looks like, smells like, tastes like and sounds like-the 5 senses of touch, sight, smell, taste, hear. Though science might probe the sense of smell and the sense of sight,for example, science cannot tell us anything, not one single thing about the sensation of smell and the sensation of sight. Somebody's got to report that. Someone on the inside has to be a witness; science is on the outside. The sensation has to be a first person report, and this is why science, necessarily a third person activity, cannot report on it. So, rather than science being the beginning and end of all knowledge, science is dependent on the soul to give it its information. To prove the point, you can't know from any physical test whether a person is in pain or in pleasure. There is no scientific test that can tell you that. Even if there was, even pain can be pleasurable to some people. Thus, you still need the report. If you say, "Of course we can know physically whether a person is in pain or pleasure". I ask, "How's that"? I know which nerves are the pain nerves, and that's how I know when somebody is in pain. What do you mean? How do you know which are the pain nerves? Well, because, and then you are going to have to say, "When I pluck this kind of nerve, people tell me it hurts." And that will be the end of your argument. Why? Because you can't know which are the pain nerves. That is, you cannot know which nerves correlate with the feeling of pain, unless somebody reports to you the feeling. Therefore, the feeling is not the same as the nerves. The nerves just lead and produce the feeling in the soul. The soul uses the nerves to explore its world and feel either pain or pleasure, or any of a number of other things. The inevitable conclusion-science doesn't tell us anything important. All of the important things are intangibles, things that don't lend themselves to scientific discovery or to scientific analysis. Now one thing that science can do, and this it often does, it says that those things we thought were most important, in the end, turn out to be very insignificant or meaningless in the long run. Why would science say that? Precisely because science cannot address that. The attitude is, since science can't speak to it, then it must not be significant. Is this arrogance, or what?! Hence, the post you wrote, and my response: "I had to remind myself that the heart is only a muscle"-Cycel Prove love exists, using observable, tangible, scientific data. Prove you have suffered pain or pleasure from a physical test, i.e., observable, tangible, scientific data. Tell all of us how you measure love, pain, or pleasure by physical standards. -John W " The seat of all thought is the brain. Investigate the condition of any dementia patient and you will recognize that."-Cycel "Prove "thought" exists using observable, tangible, scientific data."-John W Do, you observe "the condition of any dementia patient"? Have you observed this patient's "thoughts" to make this "infallible" assessment/judgment? -John W "I did look. I did not find. My heart (brain) tells me there is no evidence in the Bible for the existence of God. Those who think they discern evidence do so only because they already believe. Hence, a Moslem who reads the Koran will find evidence of Allah and proof that Mohamed is his prophet. Neither you nor I will find anything compelling there. We are not believers in the holy Koran and the errors that persuade the peoples of the Islamic word will seem for us, glaring. You and I both would probably agree that the Muslims are blinded by their faith. Do you think that Islamists might argue that if you were to read the Koran you would know its truth in your heart?" "-Cycel "My comment: "evidence" 1. Prove that you are the author of this post, using observable, tangible, scientific data. 2. You have the wrong conception of faith. And everyone exercises, w/o exception, faith, including yourself, Cycel, and, as stated previously, has an ultimate, final authority that is accepted by faith as infallible. Present an argument, not a cliche. 3."My heart (brain) tells me there is no evidence in the Bible for the existence of God"-Cycel Prove that your brain produced "thoughts", exists using observable, tangible, scientific data. " John W "From whence does love come, the brain, or the heart, or....? Prove love exists, using observable, tangible, scientific data. Prove you have suffered pain or pleasure from a physical test, i.e., observable, tangible, scientific data. Tell all of us how you measure love, pain, or pleasure by physical standards"-John W "Emotions can be "observed" via MRI in the brain. Emotions also have a chemical basis which can also be measured. Click for a list of some of these chemicals and how they relate to emotion." -Cycel See preceding for my response....