Happy Easter

“Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:38-40)

It is not possible to overstate the importance of the Resurrection. It is the lynchpin of Christianity. Without the Resurrection, there is no Christian faith. The Apostle Paul said, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Cor 15:14). 

The significance of the Resurrection is two-fold.  First, the Resurrection secures our hope for eternal life. Christ promised that those who believe in Him will never perish (John 3:16). Yet what good is His promise if Jesus Himself is dead in the ground? If Jesus died and did not rise, then His promise for our eternal life died with Him.

But the real significance of the Resurrection goes far beyond our hope in the afterlife. When the Pharisees and scribes questioned the authority of Jesus, they asked for a sign so that Jesus could prove He spoke in the name of God. Jesus promised them only one sign – the Resurrection! Everything that Jesus said and did is validated by His Resurrection: Every promise He made, every commandment He gave, and every doctrine that He taught us were all proven true on that first Easter Sunday.

Some people say that Jesus was a great teacher. Yet if He did not rise, everything He taught would be a lie.

Some people say that Jesus was a prophet. Yet if He did not rise from the dead, then His prophecies were all false.

Some people say that He is the Son of God. Yet if He did not rise from the dead, then He was just a man like every other.

Jesus was a teacher, and a prophet, and the Son of God only because He rose from the dead. To believe in Jesus, you must believe He rose from the dead for there is no salvation in a dead Jesus. The Bible tells us that a belief in the Resurrection prerequisite to salvation.

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9).

The Apostle Thomas said that unless he saw the risen Jesus himself, he would not believe in His Resurrection. When Jesus appeared to Thomas, He said, “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing” (John 20:27).

The words of Jesus are my prayer this Easter. Consider the Risen Savior. Know that everything He said was proven true by His Resurrection. Be not faithless, but believing!

Happy Easter

Jesus Before the Bema Seat

I posted the following a couple of years ago.  It's one of my favorite posts even if it didn't get many views.  This Easter season, I thought I'd post it again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I very occasionally teach an adult Sunday school class. Recently, I taught a lesson on the Judgment of Believers – often called the “Bema Seat Judgment.” This is when believers stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and have their works judged. The term “judgment seat” comes from the Greek word, “βήμα” (bēma). While I was preparing for the lesson, I did a search to see how many times the word βήμα is used in the Bible. It is used 10 times (in various forms): 8 times in the epistles and twice in the gospels. The two times it is used in the gospels (Matthew 27:19 and John 19:13), it refers to the same event which is the judgment of Jesus before Pilate.

Here is the account from Matthew in context (Matthew 27:19-24):

When he [Pilate] was set down on the judgment seat [βήμα], his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

I thought it was interesting that Jesus Himself was once judged before the Bema seat. We know the outcome, of course; He was ultimately sentenced to be crucified. However, note carefully what Pilate said about Him. He said that Jesus was a “just person” who had done no evil. In John 19:6, Pilate is quoted as saying, “I find no fault in him at all.” The accusation board Pilate wrote to be placed over Jesus said only that He was “King of the Jews.” Was that the worst that could be said about Him? Pilate might as well have written, “Savior of the world.”

It's significant that Jesus was found to be without guilt. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). If Jesus had been guilty of any sin, He would have been deserving of death. If He had been deserving of death, He could not have given His life as the payment for our sins since He would have had to die for His own sins. But He was innocent. He was the lamb without blemish – the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Before we stand before the Judgment Seat, it was necessary for Him to stand before the judgment seat. It is by His obedience that we are made righteous (Romans 5:19). Praise God!!

Vestigial Organs? It's There for a Reason!

A while back, I wrote about LiveScience's, “Top 7 Theories (that is “Guesses”) on the Origin of Life.” One thing I didn't say about LiveScience, which is probably so obvious it doesn't need pointing out, is that the folks there are rapidly pro-evolution. They've posted several lists that not only trumpet evolution but also a few that ridicule creation. One of their pro-evolution lists is the Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs). You can read the list if you'd like. I'm going to reference it a couple of times but I'm not going to critique each example they offer. Instead, I'd like to discuss the idea of vestigial organs in general.

Identifying and promoting so called “vestigial” organs is a favorite practice of evolutionists. It's sometimes seen as a sort of “silver bullet” proof of their theory because they feel evolution explains these structures so well. From the intro to the LiveScience article we read, “From common descent, it is predicted that organisms should retain these vestigial organs as structural remnants of lost functions. It is only because of macro-evolutionary theory, or evolution that takes place over very long periods of time, that these vestiges appear.” Really? It's only because of macro-evolution? I beg to differ.

