James 2:14: Can Faith Save?

Τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί μου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν, ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ; μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν;

James 2:14

I am indebted to Dr. Wallace for his chapter on the use of the Greek article in his book, “Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics.” That single chapter is worth the price of the book alone. It has opened my eyes and helped me move past the mundane “definite/indefinite” view of Greek nouns. This much debated verse from James has been cast in a whole new light for me.

The KJV translates this verse as: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” The controversy lies in the the second half of the verse (14b). At first hearing, it sounds as though James is saying that faith alone cannot save anyone. As much as I enjoy the majesty of language in the KJV, I must admit it often is somewhat lacking as a translation. In this case, I object to the KJV's treatment of the article in v.14b.

You will notice in 14a, the word πίστις (pistis, “faith”) is anarthrous (that is, it lacks an article). In 14b, the word now has an article (“the faith”). It is my opinion that this is an “anaphoric” use of the article which refers the reader back to the same word in 14a. Thus, 14a refers to “faith” and 14b refers back to the same “faith.” Let me offer a paraphrase:

“What is the profit, my brothers, if someone should claim to have 'faith' but does not have works? This kind of 'faith' is not able to save him, is it?”

Other translations do a better job of capturing this meaning:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? (NIV)

What use is it my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? (NASB)

What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don’t show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? (NLT)

What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him? (ASV)

Considering the context of the entire chapter, we can in see that James is not referring to a genuine, saving faith. Beginning in 14a, we see instead that he is referring to a particular kind of faith – a psuedo-faith which some claim to have so that they might earn the respect of others (James 2:1). The shallowness of their faith is demonstrated by their works. They love to associate with the wealthy members of the congregation but they despise the poor.

John talked about this same attitude in his letter 1 John 3:17-18. “But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” Also in 1 John 4:20, “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?”

The message of James is not at odds with any other part of the Bible. We are saved by faith and James affirms this. Saving faith is evidenced by our works. James condemns those people who claim to have faith but are betrayed by their works. Theirs is a faith of social expedience. James correctly asks, “can this kind of faith save”?

Fair Weather Friends

The Tea Party Movement that's swept the country in the last year has really ruffled some feathers. At first, the liberal media tried to simply ignore them but their silence became so painfully conspicuous that they could no longer ignore the protests and still maintain the label of a news medium. Their next tactic was to attack the movement by trotting out the tired terms like “racists” and the much more vulgar term, “teabaggers.” Liberal politicians said this wasn't a “real” movement but referred to it as “astro-turf.” The concerned citizens who protested at the Town Hall meetings were called a “mob” and “un-American.” In other words, the Tea Party did not have any friends among the liberal elite.

It was a completely different story among conservatives. FOX News (a truly balanced news channel but seen as conservative) was the only news network to cover the Tea Parties. Rush, Sean, Glenn, and all the usual suspects discussed the protesters in glowing terms saying that the movement represented the true heart of America. The people were sick of out of control government and had finally had enough. These were citizens standing up to unfair taxes just like the early revolutionaries of their namesake had done.

Since tax-and-spend is the only play Democrats use to solve anything, much of the Tea Party protest was directed at them. Therefore, Republicans were overjoyed, seeing this as a possible windfall for the Republican Party in the 2010 elections. It seems the friendship was fated to be short-lived. After the recent Tea Party convention, I'm starting to hear a different tune from Republicans.

I think the Republican Party is starting to realize that the Tea Party movement isn't exactly a group of Republican cheerleaders but a movement against government waste – whether the “waster” is a Democrat or Republican. Moderate Republicans (like John McCain) aren't likely to receive a ringing endorsement from the Tea Party.

The fear of the Republicans is that the Tea Party will beginning running 3rd party candidates. In an election, a Tea Party candidate could very well split the conservative vote allowing the Democrat candidate to win. Suddenly, the Republicans aren't so keen on the Tea Party movement. They are starting to warn the protesters that running their own candidates would be against their own best interest.

If the Tea Party decided to run its own candidates, I have to agree that it it's not likely they would win and it very well cost also ruin the election opportunity for the Republican on the ticket. But the solution isn't for the Tea Party to water down their message. Conservatives shouldn't have to hold their collective noses and vote for the Republican (or RINO as the case may be) simply because of the “R” after his name. The solution is for the Republican Party to run more conservative candidates.