-".... science is dependent on the soul to give it its information. To prove the point, you can't know from any physical test whether a person is in pain or in pleasure...", or "in love", or...... "When you can find a "God particle" or measure some "prayer waves" and then use this data to predict an outcome, then we will be on equal footing. Until then, your claims about God carry no more authority than the claims made by Muslims, Hindus, Astrologers, Pagans, Homoepaths, Buddists, Accupuncturists or Native American Shamans. Nobody changes their mind about something without evidence to support the change. I was born without a belief in God and until there is evidence to change that position I'm incapable of changing my position. I do not claim that there is no God, I just haven't been given a reason to believe that there is."-Cytel "when you can find a 'God particle; or measure some 'prayer waves'"-Cytel Find a "Love/hate/pain/ pleasure...... particle" for us, and find "Love/hate/pain/ pleasure......waves" for us. "can the effects attributed to Him be verified."-Cytel And, while you are at it, prove that it was you that typed these posts. Provide evidence from one of the 5 senses used to classify, study, probe, and analyze empirically. And it will not do to say "look at your computer monitor" as evidence, based on your own argument. For what I am seeing is not the actual "post" you typed when you typed it(if it was you) What I am really "seeing" is an "impression" of your post(if it was you) carried by light waves into my eyes and then along nerve connections to my brain. How do we know it was you, how do we know that the effect of the post we view can be attributed to you, can be "verified"? None of us where there. In Christ, John M. Whalen

___ (underline/bold my emphasis) "Did you ever notice the LORD God spends relatively little time explaining "from whence/whom we came", including the fact that he exists as the Creator, in His word? That is, He devotes a few chapters to this question in Genesis, and very little going forward. Why is that?" John W Why is that? I don't know. You tell me. -Cycel My comment:For the same reason most reasonable(Is. 1:18) people spend very little time trying to explain whether or not electricity, wind, China, love, hate, love, pain, pleasure exist. and from whence they came. Ever "seen" the preceding? "The Bible throughout presumes the existence of God, but presumption is not proof......It would not occur them to offer proofs for God....'-Cycel My comment: 1. The LORD God has shown all of us the evidence. The LORD God has revealed Himself in creation: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." Psalms 19:1 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse...." Romans 1:20 The incredible beauty of the universe, the incredible beauty of a little baby, the incredible complexity of a living cell or a leaf-all are evidence of an intelligent design, and thus a Designer. The incredible order of the universe is evidence that human beings and the universe were not "accidents"-evidence and reason point to God. This is not only reasonable and legitimate, but an essential first step in knowing God, as it is written: "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS(emphasis mine), and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6 Obviously, as creator and sustainer of all, God must have capabilities and attributes that are far beyond our finite capacity to comprehend. Our reason can only "go so far" following the evidence-this is where faith takes the next step, a step which is beyond the ability of reason to accompany it, but which is in the direction that reason, logic, and the evidence have pointed. 2. "Prove", "offer proofs", that you are the author of this post, using observable, tangible, scientific data. 3.Every philosophy, every theology, every thinking methodology, including yours, Cycel, has within it an ultimate, final authority that is accepted by faith as infallible. This "by faith" acceptance does not mean against or contrary to proof/evidence, but without proof/evidence. In the "world of logic", this is termed a philosophical presupposition. And, in any "debate", both sides, including yours, Cycel, have certain philosophical presuppositions, or "premises", that they hold as true or "valid" without proof. If they deny this, they are intellectually dishonest at best, lying hypocrites at worst. For example, keep in mind that a large proportion of all modern criticism of the Bible comes from one philosophical presupposition: miracles do not occur. "John, knowing within our hearts is a metaphor for the mind. The heart is a muscle, it knows nothing. The seat of all thought is the brain. Investigate the condition of any dementia patient and you will recognize that. The ancients, and many moderns as well, perhaps, thought the heart was the resting place of the soul. I am old enough to remember the flap caused when Dr. Bernard carried out the first human heart transplants. Some portions of the public were very concerned by this. It even gave me pause. I had to remind myself that the heart is only a muscle. The fact remains none of our emotions rest with the heart. All our emotions, and all our thoughts, are contained in the brain. Arguing a heart/mind dichotomy as you have done is meaningless."