Let me say that vestigial organs do fit well within the evolutionary model. However, a successful prediction is not necessarily evidence for (and certainly not proof of) any theory. Let me give you an example: I believe that, if I ate an entire pizza, that I would be full. I am full. Therefore, I ate an entire pizza! Certainly, I could have eaten an entire pizza but then again, I could also be full for another reason. Likewise, even if evolution gives a plausible explanation for the existence of “vestigial” organs, it's not necessarily “proof” of the theory. There could be another cause for these organs. Indeed there is. I believe creation explains these same structures equally well.

An organ is usually considered to be vestigial if it cannot be determined to have a function. This begs the question of how we can determine that an organ has no function. One way suggested by evolutionists is if the organ can be removed without any deleterious effect to its host. This was suggested in the LiveScience article when discussing the appendix: “Any secondary function that the appendix might perform certainly is not missed in those who had it removed.” However, this is not a rigorous test. I could remove the little finger of my left hand and continue to live a long, happy, healthy, and productive life. No one would argue that my little finger has no function so the simple fact that I can prosper without it is not evidence that it has no function.

Since we see that removing an organ doesn't establish its “functionlessness,” something like the appendix cannot be said to be “useless” on the flimsy grounds that it can be removed with seemingly little consequence. I would, however, direct your attention to a Scientific American which says, “For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults.” The benefits of the appendix are too numerous to include in this post so you can read the article for yourself. But we see that, according to Scientific American, the appendix actually serves an “important role.” One might even ask why it continues to be called vestigial.

Discovering function for the appendix is no surprise to a creationist. After all, it is a product of design. Dozens of other organs once thought to be “useless” have also been identified as functioning. This has happened so frequently that I'm suspicious of any claim that says a certain structure serves no purpose. Such a claim faces the logical absurdity of proving a negative. It is quite possible, even likely, that the purpose of such organs merely hasn't been identified and needs further research.

Regardless of all that, let's assume for a moment that there is some structure which has somehow been determined to truly have no function. Even that is not conclusive evidence for evolution. As per my pizza-eating example where there are other reasons I might be full, there are also other reasons why an organ might be functionless. According to the creation model, God made Adam with a perfectly designed body. Since the Curse, each generation has suffered more and more genetic mutation so that, over time, a once functioning organ could have completely lost all function. So functionless organs aren't a worry to creationists at all.

Now the test of uselessness is not the most technical criterion used by evolutionists to identify vestigial organs. Many prefer to say that structure is vestigial if it no longer serves its original purpose. Thus a structure like a panda's thumb, even though it has function, can still be called vestigial because it is believed to have once been a bone from the wrist. My complaint with this definition is that, again, it is not very rigorous. In a sense, it could be applied to any structure. After all, according to evolution, wings are simply modified forelimbs. Feathers are simply modified scales. Legs are simply modified fish fins. Remember that one definition of evolution is “descent with modification.” Every structure has been modified from something else so literally any organ could be called vestigial. The final word in labeling a functioning organ as vestigial is the largely arbitrary (and certainly subjective) opinion of how well the structure is adapted to its new use. Wings are considered very successful adaptations of forelimbs; pandas' thumbs are considered poor adaptations of wrist bones (though pandas use them very adeptly). Thus wings are not called vestigial and pandas' thumbs are.

It's more than a minor annoyance that evolutionists are so quick to label an organ as vestigial. Why do they do this? I suggest that it's possible that, since evolution virtually demands there be vestigial organs, evolutionists are prone to pin the label of “vestigial” on any structure whose function is not immediately obvious. Their quack theory has even thwarted medicine, since, for so long a time, many researchers have not even bothered to look for the purpose of organs that have been too quickly identified as useless. I think medicine would greatly benefit if we began with the premise that it's there for a reason!

The Mob is on the Move

I blogged before that I was reading Ann Coulter's book, Demonic. I said then how Coulter is one of my favorite authors and that her books always nail their subjects so I won't rehash all that here. However, I will say that I believe I have learned more from reading her last book than any of her others. Liberals aren't able to reason. OK, I knew that already but now I see how liberals are driven by a mob mentality. They actually think in sound bites: “Bush lied – people died” or “No justice – no peace.” These short slogans are usually all they know about some particular issue. Liberals are led by emotion and liberal leaders spout these slogans to whip the mobs into a frenzy. Liberals don't reason – they riot.

