The Twin Pillars of Christian Life: Pursuing Peace and Holiness

Our apostle having now finished his exhortation unto patient perseverance in the profession of the gospel under all sufferings and afflictions, he now proceeds to a prescription of practical duties incumbent upon Christians at all times in the daily course of their conversation, two of which are contained in this verse, namely to follow peace and holiness; the former contains our duty to man, the latter, our duty to God.

Here observe, that both duties are enjoined in one and the same precept, and also with one and the same penalty: Without which, that is, without following of both which without pursuing and endeavouring after both, no man shall see the Lord.

Indeed, if a person follows holiness, though he cannot obtain peace, he may see God provided he pursues peace, and the fault is none of his that he doth not find it; but if he does not pursue peace, though he pretends never so much to holiness, he cannot be happy, for a Christian must be of a peaceable as well as of a pious, conversation; peace and holiness, peacableness and purity, are here joined together, and he neither can be happy in this or the next world, that puts them asunder.

Observe farther, The manner how peace and holiness must be followed, namely, with intense endeavours: The original word imports a vehement pursuit, a metaphor taken from huntsmen, who follow the chase, and pursue their game though it flies before them; if peace be had, though it be upon hard terms, we must endeavour to secure it, for it can never be bought too dear, if it be not purchased by sin and baseness.

A frame and disposition of seeking peace with all, is eminently suited unto the doctrine and grace of the gospel. A forward spirit, ready for strife and contention, easily provoked, and retaining long a sense of injuries, is directly contrary to the spirit and temper of the gospel.

Observe likewise, How that holiness towards God must be accompanied with peaceableness towards man. It is evangelical holiness which is here required; which must be an inward holiness, an universal holiness, a sincere and real holiness, an humble and self-denying holiness, a growing and progressive holiness, and such a holiness towards God as is always accompanied with righteousness towards men.

Observe lastly, The absolute necessity of holiness in order to eternal blessedness, Without it no man shall see the Lord. The future sight of God in glory depends peremptorily on our present holiness, not as the meritorious cause of it, but as a necessary qualification and preparation for it, and as it is the indispensable condition of our obtaining of it. The soul is by holiness made meet and fit for the enjoyment of God in happiness, Colossians 1:12.

Burkitt, William. "Commentary on Hebrews 12:14". Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wbc/hebrews-12.html. 1700-1703.

Biblical Evidence Against The Apostle Peter Being The First Pope

• Defining The Issues: 

          -The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ made the Apostle Peter its first pope and that He had built His church upon him. It is also asserted that Jesus gave Peter a unique position of authority over His church, which was to get passed on through apostolic succession to present-day popes. This is the underlying basis for the Roman Catholic Church proclaiming itself to be the infallible preserver of divine truth. These claims to authority made by Rome have spewed a great deal of controversy amongst the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches.

• General Absence Of The Papal Office Throughout The New Testament: 

          -The New Testament contains various passages discussing the types of offices and qualifications necessary for obtaining such positions in the church (Ephesians 4:11-15; 1 Corinthians 12:28; 2 Corinthians 12:12; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; 1 Timothy 5:1-19; Titus 1:5-9). Yet, the concept of a pope is absent in these contexts. Paul does not distinguish Peter from the other apostles in the lists where that specific role is mentioned. Scripture describes individual congregations as being ruled by pluralities of elders (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Timothy 5:17). Moreover, the New Testament says nothing regarding the establishment or existence of a one-head bishop hierarchical church structure. There is no mention of a single human leader rightly claiming to have been bestowed a gift of infallible teaching authority.

• General Absence Of Papal Titles Throughout The New Testament:

          -Peter was never addressed by titles of exultation such as are used to honor popes of later times. In other words, he was never called "Pope," "Chief Shepard," "Head of the Church," "Holy Father," "Sovereign Pontiff," or any other religious titles used to honor popes today. Instead, he was simply called an "apostle and servant" (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1) and "fellow presbyter" (1 Peter 5:1). Such titles logically place Peter on the same level of authority as any other elder in the church. The Apostle John also referred to himself as an "elder" (2 John 1; 3 John 1), thereby implying that he had the same authority as Peter. 

           *Some may argue that the Apostle Peter avoided these titles because he was humble and modest. But if that is the case, then why do modern popes refuse to follow Peter's example? The truth of the matter is that the Lord Jesus Christ forbade the practice (Matthew 23:8-12).
          -Jesus is the "Chief Shepherd" of the flock (John 10:10; 14-16), not the pope. Christ is the "head of the church" (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:15; 5:23-25), not the pope.