-Cycel My comment: 1. What is your infallible source authority for the preceding "argument"?? 2.Do not confuse your lack of understanding the word of God(I Cornithians 2:14), with error on the part of what the LORD God wrote. The Holy Bible distinguishes between the heart and the mind. 3. "I had to remind myself that the heart is only a muscle"-Cycel From whence does love come, the brain, or the heart, or....? Prove love exists, using observable, tangible, scientific data. Prove you have suffered pain or pleasure from a physical test, i.e., observable, tangible, scientific data. Tell all of us how you measure love, pain, or pleasure by physical standards. 4. " The seat of all thought is the brain. Investigate the condition of any dementia patient and you will recognize that. "Cycel Prove "thought" exists using observable, tangible, scientific data. Do, you observe "the condition of any dementia patient"? Have you observed this patient's "thoughts" to make this "infallible" assessment/judgment? "I did look. I did not find. My heart (brain) tells me there is no evidence in the Bible for the existence of God. Those who think they discern evidence do so only because they already believe. Hence, a Moslem who reads the Koran will find evidence of Allah and proof that Mohamed is his prophet. Neither you nor I will find anything compelling there. We are not believers in the holy Koran and the errors that persuade the peoples of the Islamic word will seem for us, glaring. You and I both would probably agree that the Muslims are blinded by their faith. Do you think that Islamists might argue that if you were to read the Koran you would know its truth in your heart? "-Cycel My comment: "evidence" 1. Prove that you are the author of this post, using observable, tangible, scientific data. 2. You have the wrong conception of faith. And everyone exercises, w/o exception, faith, including yourself, Cycel, and, as stated previously, has an ultimate, final authority that is accepted by faith as infallible. Present an argument, not a cliche. 3."My heart (brain) tells me there is no evidence in the Bible for the existence of God"-Cycel Prove that your brain produced "thoughts", exists using observable, tangible, scientific data. The LORD God clearly states why he revealed himself in nature. That being so, then no man would have the excuse of "I didn't know God existed." If God has not touched the heart of an individual, including you, Cycel, then all the science, logic, or intellectual banter is not going to make the slightest bit of difference, including this exchange. I cannot save(to be delivered from a danger)anyone, including you-only the LORD God can. In Christ, John M. Whalen

Take note how many times you here the following in the secular media: "Unfortunately, ....................................................." From Webster

(bold my emphasis) "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." Romans 15:4 _________________________________ Had you notice that mankind trends toward, speaks of, embraces, in this order:"walking", and then "running", and then "mounting up"? But the LORD God "reverses" this order in Is. 40:31: "But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint." Isaiah 40:31 Notice the LORD God's order?: mount......run......walk And this is in agreement, "harmonizes" with each and everyone of us in our Christian experience, does it not? "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." 2 Cor. 11:5 "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;.." Eph. 3:8 "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." 1 Tim. 1:15 The apostle Paul was: -at first among "the very chiefest apostles" -later on, he was "less than the least of all saints", and, finally, -at the end, he was "the chief...of sinners" Is this not an object lesson the LORD God would have us to learn? That is, the Christian is safest when walking, "not so much" safe when running, and in great peril when mounting!? Slow down , John. You will be stronger in the LORD if you "slow down", relax, and trust in Him. In Christ, John M. Whalen

