paulmoreland.com » Lowell E. McCoy

It was a miracle!

paul — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:19:44 +0000

In popular usage today, the word miracle has been so diluted and drained of its true meaning that it is hardly recognizable. It has lost its Biblical meaning and purpose.

We receive an attractive publication from a religious group called “Zion’s Hope.” It was apparently sent to us with the hope that we would subscribe and support their work. Strong appeals are made for financial support. In the current issue, explanation was given as to how adjustments had been made in their budget. “Miraculously,” it was said, their needs had been met.

Several years ago, it was common for congregations, including some congregations designated Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, to have “miracle” offerings. They would set a huge goal several weeks ahead, giving time for people to accumulate their offering. They could be stocks, bonds, insurance cash values, jewelry, used automobiles, etc., in addition to money. On the miracle day they would rejoice and praise God in some way for the accomplished miracle.

More recently, the emergency landing of the airplane on the Hudson River, without one loss of life, was hailed to be an astounding miracle. It was, indeed, an amazing display of skill and experience, but does not classify as a miracle.

A pretty good brief definition of a miracle is an instantaneous act, brought about by divine power and contrary to the laws of nature as we know them. Anything planned by a group, over a period of time, cannot be classed as a miracle, regardless of how large, exciting, amazing or productive it may be.

Although compassion was a factor in some miracles (Matt. 14:14; 15:32; 20:34), the primary purpose was for confirmation of truth, in both the Old and New Testaments (1 Kings 17:24; Matt. 9:6-7; Mark 2:10-11; John 4:48; Acts 14:3; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:2-4). The word “signs,” in the phrase, “signs and wonders,” frequently used in the New Testament, refers to the confirmation miracles give to truth.

All truth, pertaining to the whole scheme of redemption, was given to the apostles. It was, therefore, completed by the end of the first century A.D. This is verified by what Jesus promised the apostles the night before his crucifixion. “These things I have spoken unto you, while yet abiding with you. But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you” (John 14:25-26). “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come” (John 16:12-13).

The apostles could, and did, lay their hands on other men to impart miraculous powers to them for establishing and guiding new congregations. But these men could not pass the powers on to others. The terms of pardon or salvation had been revealed, resulting in the church’s being established,?under the direction of the Holy Spirit inspired apostles, so there was no more need for men to have miraculous powers. We can say, scripturally, that no humans have had such powers since those early years. Any such claims to have performed miracles since then are not correct. The Bible has been abundantly confirmed as being accurate and adequate for giving us all the information we need about becoming Christians and living the Christian life for eternal salvation. No further confirmation is needed!

The Bible is very clear that miracles were going to cease. The Corinthians were allowing the miraculous gifts, distributed to various ones for the good or benefit of the whole congregation, to divide them (1 Cor. 12:7). Paul said he would show them a more excellent way (v. 31b). This is what prompted what is now called the “love chapter” of the Bible, chapter 13. He points out that miraculous gifts, without love, are useless, actually destructive! “Love never fails,” he says, “but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come (the completed N.T.) that which is in part shall be done away.” Before that, the apostles had to write the various letters to individual or groups of congregations to deal with their respective questions and issues. After the New Testament was completed, all congregations everywhere, who had the full word of God, would have all the revelation God gave. Verses 11-13, do not refer to what it will be like in heaven, but to what it would be like when the full word of God came. What we need today is not a continuation of miracles, but a more widespread knowledge of the Bible and humble obedience to it. This would work wonders!

–Lowell E. McCoy

Candidate Disqualified

paul — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:50:12 +0000

In his campaign ads, in running for the U.S. Senate, Bill Halter is bragging about how much college tuition money the lottery is bringing in for scholarships. His argument is that he has been able to do all this without rasing taxes. This is a ruse. It certainly does not qualify him to represent us in the Congress. He either doesn’t realize what he is saying or he is purposely deceptive. In either case he is not qualified! The implication is that he has raised all this money with no cost to anyone! Wrong!!

Neither does a state government nor the federal government have any money except what it receives from the citizens in taxes and fees. It has no way of making money if it stays within the bounds of its constitution. Operating a lottery costs a lot of money, but there is no profit to cover the cost, so it has to come out of the participants’ money. The only money available is the losers’ money, which includes that of nearly all the participants. This means all that money deprives the participants and also keeps it out of the market place where they would receive goods and services, which, in turn, would improve the economy and help keep them off welfare or out of poverty. It would also keep some of the losers’ money out of investments which would bring them profits, increasing their own assets, and further help the economy. Halter’s claim is very faulty and wrong! It is scary and very unwise for anyone, with this kind of twisted reasoning, to be put in the senate to handle our tax money. It would be interesting to know if he participates in the lottery. If he does, that further proves his disqualification to be a senator or any other public official! – Lowell E. McCoy

Constitutional Authority?

paul — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:13:11 +0000

In calls to the Washington offices of senators Lincoln, Pryor and representative Snyder, I asked, in each instance, where they found any authority in the Constitution for even being concerned, politically speaking, about the citizens’ health care, let alone getting the government involved in paying for it. The young man in Lincoln’s office explained that she represents the people so she needs to do what they want. I asked him if he believes the Constitution is to be our only guide and he said he does. I pointed out that he was contradicting himself and that the Constitution has nothing to say about getting involved in anything pertaining to our personal affairs. I said, “How old are you, if I may ask?” He said 23. I told him he was too young to personally know what had happened through the years. I asked him if he wanted the government to tell him what he could or couldn’t do about his health care or any other personal affairs. He agreed he didn’t. We talked 15 or 20 minutes and he said it was the most interesting conversation he’d had all day.