I still remember the Republican revolution of 1994. We've come a long way since then (the wrong way). We've not only lost our majorities in both the House and Senate, we've lost them in a big way – giving up until recently, a super-majority in the Senate. I saw it coming when I heard Colin Powell speak at the Republican National Convention, 1996. There had been talk leading up to the convention about how Republicans need to become a “big tent.” At one point, Powell mentioned he was pro-choice (i.e. pro-abortion) and got a standing ovation. I had to check my TV guide to make sure this was the Republican convention. Had they already forgotten the conservative message that swept them into office only 2 years earlier? What were they thinking?

The Tea Party needs to put as much pressure on Republicans as is necessary to insure they run conservative candidates. If it costs us a couple of elections, then so what? In the last election, Republicans pitted a very moderate McCain against the very liberal Obama and look at what happened?

They're Looking in the Wrong Place

I know I'm dating myself but here's a joke you may not have heard in a while:

A man was crawling around looking for something. Another man walked up and asked, “What are you looking for?”

The man answered, “I dropped a dollar. Would you help me find it?”

“Sure. Where were standing when you dropped it?”

“Over there by those bushes.”

“Then why are you looking here?”

“Because the light is better here.”

I shouldn't have to explain what makes the joke funny: it's ridiculous to search in the wrong place simply because the light it better. No rationally thinking person would do that, right? You'd be surprised. Evolutionists do it every day!

I've cited this quote before (here) but let me remind my readers of it:

“"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.” Scientific American Magazine, July 2002 [emphasis added].

Every time I hear an evolutionist tell me there is no evidence for creation, I remind myself of this quote. When evolutionary scientists study the issue of origins, they do so with starting assumption that everything must have a natural explanation. They admit as much. The reason they do this (or at least the reason they offer) is because only natural processes can be tested. Supernatural events (i.e. miracles) are beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. Yet does that premise alone mean that miracles do not occur? Of course it does not. It's a not so subtle attempt to define creation away.

I see a striking similarity between the attitude of evolutionists and the man looking for his dollar. They both claim to be earnest looking for something but they both search in vain for the sake of convenience: the man in the joke searches in the light for something that was lost in the shadows and the evolutionists search only in the natural realm for something that was supernatural. It's funny when you think about it. If the miraculous explanation for the origin of the universe happens to be the correct one, it's no wonder evolutionists can't find it. They're looking in the wrong place!!

John 3:7: Who are You?

When I first began studying Greek, it didn't take long before I realized that learning a new language was more than just learning its vocabulary. Every language has its own rules of grammar which must also be learned. Yet more than that, every language has its own particular set of idioms which can confound non-native speakers.

Even though I strive to better understand Greek grammar, I still occasionally get tripped up on certain idioms. Even now, I occasionally project my English understanding onto a Greek text. One such instance came to my realization just recently concerning the 2nd person pronoun, "you." As a native English speaker, I have a very good understanding of what someone means when he says, "you." I know, for example, that if someone walked up to me on the street and asked, "How do you get to 1st Street?," I know that he's not really asking how "I" get to 1st Street. Instead, he wants to know how "he" can get to 1st Street. He's using "you" in an indefinite sense to mean, "anyone". He's asking, "How does someone get to 1st Street?" or more likely, he asking, “How do I get to 1st Street?”

The indefinite sense of "you" is an English idiom. It didn't really occur to me that other languages (in this case, Greek) don't use "you" in that same sense. As we read the Bible, every use of "you" means someone in particular.

For the sake of application, let's look at John 3:7:

μὴ θαυμάσῃς ὅτι εἶπον σοι· δεῖ ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν.

"Do not marvel because I said to you, 'You must be born again."

First, many English readers are unaware that the second "you" in this verse is plural; that subtle point is lost in translation because there is not a plural "you" in English. I think the translators of the KJV were onto something by using "Ye" to denote a plural pronoun. But besides that, who did Jesus specifically mean when He said, "you (2p, pl) must be born again"? In English, this seems like a candidate for an indefinite pronoun:

Question: "How do you get saved?"

Answer: "You must be born again."

However, we must remember that there is not an indefinite use of "you" in Greek so Jesus meant someone in particular. Exactly who Jesus meant is not really the point of this post. The point of this post is simply to help us become more aware that we need to ask the question. However, since I raised the point I will answer it; I believe that, in John 3:7, Jesus was talking specifically about the Pharisees, of which Nicodemus was one. Thus, John 3:7 might be paraphrased as:

"Do not marvel that I said to you, Nicodemus, that you Pharisees must be born again."