I don't think he's saying that it's not worth fighting for, JM, I think he's saying that you two are disagreeing and that further discussion about it is not going to change that and is not beneficial. You may disagree about that too, but I think that it would be wise to respect that your brother does not wish to argue further in this instance. Don't worry, I'm sure you will have plenty of opportunities to argue these things with other people. __________ "... is not going to change that and is not beneficial." How do you know that? Regardless, my biblical charge is to be faithful in proclaiming the message, not successful. Success is the Holy Spirit of God's responsibility. Perhaps there is an "Agrippa" out there, who needs further persuasion, convincing, through argumentation, and a defense of the gospel of Christ: "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Acts 26:28 "Don't worry, I'm sure you will have plenty of opportunities to argue these things with other people." I have posted enough evidence , for now, to convince and satisfy anyone willing to bow to Holy Scripture, and it is for these, not necessarily Carlos, that I write; for my aim has been more to help the perplexed, and guard those already instructed, the "babes in Christ"(1 Cor. 3:1), than to convince the gainsayers. In Christ, John M. Whalen After reading through your posts, I can do not much else but praise the Lord for His works through you. You do not and have not sacrificed your integrity- the integrity of the Word and the integrity of the Lord- for the sake of man or for the sake of 'earning votes'. You stand by your strong conviction to give the entire cousel of God, as it is written. You don't come as an ambassador of pride and 'knitpicking', but as a faithful servant and warrior to the Lord. Thank you John. ___________- pokemaughan, Thank you for your "...gracious words...(Luke 4:22, Col. 4:6). "It is not in me."(Gen. 41:16). FYE, and FYC(For Your Consideration) re. sanctification: Consider that it is physically impossible to crucify yourself. The LORD God would have us to learn an object lesson(Roman 15:4): Not only is our salvation of the LORD, but also our sanctification is of the LORD, as it is written: "Who shall also confirm you unto the end(my emphasis), that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 1:8 In Christ, John M. Whalen

I don't think he's saying that it's not worth fighting for, JM, I think he's saying that you two are disagreeing and that further discussion about it is not going to change that and is not beneficial. You may disagree about that too, but I think that it would be wise to respect that your brother does not wish to argue further in this instance. Don't worry, I'm sure you will have plenty of opportunities to argue these things with other people. __________ "... is not going to change that and is not beneficial." How do you know that? Regardless, my biblical charge is to be faithful in proclaiming the message, not successful. Success is the Holy Spirit of God's responsibility. Perhaps there is an "Agrippa" out there, who needs further persuasion, convincing, through argumentation, and a defense of the gospel of Christ: "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Acts 26:28 "Don't worry, I'm sure you will have plenty of opportunities to argue these things with other people." I have posted enough evidence , for now, to convince and satisfy anyone willing to bow to Holy Scripture, and it is for these, not necessarily Carlos, that I write; for my aim has been more to help the perplexed, and guard those already instructed, the "babes in Christ"(1 Cor. 3:1), than to convince the gainsayers. In Christ, John M. Whalen

"...the tone of our responses to each other are not going in a direction where the Lord's truth will win out but rather in a direction where we may end up getting into an argument or otherwise. I do not wish to engage in a theological debate. Discussion...yes. But not a debate which it seems that we are headed to if we have not already arrived there."-Carlos Carlos, I will argue(argument:reasons for a conclusion) for the defense of the gospel of Christ, without compromise. Arguing, or "apologetics", or "defense" is a biblical command-this is how we perusuade others of the truth of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith,-no works or "fixin' up" , ahead of time. If the purity of the gospel of Christ is not worth "arguing" and fighting for, what is? ________________________________________________________________________________ ____ No Compromise By John M. Whalen (bold my emphasis) I may at times seem quite "abrasive", but understand that believers have been charged with an enormous responsibility-to be ambassadors for Christ(2 Cor. 5:20), to "...do the work of an evangelist...."(2 Tim.4:5), to "...preach the word...."(2 Tim. 4:2), for we "...serve the Lord Christ...."(Colossians 3:24), to a predominantly Christ-rejecting world. To use a "western idiom", "This is serious business, folks". People's eternal destinies are at stake. You don't throw a drowning man a set of swimming instructions to save him(save: to be delivered from a danger). With this responsibility comes our obligation to communicate "...the truth of the gospel...."(Galatians 2:5, 14; Eph. 1:13), the "....glorious gospel of Christ...."(2 Cor. 4:4) as it is presented in the Holy Bible-unity among those who call themselves Christians cannot be at the expense of the truth. I will not compromise on the gospel of Christ. Any presentation of a gospel that has as it's core some type of works-based performance system, which Paul refers to as "another gospel'', a "pervert(ed)...gospel of Christ...