            *Roman Catholics believe that the pope is the "visible" head of the church and that Christ is the "invisible" head. However, Scripture reserves no such position for any man. The kingdom of God is spiritual and so does not require a single earthly leader to guide it.

• The Apostle Peter Did Not Behave As If He Were A Pope:

          -The Apostle Peter was not a wealthy man as are modern-day popes (Acts 3:6-7). In other words, he did not have a throne, wear a crown, or showcase any other kinds of riches, as successive popes have enjoyed for centuries. Peter did not allow men to bow before him religiously (Acts 10:25-26), but modern popes have accepted and encouraged this kind of behavior. We are not to bow before people to honor their religious office or affiliation (Revelation 22:8-9).

• The Absence Of Papal Office In Contexts Relating To Church Unity:

          -Paul never mentioned the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church as being the means of preserving ecclesiastical unity in passages relating to that very topic (Ephesians 4:4-7; Philippians 4:2-3). Jesus Christ does not refer to a Papacy in His prayer to God for unity amongst brethren (John 17). That should make one doubt whether the papal office existed in the first century, since it claims to have been established by Christ for the very purpose of maintaining unity amongst believers.

• The Apostle Peter Viewed Himself As Having No Supremacy Over The Church:

          -"Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:1-5)

           *Peter did not recognize himself as having an exalted position over other elders in the church, but instead spoke as if he had the same authority as they did. He certainly was not aware of any unique authority bestowed upon him by Christ if he did, in fact, have it. This casts doubt on any idea that Peter was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

• Peter Was Sent By Others To Travel And Preach The Gospel:

          -"Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them." (Acts 8:14)

            *It the Apostle Peter was the first pope, then why would he take orders from men who were allegedly lower in the chain of command than himself?

• The Apostle Paul Worked Harder Than Peter: 

          -"But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10).

           *If the Apostle Peter was the first pope, then why did he not write more Scripture?

• The Apostle Peter Was Only Known As The Apostle To The Jews:

          -If Peter was appointed by Christ to govern the entire Christian church worldwide, then why is it that Paul was the one commissioned to evangelize the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8)? In that same context, the Apostle Peter is only referred to as "one of four pillars," with James being listed as first in order (Galatians 2:9).

• The Apostle Paul Rebuked Peter As Though He Were His Equal:

          -The text clearly shows that Peter and Paul had equal authority because the former boldly confronted the latter for his sin. Peter is not in an exulted position. Any person courageous enough to publicly repudiate the claims of a Roman bishop in later centuries would most probably get himself or herself executed, if done in the manner as Paul did in the text of Galatians 2:11-14.

• Paul Never Mentioned Or Greeted "Pope Peter" In His Epistle To The Romans:

          -If the Apostle Peter was the first pope, then why is it that Paul wrote such a theologically rich epistle to the Romans? How come he never bothered to mention such a prominent figure in his greetings (Romans 16)? Where was "Pope Peter" when everybody else had deserted Paul (2 Timothy 1:15; 4:16)?

• The Apostle Peter Himself Seemed To Be Unaware Of Apostolic Succession:

          -"I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder." (2 Peter 1:13)
          -"And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind." (2 Peter 1:15)
          -"This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles." (2 Peter 3:1-2)
           *How come Peter failed to mention the papal office in the two epistles that he authored or discuss his potential successors?

• The Apostle Peter Did Not Exclusively Exercise Authority In Church Government:

          -The Apostle Peter was not in charge of the replacement apostle after Judas was dead (Acts 1:23-26). In other words, he did not occupy his supreme authority on this issue of church government like popes would. Instead, all of the apostles nominated two candidates (not Peter alone) and prayed to Christ for an answer (not looking to Peter). Afterwards, they all cast lots to see who the new apostle would be (Peter did not cast any). This passage certainly weakens the Roman Catholic claim that the pope has power over church government.