Of course, in John 3:3, Jesus used the indefinite pronoun "τις" to communicate that it is necessary for “someone” to be born again to enter heaven. But as we read the Bible, whenever we read the word "you", we need to stop and consider exactly who is being discussed.

A Review: State of the Nation 2 with Ken Ham

Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis , gave the group's 2nd “State of the Nation” address. All I can say is – he nailed it! Well, that's not all I can say.

He subtitled his address, “Reminders Removed,” a reference to Joshua 4:4-7 where men from each of the twelve tribes piled up stones in order to leave a reminder to their children how God had provided for them. Today in America, we have forgotten the Christian traditions upon which this nation was founded. Ham brought out many quotes of President Obama where the President said, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.” In many ways, the President is right; the reminders that we were once a Christian nation are progressively being removed. Prayer, creation, the 10 Commandments, the Bible, and the mention of God have all been removed from public schools. Things like the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage are now being eroded by practices like abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage.

Ham expressed (correctly) that the increase in apostasy has followed increased compromise on the word of God. Much of this compromise involves an attempt to reconcile the Bible with man's opinion. This is a dangerous practice because whenever God's word opposes man's opinion, it is usually God's word that gets compromised

This watering down of the word has caused people to reject the Bible and their faith outright. After all, if the Bible is wrong on one point (such as the Genesis account of creation) then how can it be trusted on any point? This is a logical question and rather than trust the Bible over man's opinion, many people have chosen to reject the Bible. Ham referenced several times the new book, Already Gone where this phenomenon has been detailed.

As faith has waned, society hasn't become a neutral vacuum concerning religion. Rather, popular culture is becoming increasing hostile toward Christians. Such an attitude is in agreement with Matthew 12:30, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” Rejection of God is replaced with secular humanism which worships the creation and mocks God (Romans 1:20-25). Ham played this shocking video of Professor Lawrence Krauss from Arizona State University:

Besides the shocking comments, I was almost as equally shocked by the laughter and cheers from his students.

But Ham doesn't spend an entire hour wringing his hands over how bad everything is. He details the situation but also offers the solution: a return to the Bible.

The video is a good watch and a must see for every Christian. I recommend everyone invest an hour of their time to see it.

How to Answer “The Bible says that Bats are Birds” and Similar Criticisms

In an effort to attack Christian faith as a whole, many critics attempt to discredit the Bible. Many of their criticisms are similar and can be grouped into a few categories. Most of the criticisms in one category can be rebutted in pretty much the same way so it's important that Christians learn how to identify common criticisms so that we can give a proper response (1 Peter 3:15).

One such category is “reverse etymology” (as identified in “Exegetical Fallacies” by D. A. Carson). Reverse etymology occurs when we force our modern understanding of a term onto the original meaning of the term. Look at the following example:

“These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,... and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.” (Leviticus 11:13,19, NASB)

Now, everyone knows that bats are not birds and so this “proves” the Bible is wrong, right? Well, bats are not birds according to modern taxonomy. However, when Moses penned Leviticus, Linnean taxonomy was still a few dozen centuries away. As a matter of fact, the word “bird” likely did not even exist yet since it is an English word.

The word translated above as “bird” (“fowl” in the KJV) is the Hebrew word “oph” (עוף) which literally means “winged.” Regardless of how we define a bird today (feathered, egg-laying, etc), the Jews of antiquity were certainly not wrong to identify both birds and bats as winged!

In the same chapter of Leviticus we see a similar “problem” when the Bible says the hare chews its cud (Leviticus 11:6). Again, what is meant by the term “chew cud”? We have a specific, scientific understanding of the term but our modern understanding isn't what the ancient Jews would have understood. Cows have a divided stomach and regurgitate partially digested food to chew further. Rabbits do not have a divided stomachs but they do pass stools of partially digested food which they then eat and chew in much the same manner as a cow chews its cud. The difference between the two is a modern technicality. The Bible is certainly not “wrong” for not clearly distinguishing the hare from what are now identified as ruminants.