(Galatians 1:6,7) is "accursed"(Galatians 1:9), and I will not be silent. We are all soldiers in God's army. We are not to get out, sell out, be talked out, or pushed out. We are either to retire in this service at the Rapture, or die in it. We are to be volunteer soldiers, not babies or wimps. We are to be reliable, capable, dependable, and faithful. We are to "...stand fast in the faith, quit you like men...."(1 Corinthians 16:13). I will oppose any such presentation of another gospel, "...Speaking the truth in love...."(Eph. 4:15), but sternly reproving, rebuking, and correcting(2 Tim. 3:16, 4:2). These presentations "....are enemies of the cross of Christ...."(Philippians 3:18). We are to show tolerance for people, but not for ideas that contradict scripture. "All mushrooms are not good". And I expect most will react just like Cain did-tell people that they can do nothing to affect their salvation but believe (a non-meritorious act per Romans 4:5), and they will "...rise up and kill you"(Gen 4:8). Cain, representing religion("fruit of the ground an offering"-Gen. 4:3-"works"), hates Christ and his redemptive work through the shedding of blood, which is "pre-figured"by Abel's presenting to the LORD a blood sacrifice(Gen. 4:4). Religion says "Do", Christianity says "Done". Religion says "Behave", Christianity says "Believe". Religion says "Try", Christianity says "Trust". A Christian is not called to be popular. Scripture repeatedly testifies that those who align themselves with this great Saviour of ours, the Lord Jesus Christ, will be hated by the world. The world wants approval, not truth. Why should this be so surprising? The Lord himself was hated 2000 years ago, and is hated today. We should expect no different. And this hate has at its core the message of the cross, the "offence" of the cross, which excludes anything man can do or be as a basis of acceptance by a Holy God(Did you know that the #1 attribute of the LORD God is his Holiness, and not his love?), i.e., the human race's continual effort to present his works as a basis for acceptance, instead of the God decreed basis of our acceptance, which is faith in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice at Calvary, and his resurrection 3 days later(1 Cor. 15:1-4) . Scripture refers to this as "...the way of Cain..."(Jude 11)-we refer to this as "religion". Religion is man substituting himself for God-Salvation is God substituting himself for man. My brother is a doctor, so perhaps a medical analogy will clarify my argument that we need to be clear on the remedy for man's separation from a Holy God. If one of our loved ones were physically ill, we would not want to be deceived. We would not want to make life and death decisions based on superstition or mysticism. We would want precise answers to specific questions. We would not want general notions, opinions(one of the reasons the Lord Jesus Christ sharply rebuked the Pharisees-relying on their traditions/opinions instead of the word of God), or empty words. We would actively engage all our faculties to judge the truth. We should desire to know the right standard by which to judge these crucial matters because physical life is at stake. How much more should we value the truth and the right standards when questions concerning eternal life is at stake? Someone may claim to be physically fit and well, while they may have cancer inside beginning to eat away at their physical life. When you visit a doctor, you want the truth, the right prescription, even if does not "make you feel go Popularity ("strength in numbers") and sincerity do not determine truth-God's word does. I do not care if I am the only person presenting this message-so be it. Each of us are called to please God, to be faithful to God(notice I said faithful, not successful-success is the LORD's responsibility), not men(Proverbs 29:25,Acts 5:29,Galatians 1:10,Eph. 6:6, Colossians 3:22, 2 Cor. 4:2, 1 Thel. 2:4, John 5:44,John 12:43). Scripturally, strength in numbers is not only ill-founded, it is not true. Scripture provides abundant testimony to this fact. Consider "the minority": Noah-only 7 people saved by the LORD through Noah(and yet Noah is called "...a preacher of righteousness...." in 2 Peter 2:5-this should be an encouragement to those who feel they are the only one preaching the gospel of the grace of God) Joseph-all his brothers opposed him David- took on a giant Elijah- outnumbered 450 to one(1 Kings 18:22) Gideon-Had only 300 men(31,700 eliminated -Judges 6-7) Paul- "...all men forsook me...."(2 Tim. 4:16). The Lord Jesus Christ-No commentary is needed here. And now, I am ready for "the Cains". However, as it is written: " Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Galatians 4:16 As one wise person once said, the only time the truth hurts is when you do not tell it. ___________________________________________________________ My main assumption in writing about "the things of the Lord."