          -"In Acts 11 Peter is called to answer for his actions in going to Cornelius' house. Does he give evidence of Papal prerogatives here? Does he answer as Innocent III, or Alexander VI? Hardly. There is no mention of his position as Pope. Instead, rather than pleading his position as Vicar of Christ, Peter relates the supernatural vision and direction that had been given to him to proclaim the gospel message to the Gentiles. This no more makes Peter a Pope than Paul's guiding vision in Acts 16." (James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, p. 112)

Altar Calls: An Unbiblical Tradition

        The practice of altar calls, where individuals are invited to come forward at the end of a church service to make a public commitment to Christ, has been a topic of much debate. One of the most significant critiques of altar calls is their historical absence from early Christian practices. The altar call did not become a common practice until the 19th century, primarily through the influence of Charles Finney. Critics argue that Finney's introduction of the altar call was based on questionable theology and a man-centered, manipulative methodology. Historically, the early church did not rely on such methods; rather, they focused on teaching, baptism, and the sacraments as means of fostering faith. The historical novelty of the altar call suggests it is more a product of modern evangelistic techniques than an apostolic tradition. This raises important questions about the theological integrity of altar calls and emphasizes the importance of adhering to traditional practices that have stood the test of time.

        Another strong argument against altar calls is the potential confusion they create between the physical act of "coming forward" and the spiritual act of "coming to Christ." While the two can happen simultaneously, there is a risk that individuals might equate the physical act with the spiritual commitment. This confusion can lead to misunderstandings about what it truly means to come to Christ, potentially undermining the depth and authenticity of one's faith journey. For example, a person might mistakenly believe that the act of walking to the front of the church equates to a genuine conversion experience. This conflation can dilute the profound and personal nature of a true spiritual awakening, leading to a superficial understanding of faith and salvation.

        Another objection to altar calls is the pressure they place on individuals to make a public decision for Christ. This environment, often characterized by emotional music, dimmed lights, and passionate appeals, can lead to decisions driven more by the heat of the moment rather than genuine, heartfelt commitments. There is a significant risk that individuals might respond to emotional pressure instead of true spiritual conviction. Consequently, such decisions may not be deeply rooted in personal faith, resulting in a lack of lasting commitment and spiritual growth. This highlights the importance of allowing individuals to make thoughtful, considered decisions about their faith journey. People ought to be free from external influences that might sway their true intentions.

        The final compelling argument focuses on the significance of adhering to biblically prescribed worship practices, such as preaching, prayer, fellowship, and singing. Introducing new practices like altar calls may shift the focus away from these core elements of corporate worship. God's guidelines for worship should remain the primary focus to ensure that worship practices are aligned with biblical teachings and emphasize what is truly important in the faith. By adhering strictly to these prescribed elements, congregations can maintain a clear and undistracted focus on the key aspects of worship that nurture and deepen faith. This argument highlights the potential risk of diluting worship with practices that, while well-intentioned, may not have the same theological grounding or scriptural endorsement.

        In today's cautious and relational age, many people come to faith over an extended period and often with the guidance of a trusted friend or mentor. The altar call, with its immediate and public nature, may not align with the gradual and relational process through which many individuals come to faith. This method can be seen as too abrupt and impersonal, potentially alienating those who would benefit more from a thoughtful and supportive journey to faith. Modern evangelism often recognizes the importance of personal connections and long-term discipleship. Thus, relying on altar calls might miss the opportunity to engage individuals more deeply and relationally, fostering genuine, long-lasting faith commitments.

Romans 5 Is A Problematic Passage For Calvinistic Limited Atonement

• Discussion:

          -"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." (Romans 5:12)

          -"For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." (Romans 5:17-18)

          Just as the curse of sin infected the entirety of mankind through the fall of Adam, so the Lord Jesus Christ made atonement for the sins of the whole world. Salvation is not given only to an elect group of individuals, anymore than condemnation was passed on only to an elect group. In other words, there is a universal problem presented alongside a universal solution. The consistency of this message is incompatible with Calvinist limited atonement. Romans 5:6-10 expressly tells us that Christ died for the ungodly, which would include us all. 

Spontaneous Generation Is Delusional Thinking

"No, there is not a single known circumstance in which microscopic beings may be asserted to have entered the world without germs, without parents resembling them. Those who think otherwise have been deluded by their poorly conducted experiments, full of errors they neither knew how to perceive, nor how to avoid."