Still another example concerns the whale. Jonah 1:17 says that the Lord had prepared “a great fish” to swallow Jonah. However, later, in Matthew 12:40, Jesus said that Jonah was swallowed by a “whale” (KJV). Seeing these verses side by side, it looks as though the Bible is calling a whale a fish. Yet again, “fish” is a modern, English word that has a specific meaning (scales, gills, etc). The Greek word in Matthew is kētos (κῆτος), which is rendered in other translations as “sea monster.” A marine animal large enough to swallow a man can be correctly identified as a “sea monster.” The exact species of animal it was is unknown.

One final example from this category concerns insects. If we again look in Leviticus 11, vv. 20-23 seem to indicate that insects have only 4 legs. Here, the critic believes is an inescapable error; after all, surely the Bible can't have a different understanding of the word “leg,” can it? In a sense, that is exactly the case! The solution is found in Leviticus 11:21 – the four legs used for walking are distinguished from the two legs used for jumping.

We can see that arguments like these are very shallow and fail to stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. Still, these arguments and other like them persist and so we must be ready. Don't get caught off guard by such a simple canard.

Further reading

How Are Myths Born?

Does The Bible Say There Are Unicorns?

Some More Comments About Sola Scriptura

A while back, I wrote a short series on the Five Solas of the Reformation. The first of the Five Solas is “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone). In a nutshell, Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is God's sole written revelation and it is the final authority on all things relating to doctrine. A visitor to my blog, someone posting under the name, teak421, took exception to my points and left two comments to rebut. I visited his blog and read some of his links and it he seems to advocate two other sources of revelation: apostolic successors and the Church (namely the Catholic Church). As is sometimes my practice, I've decided to use his comments as an opportunity to elaborate out my previous post.

First, let me point out an amusing irony. To teak421's credit, he cited a few verses to bolster his argument but how ironic it is to attempt to use the Bible as evidence that the Bible is not the final authority on doctrine! If the apostles are the final authority on doctrine, then why doesn't he cite them? But let's look at those passages he mentioned:

One verse he cited is Ephesians 2:19-22 which says the house of God is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Of course this passage is true but in what sense was this building accomplished? I believe the answer is obvious: God used the prophets (of the OT) and the apostles (of the NT) to speak His words before there was a written revelation (see my post here). It is a great error to make the apostles more than what they are. Consider what the apostles said about themselves.

In 1 Corinthians 1:12-14, Paul says, “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” Paul is clear to point out that his teaching is not ultimately his own but rather is Christ's – it's Christ's crucifixion, His death, His baptism, His resurrection, His everything. It's not about Paul or the apostles; it's about Christ's work and teachings. And only a few verses later (v.19), we see another interesting practice employed by Paul where he cites Scripture to back up what he is saying. Which brings me to Acts 17:11, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Luke commends the noble Bereans for comparing Paul's teaching with Scripture to judge if what he says is true. The clear implication is that Scripture trumps the apostles!

Peter also recognized that no one but Christ had the words of life. He stated such overtly in John 6:68. When Jesus asked the apostles if they too would leave Him, Peter answered, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” So I ask, who has the words of life – the apostles or Jesus?

But regardless of the role of the apostles, I have blogged before that I do not believe there are any more apostles. God has given us the cannon of Scripture and there is no more revelation. If anyone claims to have revelation from God that contradicts Scripture, he is a false prophet. Scripture is the final authority.

Now, to teak421's second point: the Catholic church. The claim of the Church is that there is an apostolic succession within the Church beginning with Peter as the first pope. I immediately disqualify that claim based on my arguments above. However, there are still the traditions of the Church that are supposed to have begun from the time of the apostles. Do these traditions carry equal weight with the Bible? The answer is a simple no. Jesus Himself rejected such an idea. I refer you to Matthew 15:3-6 where Jesus rebuked the Pharisees saying, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.”

I'm not sure how much more clear this could be. Jesus told the Pharisees that when traditions conflict with the written word of God, the Scriptures win.

In his comments, teak421 said, “Who decides who is right? You? Me? or a guy name Steve?” I would say, “Who, indeed! Me, teak421, the pope, the Catholic Church, or the Bible?” I still say the Bible.