(Acts 18:25) is this:The LORD God can use me more effectively to reach more people with a clear, simple message of the gospel of the grace of God than a murky, cloudy presentation. An "MBA from heaven" is not a guarantee of clarity( nor of truth). In Colossians 4:4, Paul prays to God that his communication would be "manifest", which means clearly. The underlying word "manifest" carries with it the idea of "to make visible, to light up". Thus, Paul placed high priority on a clear, concise message, and understood that he was not only charged with unaltering the message, he was not to present a "garbled" gospel. He was charged with the responsibility of "shedding light" on the gospel of Christ, not to obscure it. And how important was both the truth and clarity of presentation of this message to Paul? Paul understood the "gravity" of his responsibility, for only in this gospel is "the power of God unto salvation."(Romans 1:16), and "accursed"(Gal. 1:8,9-twice to emphasize the seriousness of the issue) anyone, including "an angel from heaven."(1:8), who misstated or misrepresented the message. Solemn words, indeed!. This message focuses on this "good news" as revealed to the apostle Paul by revelation from heaven from the risen, ascended, and glorified Lord Jesus Christ. The elements that make for a clear "witness"(a witness who is silent can be held in contempt of court!) to this "good news"(news, by definition, is something that already has happened): 1. A clear motive: A compromise with the integrity will likely result in "shortcuts", "catchy phrases", or gimmicks. No one should "tricked" into hearing, listening, or responding to the gospel of Christ. When one is concerned about "impressing others"/popularity, personal gain, numbers of "souls saved", instant results, and the like, the danger is that "the truth of the gospel."(Gal. 2:5,14;Col. 1:5; Eph. 1:13), the scriptural purity of 1 Cor. 15:1-4, is sacrificed to achieve these concerns. Paul's approach is given in 2 Cor. 4:1-6: " Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." He renounces "the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully"-no devices, no tricks(whether that be an "altar call", "raise your hand", etc.) to achieve an end. He would not distort, "water-down",or falsify God's word, and would not manipulate or pressure people into a profession. He understood that improper motives may fog the message/methods of preaching/proclaiming the gospel He disdains all unworthy techniques. In contrast, he preaches "by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God". The word "manifest" reoccurs-he preached clearly, openly, and honestly even when a "quick" result was tempting given his circumstances. The result was that "every man's conscience", whether saved or unsaved, commended him for his honesty in adhering to scripture, and more importantly, so did the LORD. Our standards must be more than "If it is in the Bible, I'll preach it"! Although all scripture is "...for our learning.", not all scripture is written to us for our obedience. And we must absolutely say only what God says, and the way He would say it. I admit I have "a lot of work" to do in the 2nd area! However, I always try to "reason out of the scriptures" whether these things "were so"(Acts 17:2,11). Someone once said, "a candle is best seen in the dark". In a ministry of light, there is no room for darkness. Paul reminds us that a dark, demonic veil blinds the lost(verses 3- 4), and it is only penetrated by "the light of the glorious gospel of Christ.". Dark motives or methods cannot disperse or penetrate darkness. Hence Paul's statement, "we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord"(verse 5), i.e., his preaching did not call attention to himself, like the "super apostles"(2 Cor. 11:5-"chiefest apostles"), who were subverting his reputation in Corinth. He exalted the Lord Jesus Christ as the one who died for our sins, rose from the dead, and now reigns as Lord(also notice his rebuke of "another gospel"-2 Cor. 11:4). The apostle Paul uses the word "preach"("kerysse") continually. At the time of Paul's writing, a person who proclaimed /published in this sense was referred to as a "keryx", or a "herald". A herald was one sent by his "boss" to proclaim the boss's message publicly. The herald was charged with delivering this message unaltered because it was not his own. He was charged with the responsibility to proclaim it accurately. This was the "earmark" of Paul's gospel ministry. Paul knew the gospel accurately preached was the only antidote to dispel darkness and bring life. That is how Paul got saved, and that is how we are saved. 2. A Clear content: What does a person have to "do" to be saved? "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen." 