My next call was to Senator Pryor’s office and had a similar conversation with the girl there. She does not understand the principles involved in national health care or any other government involvement in private citizens’ affairs, either.

In all three calls I asked if he or she would explain my question to the official and request that a personal letter be sent to me with the answer. Each one agreed to do that, so we’ll see what happens. I have my doubts that it will happen.

The young man in Vic Snyder’s office gave the following explanation. He said the Constitution says the government is to “provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.” True enough! But, he went on to explain that the Supreme Court had determined the word “promote” could mean “provide.” (Incidentally, some months ago, a young woman in his office said the words mean the same.) When I questioned that, he said I could ask any attorney. I told him I didn’t need to do that. The “Court” had made no such decision. If they had, they would have been sorely rebuked! I remarked that the two words do not mean the same; they are not even synonyms. If they mean the same, why did the framers use two different words? Why didn’t they simply write, “provide for the common defense and the general welfare?” Furthermore, if they mean the same, why couldn’t the two words have been reversed?

He went on to make the liberals’ uniform arguments of instances in which families either had no health insurance or it was too insufficient to fully meet the needs, so the government ought to help them. That is an emotional argument, rather than rational, based upon the Constitution. I asked him if he had a college education to prepare himself to be productive and care for himself.. He does. I further asked him if he liked for the government to take money from him to give to those who had not prepared themselves. He skirted around my question, replying that we all pay taxes. I asked him specifically, how he felt about teen girls, who become pregnant, by other teens, who have no financial capabilities, so they abandon them, leaving them to the mercy of society in general. Does that bother him to have some of his tax money used to cover other people’s irresponsibilities? He said the government has set a certain poverty level. My reply was, “Where does the Constitution give any authority for that?” It was clear that he is a very mixed up man, ill equipped for rational thought, but he is in a representative’s office, presuming to speak on his behalf. This is not surprising, seeing that President Obama campaigned with this view and a very high percentage of others in the government espouse it. One of our largest expenditures is in support of this concept. It is self-destructive, compounding lethargy, laziness and slothfulness. We see this in abundance in the public schools every day! It is weighing heavily on our nation!

Where is the Constitutional authority for the government to take over private enterprises, establish competitive enterprises, tell insurance companies whom they have to insure, regardless of their risk factors, for the same premiums and force younger people to buy insurance or be fined? All these things are not just unConstitutional, they are anti-Constitutional!

The government has no right to be involved in any citizen’s personal affairs at all! Period!

I finally asked the young man in Mr. Snyder’s office if he would make my question known to him, along with my request for a personal explanation to me. I am not speaking for anyone else, but I suspect most of you, if not all, are like-minded. Whether or not I get a reply from one or all three, I will make a report in an essay. To a large extent, I believe we have already lost control of our nation. It is imperative for us to become assertive in our efforts to recover it. Mary Lou and I are extremely concerned about our family and yours as well. –Lowell E. McCoy

Judged by our words!

paul — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:52:11 +0000

Jesus said, “For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shalt be condemned” (Matt. 12:37). Swearing and bad language have become extremely pervasive among all ages of people today. Young people in our public schools, of both genders, take the name of God in vain in their ordinary conversations. When their attention is called to it they do not even understand what they have done. They simply dismiss any attempted explanation and continue doing it. They are doing what they hear adults doing in their homes and almost everywhere else.

On Nov. 19^th, Dick Morris spoke in front of the Arkansas Capital building and had a good message. I can’t remember his exact words, but in his message he spoke about God in connection with the affairs of our government. Shortly, he used the words damn and hell in a way that certainly was not in harmony with their Biblical usage. It was not surprising, but I thought, why did he think he had to do that? Did that make it more forceful? Hardly! Invoking God’s name in something and then using those terms as he did is a serious and inexcusable contradiction. It will not escape God’s attention and judgment. No one can deny that in light of what the Bible says.

In spite of what you may think of Rush Limbaugh, he defends the existence of God and the Bible as his word, believes in the creation account, the deity of Jesus and his resurrection, strongly opposes abortion, etc., yet his speech is constantly peppered with the same kind of misuse of Bible terms. He pays no attention to the church. It is a terrible contradiction in behavior and a reproach to God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Sean Hannity makes repeated claims to being a dedicated Christian. He often speaks of the supposed influence it has on his life and on his efforts to train his children. He freely speaks of things the Bible says, with the idea that it ought to influence our thinking Yet, he too, occasionally displays a contradiction in his behavior. These are well known people, illustrating the point I’m making.