Louis Pasteur, “Sorbonne Scientific Soiree” of April 7, 1864

Why I Reject Darwinism As Science

        The concept of evolution revolves around changes in physical structures, which take place over given periods of time. Some may either perceive this to have cosmological implications or strictly biological ones. According to the Theory of Evolution, a source of matter brought about all existing life forms that we see in our world today. It is maintained that all this took place stochastically through the processes of genetic mutation and natural selection. Microevolution is the small, rapid changes within a particular animal species. Macroevolution is the very gradual, major evolutionary transition which takes place among the different species of animals in becoming different types of organisms.

        The first major promoter of evolution was Charles Darwin. His ideas are now taught as a proven fact by most in the secular world. Darwin fundamentally changed the the landscape of not only science, but also philosophy, ethics, and religion. However, his ideas stand in stark contrast to the creation narrative of Genesis, which has God creating the universe and giving meaning to life. Over the course of his studies, Darwin gradually shifted away from traditional theistic perceptions of God toward agnosticism. He taught that all forms of life have a common ancestor. Further, he knew that people would make objections to his novel scientific proposals:

        "...why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not nature all in confusion, instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?" (The Origin of Species, chapter six)

        On the contrary, we have never observed life forms reproduce different life forms. That is the kind of evolution for which we still have no reliable evidence. In other words, all life forms produce after their own kind. Thus, the life reproduction pattern laid out by the Book of Genesis is more consistent with science than what Charles Darwin theorized. In addition, transitions between basic features in organisms are rendered improbable by the fact that other vital functions would simultaneously be disabled. How did essential organs such as the heart, lungs, and stomach form to begin with? Biochemists D.E. Green and R.W. Goldberger said the following in their book Molecular Insights into the Living Process, p. 407:

        "The macromolecule to cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture."

        Consider also this excerpt from Associate Professor of Biochemistry Douglas L. Theobald:

        "Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory. As first suggested by Darwin, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, 7,8,9,10, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope 1,5,8,9,11,12,13,14,15."

        It would be a stretch to say that the above cited scholar is a creationist. He is not by any means sympathetic to supernatural worldviews, but admits that the idea of universal common ancestry has difficulties. Following is an excerpt from a paper written in 2011 by Denis Noble, a secular biologist, who criticizes aspects of Darwinism:

        "Must higher level biological processes always be derivable from lower level data and mechanisms, as assumed by the idea that an organism is completely defined by its genome? Or are higher level properties necessarily also causes of lower level behaviour, involving actions and interactions both ways? This article uses modelling of the heart, and its experimental basis, to show that downward causation is necessary and that this form of causation can be represented as the influences of initial and boundary conditions on the solutions of the differential equations used to represent the lower level processes. These insights are then generalized. A priori, there is no privileged level of causation. The relations between this form of ‘biological relativity’ and forms of relativity in physics are discussed. Biological relativity can be seen as an extension of the relativity principle by avoiding the assumption that there is a privileged scale at which biological functions are determined."

          Consider this excerpt from an article titled The Comet Comith: Evolving Developmental Systems, by Johannes Jaeger, Manfred Laubichler, and Werner Callebaut:

          "One of the main reasons for Duboule’s pessimism about the return of the EvoDevo comet is the staggering complexity and diversity of cellular and developmental regulatory processes. The configuration space for realistic models of such systems is vast, high dimensional, and potentially infinitely complex."

          This underscores the vast complexity and diverse regulatory processes in cellular development, which strongly suggests intelligent design. Such intricate systems, with their high-dimensional configuration space, are unlikely to be the result of random evolution alone. Instead, they point to a purposeful and intelligent creator behind the sophisticated mechanisms governing life's development. Another excerpt from that same piece says profound genetic similarities exist which do not prove common ancestry:

          "Because of this, similarities in gene expression patterns or morphological structure often do not necessarily imply common ancestry, since they may as well reflect the frequent reuse of the same regulatory or morphogenetic modules." (Ibid.)

        Genetic mutations are rare, and, whenever they do occur, usually cause harm to living organisms. Changes can be made, but new genetic information cannot be added to an organism's genetic code (which is what is required for the sort of evolution touted by Darwin to work). How did mammals reproduce before they somehow evolved into a male and female of the species? Did some mysterious creature that had both pairs of genitalia have intercourse with itself? Did DNA (which produces proteins) come first or did proteins (which are required in order for life to exist) come first? How could the precise, natural process of blood clotting arise from blind, unguided chance? Why is it that some organisms have supposedly evolved to a certain state of complexity over millions of years just to cease in the process since (e.g. we have found snakes and spiders that are dated back millions of years that are the same today as they were back then)? How does one account for the fact that humans have characteristics that provide no advantages for survival such as music and religion? Why do we find other animals species cute? These are only a few issues that render naturalistic evolution inadequate as a scientific postulate. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek raise other points that are worthy of consideration:

        "Darwinism asserts that only materials exist, but materials don’t have morality. How much does hate weigh? Is there an atom for love? What’s the chemical composition of the murder molecule? These questions are meaningless because physical particles are not responsible for morality. If materials are solely responsible for morality, then Hitler had no real moral responsibility for what he did—he just had bad molecules. This is nonsense, and everyone knows it. Human thoughts and transcendent moral laws are not material things any more than the laws of logic and mathematics are material things. They are immaterial entities that cannot be weighed or physically measured. As a result, they can’t be explained in material terms by natural selection or any other atheistic means." (I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, p. 187)

        A commonly accepted postulate by defenders of Darwinism in regards to how the universe began is the Big Bang Theory. It states that the universe began as a very hot, small, and dense ball of cosmological matter, called a singularity, which expanded and transformed into what we call the universe. The universe is continuing to cool down as it continues to spread out further. This in and of itself is a problem for atheistic worldviews because of its theistic underpinnings. It points to the fact that our universe had a beginning. Further, it is contrary to reason to suggest that something can originate from nothing. We know that from nothing comes nothing. Living matter cannot originate from non-living matter and chemicals. Nothing cannot be the cause of a cosmic expansion of matter. What caused the universe to go into motion? Something cannot put itself into motion. Why did this happen? 

        Another view on the origin of the universe as we know it, yet is less commonly held to, is called the Oscillating Universe Theory. It states that the universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the same cycle for all eternity. This idea is highly improbable because the universe is not closed and consequently continues to expand outward. In fact, the accelerating force has continued to increase. We have no evidence for a decreasing speed. The concept of an eternal universe is also irrational at face value. It would mean that we could never have reached a point in time when this paper was typed up. Rather than engaging in foolish speculation, it is more reasonable to believe that God created all things ex nihilo. It is a fact that atheistic evolution cannot account for the origin of life.

        The overall design and complexity of our universe cannot simply be accounted for in an atheistic evolutionary worldview. Naturalists have ascribed the role of creation and the reason for our finely-tuned universe to mere accidents. Thus, proponents of Darwinism have literally attributed to blind chance the power of producing intelligent, functional, meaningful systems. If "blind" is not a proper word to use in describing "chance" in creating our universe, then what other word would better fit the bill? It is not as though "chance" has any mind of its own to make decisions for itself. This is nothing short of creating myths. The origin and history of life on earth cannot be satisfactorily explained by natural selection, mutations, and genetic exchange alone. It would be more proper to treat the Theory of Evolution as a testable hypothesis than a worldview.

        Science does not say anything by itself. It is the scientists who interpret available data in accordance with their underlying philosophical presuppositions about life that speak. Our scientific reasoning will inevitably be colored by our preconceptions about reality. Scientific data is subject to interpretation. Everybody brings a set of foundational assumptions to the table in the process of scientific investigation. There are basic facts of science that everybody agrees on such as the existence of gravity and the movement of tectonic plates. However, a person either studies the natural world with the belief in a Creator or no Creator at all.

Notes On The Christian Prayer Life

• Defining The Issues:

          -The fact that God seemingly ignores certain prayer requests has been a source of discouragement in daily religious life, and has in fact harmed the faith of some. We have all been disappointed from time to time with how He decides to answer our prayer supplications. But this is by no means a valid reason for turning away from God, for we are in no place to question the intentions of our Maker. Neither are we fully able to comprehend His will. There are several biblical principles for a Christian to take into account in his daily prayer life.

• Keep In Mind That In Order To Have A Deep Relationship With God, We Must Pray To Him On A Regular Basis:

          -"Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus." (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18)

            *Prayer is a serious act that should never be done thoughtlessly or carelessly. It is communication with God Himself.

• God Will Not Answer The Prayers Of Somebody Who Has The Wrong Motives:

          -"You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures." (James 4:3)

            *Prayer is to be centered around the will of God. He will not yield to our selfish requests, no matter how many times that we petition Him. Nor are people to be rewarded for actions that appear good on the outside, but were intended to harm others or for one's own greedy gain. Even if such a person seemed to have a prayer request answered, it may either be due to Satanic influence or mere coincidence.