Here's a case in point: Some people have compared the Occupy movement with the Tea Party. I guess if you overlook the fact that the Occupy movement was accompanied by defecating outdoors, mountains of trash, vandalism, rapes, assaults, and arrests, then one might see a similarity between the two groups. Frankly, I don't see any similarity between a peaceful, political rally and a riotous crowd taking over a park and engaging in lawlessness for weeks on end. One is an assembly of protestors and the other is a mob.

We're seeing another mob uprising in Florida after the fatal shooting of 17-year-old, Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman. When I first heard about the story, it was reported that Zimmerman, a white man, saw a young, black teenager in a hoodie and thought it was suspicious. Zimmerman called 911, then followed Martin and confronted him. A scuffle ensued and Martin was shot. At first hearing, it sounded like a case of an over-zealous, right-wing, gun-toting white vigilante profiling a young man who's only “crime” was shopping while being black.

Fortunately, I am able to think rationally. Over the last few days, some other details have emerged that paint a different picture. Zimmerman's father gave us this account (as told to him by Zimmerman):

“George was going to the store, and he saw someone in his community that he did not recognize as living there. Because there had been a lot of break-ins in the area, he thought that was suspicious that someone would not be walking on the street or the sidewalk, but they'd be walking right behind the townhomes.” ¶Robert Zimmerman said that his son, George Zimmerman, 28, then called a non-emergency number to report this stranger. He lost sight of the teen as he looked for an address to report to police. ¶“It’s my understanding that at that point Trayvon Martin walked up to him, asked him, ‘Do you have a – beep – problem?’ George said ‘No, I don’t have a problem’.” ¶The elder Zimmerman said that as his son started to reach for his cell phone, Martin, 17, punched him in the nose, knocking the larger man to the pavement. ¶“Trayvon Martin got on top of him and just started beating him, in the face, in his nose, hitting his head on the concrete,” Robert Zimmerman said. ¶That’s when Martin spotted George Zimmerman’s gun, Robert Zimmerman said. ¶“Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of, ‘You're gonna die now,’ or ‘You're gonna die tonight,’ something to that effect.” ¶Zimmerman, a self-declared neighborhood watch volunteer, fatally shot Martin on Feb. 26 in what he called an act of self-defense.¹

Certainly the encounter as described by the father gives a different impression of how the events transpired. The funny thing is, Zimmerman doesn't even match the portrayal of him given by the alternative media: He's not white, he's Hispanic. He's not right-wing but is a registered Democrat who even volunteered tutoring black kids on the weekend.

Now, I'm not saying the father's account is necessarily the true version but I know that we shouldn't rush to judgment. There's needs to be an investigation and hopefully the truth will come out. Of course, liberals have rushed to judgment.

All liberals can hear is that a white man shot an unarmed, black teenager. I keep hearing the “pithy” description that Martin was “armed only with a box of Skittles.” The outraged Al Sharpton is shouting, “Arrest Zimmerman now!” The New Black Panthers have issued a bounty on Zimmerman, “Dead or Alive.” And yes, the “No justice – no peace” mantra is starting to echo.

The mob is on the move. Liberal leaders are doing nothing about it. No, I take that back; they're doing plenty about it. They're fanning the flames. Rep. Bobby Rush wore a hoodie on the House floor saying that “racial profiling has got to stop.” I don't know that racial profiling has even occurred. President Obama, who, after the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, asked that we tone down hateful rhetoric, has not said one word about the Black Panthers' bounty. However, he did lament that, if he had a son, he would “look like” Trayvon Martin. There are no calls from any Democrat, that I've heard, saying that we need to let the investigation take its course. Actually, I haven't heard too many Republicans speaking out about this either. I suspect many are kowtowing out of fear of the mob.

Liberal leaders like the mob. They use the mob to advance their agenda. They'll sit on their hands while the mob stews or even invent new slogans to feed to the mob. If a Rodney-King-like riot occurs (which is a real possibility), they'll feign condemnation in one breath, and in the next, will excuse the rioters by saying it's the result of their victimization. They won't seek justice against the rioters but will call for more sensitivity for the plight of blacks.

I hope I'm wrong and it doesn't go that far but I fear that it might. That's how the mob gets things done.