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Romans 1:16 ___________________________________________________________________ ".preach the gospel" Romans 1:15, 10:15, 15:20; 1 Cor. 1:17,9:14, 9:18; 2 Cor. 10:16 "preach the gospel of Christ." Romans 15:19 "the gospel which I preached to you." 1 Cor. 15:1 '"preach Christ's gospel." 2 Cor. 2:12 "preaching the gospel of Christ." 2 Cor. 10:14 "preach any other gospel." Gal. 1:8,9 "preached the gospel" Gal. 4:13 "the gospel ...which was preached." Col. 1:23 The content of the gospel: Proposition 1: "Christ died for our sins" Scriptural proof is "according to the scriptures" Physical proof is "he was buried" Proposition 2: "he rose again the third day" Scriptural proof is "according to the scriptures" Physical proof is "And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once.. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me, also." "Christ died for our sins": "Christ" means 'the Anointed One' and demands divinity according to the scriptural understanding of this term("Messiah" is the transliteration of the Hebrew equivalent). That the Lord Jesus Christ "died for our sins" conveys that we ar! e sinner s, and thus in need of forgiveness. The word "for"('hyper' in Greek) conveys the idea of "in place of", "on account of", "in behalf of",i.e., to deal with the sin issue . "according to the scriptures": The "Old Testament" signified, pictured, and prophesied the suffering of God's Anointed one, the LORD's servant(for example, Exodus 12, Lev 16, Psalms 22 and 110, Isaiah 53). "he was buried": The best evidence of a "death certificate" are "eye witness" accounts. This dispels any such "swoon" theory, since only dead people are buried. "he arose again the third day": This confirms that the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and is proof/the "receipt" that God the Father accepted the Lord Jesus Christ's sacrifice. A dead man is not in a position to save anyone, for"God is not the God of the dead, but of the living"(Mt. 22:32). A Saviour must be alive, "...For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth."(Job 19:25). "according to the scriptures": Job 19:25,Psalms 16:8-11, Psalms 110:1. And much of the OT describes the Messiah's reign, which necessitates a rising from the dead(Is. 53, for eg.). "he was seen": This includes "credible" witnesses 3. A clear condition: The only condition of salvation is "faith alone in Christ alone", faith being a nonmeritorial activity(Romans 4:5). However, this is where most "gospel preaching" takes a space-walk. Language such as: -"Ask Jesus into your heart", "Give your heart/life to Jesus", "Invite Jesus into your life", "Make Jesus your Lord and Saviour","Give your life to Christ", "Put Jesus on the throne of your life","Confess and Repent of your sins","Bow your head and pray this prayer"........ may have bits of the truth", and not all of the preceding are totally void of the truth, but the point is they are often misleading, confusing, and often times are "...another gospel." which "...pervert the gospel of Christ."(Galatians 1:6-9). These are "fighting words" from the apostle Paul, and should give all of us pause when presenting "... the glorious gospel of Christ."(2 Cor. 4:4). We need to be as biblically sound as possible in our communication of this condition of salvation of "faith alone in Christ alone". In "the gospel according to St. John", the verb "believe" is used 98 times, a clear message from the Holy Spirit, especially in light of the Holy Spirit's testimony as to the reason this book was written was to bring the lost to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31 We do not find any of the above language in the preceding language. Clear communication is an art. In communicating the gospel of Christ, it is not an art worth refining, but it is imperative that we do so. I have had some previous experience on radio and T.V., and I have learned that "news", by definition, is "something that has already happened". I would encourage fellow believers in Christ to please remember this when presenting the gospel of Christ! We may not be successful, but our responsibility is to be faithful in accurately communicating this wondrous message, this truly "good news", not successful-that is the LORD's responsibility. We should be encouraged, and joyful, that the LORD God can still use us to bring glory to Himself in spite of the misplaced approaches and methods we use. However, we also know the tremendous responsibility He has given us, and with this responsibility means we must be clear in our motives, our content, and our statement of the condition of salvation. Given the enormity of the stakes, we want to communicate the gospel as clearly as possible in a manner and way that is pleasing to the LORD God, not just convenient to men, as it is written: "But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts" 1 Thessalonians 2:4. In and with Christ, In the Lord