Further reading:

The Five Solas Part 1: Sola Scriptura

The Five Solas Part 2: Sola Fide

The Five Solas Part 3: Sola Gratia

The Five Solas Part 4: Solus Christus

The Five Solas Part 5: Soli Deo Gloria

Remembering the Great Presidents

Once upon a time, the US honored the presidency of two great Americans - George Washington and Abraham Lincoln - by making the days of their births a national holiday. Conincidentally, their birthdays fell near each other and so, for the sake of economy, we forwent two holidays and combined them into one holiday called, President's Day. As we reflect on these great men, one might ask what made them so great. I suggest that much of their character was shaped by their Christian faith.

Today, many people hold as sacred a bizarre notion there should be a “separation of church and state.” Such a idea seems to have been alien to the great Presidents of the past. They often spoke openly and boldy about their faith.

Concerning the Bible, I would direct you to this quote made by Lincoln:

“In regards to this great Book (the Bible), I have but to say it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are found portrayed in it.”

However, in terms of Christian advocacy, Lincoln's quote (correct though it may be) pales when compared to the following quote Washington made in his first inaugrual address:

“Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.”

How sad it is that the current President, while pandering... I mean, “while speaking,” to a group of Muslim nation leaders, would firmly disavow that America is a Christian nation. I would remind President Obama of Washington's stern warning made in his farewell address:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Happy President's Day. God bless America!!

Who was St. Valentine?

On February 14, couples all over exchange gifts, send cards, and celebrate their love for each other. Few of them stop to consider why they practice the tradition. If asked why, many people might answer that Valentine's Day was invented by Hallmark to sell more cards. Like many other holidays celebrated in the US, Valentine's Day is also a Christian tradition.

Very little is now known about the patron saint of this day. Its unanimously agreed that he was a Christian martyr but the exact circumstances of his sufferings are shrouded in mystery. There are at least two competing traditions that are enduring:

One legend holds that he was a priest during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius II. At that time, Claudius, believing that single men made better soldiers than married men, had outlawed marriage for all young men. In defiance of the law, Valentine continued to perform marriages for young couples in secret. He was eventually found out and executed for his crimes.

Another tradition is that he was arrested for giving aid to Christians who were being persecuted under Claudius. In jail, he was tortured and told to recant his faith which he refused to do. Finally, he was sentenced to death. During his time in prison, he met and fell in love with the jailer's daughter. Before his execution, he sent her a farewell letter which he signed, “From your Valentine.”

On February 14, c. 269, St. Valentine was beheaded. In 496, Pope Gelasius marked the date as a celebration of his martyrdom.

Marriage is an institution founded by God (Genesis 2:19,21-24). It is the earthly symbol of the Christ's relationship with His church (Revelation 19:7-9). Love is the first fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). So, as we celebrate this day, let us remember the Author of love.

Happy Valentine's Day!!

What is "Presuppositional Apologetics"?

Answers in Genesis has a brief and precise article that wonderfully explains presuppositional apologetics. You can read the original article by clicking here but I have reprinted it below:

When explaining their beliefs, Christians often feel they must first prove the Bible or prove the existence of God. This approach reveals that they do not yet understand the Bible’s approach, known as presuppositional apologetics.

Presuppositions are simply beliefs that everyone has that affect how they think, view the world, interpret evidence, and read the Bible. Apologetics is a reasoned defense of beliefs. So presuppositional apologetics is a reasoned defense of Christian beliefs based on recognizing our presuppositions.

For instance, my presupposition is that God exists and He has given us His Word (the Bible) that is absolute truth. So I use the Bible as the basis for how to think, interpret evidence, explain the world around me, and read the Bible. An atheist’s presupposition will most likely be that there is no God and that truth is relative. An atheist believes that man decides truth, and so he thinks, interprets evidence, and views the world and Bible accordingly.

If we start off believing the Bible is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Psalm 18:30; Proverbs 30:5), then we use it as our axiom. An axiom (often used in logic) is a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed. The Bible takes this stance, assuming God’s existence to be true and not something to be proven (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14; Revelation 1:8).

The battle is not over evidence but over philosophical starting points: presuppositions. As Christians, we should never put away our axiom—the Bible—when discussing truth with others. This would be like a soldier going into battle without any armor or weapons. Asking a Christian to abandon the Bible for the sake of discussion is like asking an atheist to prove there is no God by using only the Bible. You would be asking the atheist to give up his axiom.

The prophets and the apostles never tried to prove God’s existence. They started by assuming God’s existence, and they always reasoned from Scripture (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19). By using the Word of God, we are actually pitting the unbeliever against God and not our own fallible thinking.