• God Will Not Answer The Prayers Of People Who Have Doubt In Their Hearts:

          -"But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways." (James 1:6-8)

            *A person who has doubt in his heart is not reliable in the service of God. He is not spiritually stable and has no steady conviction to stand by.

• God May Refuse To Answer The Prayers Of People Who Are Not Fulfilling Their Duties As A Christian Or Have Cherished Sin In Their Hearts:

          -"Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us." (1 John 3:21-24)

• Other Points Worthy Of Consideration:

          -Even when God says no to a prayer request, that is still an answer to prayer. That is not the same as having no answer to prayer at all; just an unsatisfactory one.

          -God can answer our prayers in totally unexpected ways. He may have something else in mind than we ourselves do, and oftentimes does.

          -Maybe God wants us to wait for a period of time before He answers a prayer. The testing of our faith produces endurance. (James 1:2-3)
          -The forgiveness of sin does not entail the undoing of negative consequences.
          -God wants us to pray according to His will (1 John 5:14). He is not like a genie summoned from a bottle that grants us whatever we wish.

• There Are Different Types Of Prayer:

          -If the conscience of a person is burdened by sin, then he can pray and meditate on Psalm 51.
          -If a person does not know what to say or how to pray, then he can always recite from the heart the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:6-14).

          -If a person even needs encouragement, then he can pray and reflect on Psalm 23.

Liberals Avoid Debate By Charging ‘Homophobia’

"Writers who have written for years, or even decades, without ever mentioning homosexuals have been denounced for “homophobia” because they began to write about the subject after the AIDS epidemic appeared—and did not take the “politically correct “ position on the issues. How can someone have a “phobia” about something he has scarcely noticed? Many people never knew or cared what homosexuals were doing, until it became a danger to them as a result of the AIDS epidemic. Whether those people’s reactions were right or wrong is something that can be debated. But attributing their position to a “phobia” is circular reasoning, when there is no evidence of any such phobia other than the position itself. Like so much in the vocabulary of the anointed, it is a way of avoiding substantive debate.

Among the writers who took non-“politically correct” positions on AIDS was the late Randy Shilts, whose best-selling book And the Band Played On is a chilling exploration of the political irresponsibility, based on fears of offending the organized gay lobby, that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths before the most elementary public health measures were taken to reduce the spread of AIDS. No doubt he too would have been called “homophobic” if he were not himself an avowed homosexual who later died of AIDS."

Thomas Sowell, "The Vision of the Anointed," p. 216-217

Cultural And Historical Background Information On The Suffering Servant Of Isaiah 53

• Introduction:

          -Isaiah chapter fifty three is the most keen, vivid description of the Jewish Messiah provided in the entire Old Testament. It portrays Him as being a servant who suffers unjustly for our sins in order to make peace between us and God. The chapter contains the very basic message of redemption as revealed more fully through New Testament revelation. Christians naturally identify this suffering servant figure to be Jesus Christ. While the text of Isaiah 53 may seem fairly straightforward to us, it is not so to our Jewish friends. Many absolutely refuse to see the emphatic implications set forth by a natural reading of this passage of Scripture. It is generally assumed that the suffering servant refers to Israel, but the evidence simply does not point in favor of that interpretation. Isaiah 53 is clearly a messianic prophecy that has already been been long fulfilled by Jesus Christ Himself.

• Virtually All Jewish Rabbis Once Believed That The Suffering Servant Of Isaiah 53 Was Referring To The Coming Of A Promised Messiah:

          -"Rashi (1040-1105 a.d.) might have been the first to deny that this incredible passage is messianic. But many Jewish sages, before and after Rashi, saw the Messiah in Isaiah 53." (Daniel Mann, Jews for Jesus, "Rabbis, Skeptics and the Suffering Messiah")

• Following Are Examples Of Jewish Sources That Interpret The Suffering Servant Of Isaiah 53 In A Messianic Sense (Taken From The Same Source As The Above Cited Excerpt):

          -"The highly regarded first-century Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai stated: “The meaning of the words ‘bruised for our iniquities’ [Isaiah 53:5] is, that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of his being bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer them for them himself."