The opening verse of this essay is a startling, eye-catching statement! It is preceded by Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ charge that he was casting out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons. “You brood of vipers. How can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. The good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil. And I say unto you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment.” In Eph. 4:29, we read, “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear.” Paul said, in Col. 4:6, “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person.” James has a lengthy warning about the use of the tongue. “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment. For we all stumble in many ways. If any one does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well. Now if we put the bits into the horses’ mouths so that they may obey us, we direct their entire body as well. Behold, the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, are still directed by a very small rudder, wherever the inclination of the pilot desires. So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. Behold, how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell. For every species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed, and has been tamed by the human race. But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father; and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Neither can salt water produce fresh.” This passage not only condemns swearing and foul language, but a whole lot of other wrong and hurtful language! It has been said, “Swearing is the sincere effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully! Swearing and all other objectionable language are the evidence of an evil mind and a vocabulary that is far too limited! Bad language of any kind does not display elevated character, education, self-respect or respect for others. It certainly does not show respect for God and the Lord Jesus Christ and to have any hope for their approval of it is futile.

– Lowell E. McCoy

Entitlements? – by Lowell E. McCoy

paul — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:08:01 +0000

The following is an article written by Lowell E. McCoy of Arkansas. From time to time we will be including material from brother McCoy, this is (hopefully) just the first installment.

Entitlements?

An online opinion letter, Feb. 12, written by a man named Ken, expresses a prevailing view of people in our country. It shows how far we have moved from our Constitution and the word of God, as well as experience and common sense.
The pertinent part of the letter is as follows: “There is a nagging question, which is: what good have the tax cuts and small government, which conservatives talk about , done for the majority of Americans; like people who vote? If it has done some good, how has that good progressed to masses of homeless, significant losses in the middle class, the current housing crisis and the current economic crisis? Every citizen of every country, particularly the economic leader of the world, should be entitled to health care, education and affordable housing. That is the reason why you have a society. In order that collective resources, properly managed, can provide the best quality of life those resources can afford. Anything less is unthinkable, unethical and a disgrace. It is also anarchy and a fervent (sic) ground for groups like Al Qaeda.”

There are so many fallacies in this that we can respond to only a few. These are disastrous to all of us, including Ken and his kin. No such society can prosper or even exist indefinitely as a free people. What Ken is saying is pure socialism, diametrically opposed to our capitalistic system.

Tax cuts for those who pay taxes contribute to the well-being of all responsible citizens. They stimulate investment and production. Investments increase capital for more new housing, money for those who need loans for purchasing houses, starting businesses and a host of other things which bolster the economy. Production increases the job market, providing more jobs. Products are produced for sale to produce profits, thus building up a better life for all who are willing to prepare themselves to participate in the process. It is not giving anyone anything, but making it possible for people to take care of themselves. This, in turn, gives people self-respect, a sense of accomplishment and motivation for self-improvement and advancement. Cutting taxes does not involve giving the savings directly to those with less money, but it helps enable them to better take care of themselves and that is the proper result which benefits everyone – all of society. Those who do not get tax cuts ought to be thankful for those who do.

There is one more thing about a high percentage of those who are benefitted by tax cuts or lowering of tax rates. They are able to contribute for benefits to those who cannot work and have legitimate needs. According to statistics, Americans are the most charitable people in the world. So, Ken is very mistaken that tax cuts have not helped him and thousands of others, either directly or indirectly.

All of us who are at least age 80 have seen the beginning and progress of socialism in our country. That means government intervention in the citizens’ personal well-being and responsibilities. It has been tried in nation after nation and is always found wanting. It cannot work because it always stymies personal initiative and sense of accomplishment and engenders dependence on the government. It is a surrendering of more and more freedom for government control.

The fact is, that citizens are not entitled to any personal benefit from our government. Why are only health care, education and affordable housing listed as entitlements? Why not demand allowances for automobiles, food, clothing, utilities, household goods, entertainment, vacation time, personal hygiene items, etc?

The Bible teaches that people are to have personal property and assets of various kinds, obtained by their own initiatives and abilities. The Bible says much in both the Old and New Testaments about helping those who are truly poor and needy. Many people of great faith, in the Bible record, were wealthy and they used it for the Lord (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37). Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of property and lied about what part they gave to the Lord. Not giving it all was not the problem, but lying about the amount was the problem. Peter explained this in Acts 5:4. Paul says, “He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need” (Eph. 4: 28). The parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30) shows that God expects us to use our money for gain. Paul was speaking of those who would not work and he said, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: If a man will not work, he shall not eat” (2 Thes. 3:10, in the context of 6-15).

From years of experience, it is clear that a very high percentage of those Ken calls the homeless do not have to be homeless. They have not prepared themselves to work; messed up their lives with wasted living; wasted money or some other negligence. Tax cuts have no negative effect upon them. Ken and others are very mistaken.

-Lowell E. McCoy