Mark 1:40-45: Spreading the Word

“And a leper came to Jesus, beseeching Him and falling on his knees before Him, and saying, "If You are willing, You can make me clean." Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, "I am willing; be cleansed." Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. And He sternly warned him and immediately sent him away, and He said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them." But he went out and began to proclaim it freely and to spread the news around, to such an extent that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city, but stayed out in unpopulated areas; and they were coming to Him from everywhere.” Mark 1:40-45, NASB

Jesus often admonished those who received the benefit of His miracles that they should not say anything to anyone about it. I’ve noticed, though, that many of those people disregarded His request and, instead, told everyone what Jesus had done for them.

The leper discussed in Mark 1 was especially zealous about spreading the news. The KJV says he “blazed abroad” what Jesus had done for him. The effect of his witness was such that people flocked to see Jesus – so much so that Jesus could no longer enter any city. Now that is getting the word out!

There are many accounts in the gospels similar to this. The man named Legion (Mark 5), after being delivered from demon possession, begged Jesus that he might stay with Him. Instead, Jesus told him to return home and tell his people about the mercy Jesus had shown him. The man certainly did that – the Bible says he spread the news in the Decapolis (a region of 10 cities) so much so that EVERYONE in the area marveled (Mark 5:20).

Sometimes I’m disappointed with many Christians of today compared to the Christians of Jesus' day. When Jesus touched the lives of the first century saints, it seems they couldn’t wait to tell everyone about what Jesus did for them. Christians today don’t seem interested in telling anyone. Why is that?

I think sometimes we make light of what Jesus has done for us. While it’s true that we might not have been cured of leprosy or delivered from demons, does that mean Jesus hasn’t done a great miracle in our lives? When we accepted Christ, did He not forgive us for a lifetime of sin and give each one of us eternal life? Aren’t we joint heirs with Him (Romans 8:17)?

It is my prayer that every Christian (myself included) would be like the leper in Mark 1. Jesus has done a marvelous thing for us. Let’s tell everyone about the great things that Jesus has done for us so that people might come to Him from everywhere!

What I know about Ptolemy I learned in School

Claudius Ptolemaeus was a Greek astronomer from the 2^nd century AD. He was extremely influential and created a geocentric model of the universe that endured for centuries. The model was named for him – the Ptolemaic model. It was not until time of Galileo that scientific consensus finally turned away from his earth-centered model of the universe replaced it with a heliocentric model. How do I know this? I learned about Ptolemy in school.

For years there has been a controversy around teaching special creation in school. A majority of people favor presenting creation along side evolution in science classrooms (as seen here). Critics scoff saying any discussion of creation belongs in a religion class and not in a science class. Of course, they are being disingenuous because they really don’t want creation – or anything religious – discussed in public schools at all.

But something occurred to me recently: if the Ptolemaic model is still being discussed in public classrooms (as something people once believed), what is really the harm of discussing the creation model as something ½ of the US population still believe? If the publishers of the textbooks believe there is value in including a debunked, geocentric cosmology in their texts, then why can’t there be any discussion at all about a creation cosmology?

I’m asking in earnest: what is the difference? The Ptolemaic model has been discarded centuries ago yet it is still included in science books. The only reason it’s given any press is because it was such a popular model and it endured for 1,000 years. Well, creation cosmology is still believed by approximately ½ of the US population and it has endured far longer than Ptolemy. Doesn’t it deserve at least as much attention as Ptolemy?

There is one obvious difference between teaching about Ptolemy and teaching about creation: it’s not likely that anyone will ever take an earth-centered model of the universe seriously. However, in a recent study, it was learned that when students are taught about creation AND evolution, they tend to choose creation. From the article:

“University students whose high school biology class covered creationism – in some cases alongside evolution – were more likely to accept creationist views upon entering college, the study found. Those whose high school biology teachers taught evolution but not creationism were more likely to accept evolution in college.”

Isn't that interesting? When students are presented both views in high school, they tend to believe creation. When students are presented only evolution in high school, they tend to believe evolution.

I see what's going on: teach kids evolution - don't let them hear anything to the contrary - and they're more likely to believe evolution. There's a word for this phenomenon - it's called "brainwashing."

It’s OK to talk about Ptolemy – it’s not OK to talk about God.