          -"The mystical Zohar records: “The children of the world are members one of another. When the Holy One desires to give healing to the world, he smites one just man amongst them, and for his sake heals all the rest. Whence do we learn this? From the saying, “‘He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities“‘ (Isaiah 53:5)” (Numbers, Pinchus, 218a)"

          -"Many different rabbis – Gaon Rabbi Saadia, Rabbi Naphtali ben Asher, and Rabbi Moshe Alshich adamantly opposed Rashi’s new interpretation, and demanded that the Sages of Israel should ignore him and return to the original interpretation, the most famous of among them was Mamonides, who categorically declared that Rashi was completely mistaken."

• Isaiah 53 Has Been Called The Forbidden Chapter In Jewish Communities:

          -"The 17th century Jewish historian, Raphael Levi, admitted that long ago the rabbis used to read Isaiah 53 in synagogues, but after the chapter caused “arguments and great confusion” the rabbis decided that the simplest thing would be to just take that prophecy out of the Haftarah readings in synagogues. That’s why today when we read Isaiah 52, we stop in the middle of the chapter and the week after we jump straight to Isaiah 54." (Eitan Bar, One For Israel, "Isaiah 53-The Forbidden Chapter")

• The Suffering Servant Of Isaiah 53 Cannot Simply Be A Reference To Israel, But To A Person:

          -If the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is a reference to the nation of Israel rather than Christ Himself, then how can it be said that he was cut off from the people (Isaiah 53:8)? How can this suffering servant be cut off from himself?

          -If the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is a reference to the nation of Israel rather than Christ Himself, then how can it be said that he bore the sins of the people (Isaiah 53:5-6)? This person is said to be righteous, yet the Old Testament records Israel routinely falling into sin and judgment by God.

          -Who would better fit the description of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 than Jesus Christ Himself as recorded in the four gospels?

What Happens To The Souls Of Infants Who Die?

          There have been a number of different positions amongst Christians as to what happens to the souls of children who die. Augustine postulated that unbaptized infants were punished eternally in hell, but to a lesser degree. His views softened over time. For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church unofficially taught that the souls of deceased children go to a place called Limbo. The Greek fathers did not discuss this topic at length, but some believed children who died went to some place distinct from both heaven and hell. The stance defended here is that the destination of little children who pass away enter into the presence of God in heaven.

          If Christ is the only way to heaven as He claims to be, faith is required in order to follow Him, yet babies are not able to place their trust in anyone, then it might seem to some that those who die are excluded from heaven. However, we would be hard pressed to find Christians who actually believe that today. The idea is not palatable to us at all. While not explicitly answered in Scripture, there are a number of clues which seem to indicate that babies are recipients of God's grace and excluded from eternal punishment. 

          Scripture implicitly affirms the concept that we call the age of accountability (Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 7:15-16). This is relative due to the fact that everybody develops differently. Thus, there exists a period of time during childhood in which God in His mercy does not count sins against a person due to lacking reason and understanding. While babies are born with a sin nature, they still cannot actually commit acts of evil. 

          Jesus Christ stated that the kingdom of God is not only for little ones, but also for those who become like children in their faith (Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17). If babies were to be sentenced to hell upon death, then why did He welcome them? The gospels record Christ having compassion on children as He called them to His side and sat them at His feet in the crowds (Matthew 18:3; 19:14-15). If they were to be sentenced to hell by God for original sin, then why did Jesus commend their simplicity? John the Baptist is said to have been indwelt with the Spirit of God even in the womb (Luke 1:15), and receiving the Spirit is always viewed as evidence of regeneration (Luke 1:41, 67; Acts 9:17).

          Consider the mourning of King David when the Lord took away his newborn child as discipline for acts of adultery and murder (2 Samuel 12:22-23). Even in the midst of his selfish and brutish conduct, we see God exercising mercy as his own life was spared. The Lord is in charge of life itself. The text of 2 Samuel affirms that both would go to the same place at the moment of physical death. Moreover, Hebrews 11:32-33 tells us David entered into the presence of God with the rest of the saints. Why should we believe that the souls of deceased children go to some place other than heaven? 

           God would not condemn to hell somebody who never even had a chance to live. We must also keep in mind those who have severe cognitive disabilities. Though it is a teaching of Scripture that God has inscribed a moral law into the hearts of men, every person needs to have the mental capacity to act. Each man will be judged according to his own conduct (2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Peter 1:17). Babies cannot do anything on their own. What could God judge them for? Our hope lies in the goodness and graciousness of God. That is our one and only hope, from here to eternity. Children are by no means an exception to that rule.