text:
Before beginning, to start getting in the right frame of mind, check out this completely idiotic Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) election.
In what I call the random elections model,
(which is a rather crude probability model,
but in my experience the results you get from it are
surprisingly valid in real life)...
the two most common IRV pathologies seem to be "favorite betrayal" and "participation" failures.
In Favorite Betrayal [probably the most important-in-practice kind of spoiler], it is unstrategic to vote for your true favorite top. In this model that happens 19.6% of the time (for at least one kind of voters) in 3-candidate elections. There is a nice exact formula for 19.6% namely arccot(√2)/π.
Also for strategic voters acting on imperfect information, it happens, arguably, 100% of the time! That argument is based on the theory that, if a voter does not know whether the IRV-spoiler scenario will arise (but figures it will with probability ≈19.6%) but does know that historically with IRV, one of the two major-party candidates wins with probability>99.7%, said voter would probably consider it rational to vote one major top, other major bottom, even if that voter honestly prefers a third-party candidate. If voters do this, then the 19.6% IRV-spoiler risk is avoided, but at the cost of sacrificing the <0.3% chance to elect the good third-party candidate. This sacrifice seems worth the benefit, on average. But it is a theorem that if >75% of voters adopt this top+bottom "naive exaggeration" voting strategy, then it becomes mathematically impossible for a third-party candidate to win... thus amplifying the pathology in a vicious cycle...
However, this "100%" theory has been (justifiably) attacked by Jameson Quinn as resting on a probabilistic delusion. E.g. if majors are winning with probability>99.7% (which they have, historically, in the Australian House in recent decades) that means the "random election model" and the 19.6% spoiler probability estimate were wrong; in a more-correct voting model, the spoiler-risk is much lower, thereby incentivizing honest voting. However, the more honest voters there are, the more the "random election model" becomes correct again... so one might expect an "equilibrium" might develop. It would be interesting to examine that mathematically, but as a matter of reality rather than mathematical models, the fact is, the last three Australian House elections (2001, 2004, 2007) combined elected zero out of 450 third-party-member seatholders despite an average of about 7 candidates per seat.
Concrete examples: simple, realistic, unusual structure, Jeez Louise.
Incidentally these refute the false but unfortunately common claim that IRV "eliminates" the "spoiler" and "wasted vote" defects of plurality voting.
In Participation Failure, the election is such that if you were to add t more co-voting honest voters, (for some t and some vote-type) then the election result would get worse from their point of view, i.e. they were "better off staying home." This happens 16.2% of the time in 3-candidate elections, see my preliminary write-up here; and also, according to analysis by Depankar Ray, exactly 50% of the time in 3-candidate elections in which the IRV and plurality winners differ.
("16.2%" ought to be expressible in close form also, but have not tried; not sure how simple you could get it. I also can semi-prove participation failure happens with probability→1 in the limit of a large number of random voters and large number of candidates, for two Condorcet methods. What happens to these two pathology probabilities for IRV in the limit of a large number C of candidates? I do not know. It certainly increases with C. There might be an easy argument it goes to 1?)
There are additional nasties concerning "top-3 only" bastardized IRV which are very common in real life.
For examples of IRV refusing to elect Condorcet ("beats-all") winners, as happened in Peru 2006, Burlington 2009, France 2007, and Chile 1970, see these: core, simpler, nasty, another. We can make this very extreme. But this pathology is fairly rare in the random elections model; it happens about 3.7% of the time (see puzzle 17).
Incidentally, both this and IRV reversal failure totally refute the false but unfortunately common claim that IRV "always elects true-majority winners."
This pathology is however considerably more common in "1-dimensional politics" (and "2-dimensional politics," see pictures where it happens about 25% of the time), hence it perhaps was wrong of me to label it as "less common."
Here is a simple and mildly interesting model of 1-dimensional politics. Assume 3-candidates (A, B, and C) and all 4 "singlepeaked 1-dimensional" votes are equally likely: A>B>C, C>B>A, B>A>C, B>C>A – except the latter two have half the likelihood just to keep things interesting – yielding a 3-way near-tie in top rank votes. Note, this model is precisely regarding all "interesting" 1D-politics elections as equally likely, where "interesting" means all 3 candidates have a chance – not just a 2-man race – and "1D" means the candidates A,B,C are three points on a line in that order, and the only votes that can happen are orderings of the three points in increasing-distance (from someplace) order.
Question: In this cheesy 1D model (in the limit of a large number of independent random voters) what are the probabilities IRV yields a favorite betrayal scenario, or a "center squeeze" scenario where the middle candidate B is not elected by IRV despite being a Condorcet winner?
A look at Australia's federal IRV races in 2007 suggests at least 9 of the 150 were pathological, probably in this sort of center-squeeze fashion (we cannot tell with certainty which pathology happened because Australia refuses to provide full-enough election information to allow us to reconstruct the ballots, but as the analysis shows we can still deduce the presence of either paradox A or paradox B in many elections...) and probably more.
IRV non-monotonicity
[raising X in your vote decreases X's winning
chances – or lowering X in your vote increases his winnign chances]:
this happens with probability (2.3+12.2=14.5)% in 3-candidate
large random elections (there are two disjoint kinds of nonmonotonicity,
"winner now loses" and "loser now wins"
hence the two numbers; also Schläfli function method explained in
puzzle #4).
That same page shows that in N-candidate elections with N large, IRV becomes overwhelmingly likely to suffer non-monotonicity.
Concrete example. Also occurred in Burlington 2009.
This also can occur in extreme forms where e.g. raising X all the way from bottom to top causes X to lose. (Another example; see point 5 there). Here's a related weird phenomenon.
For IRV reversal failure where IRV's "best winner" is the same as IRV's "worst loser," see this; it happens about 2.6% of the time in random 3-candidate elections.
In the "cheesy 1D model" above, an "extremist" A or C always wins the vote-reversed election. The forward-vote election is won by the opposite extremist when B is eliminated, any by B when either A or C is eliminated, hence the forward and reverse winners are equal zero percent of the time asymptotically and reversal failure is almost a nonproblem in that model.
Related drop-out⇒reversal paradox.
IRV exponential amplification chaos.
IRV "Irrelevant losers" who aren't.
IRV exhibited a lot of the above pathologies simultaneously in the Burlington VT 2009 mayor election.
You can't count IRV elections in precincts because there is no such thing as a "precinct subtotal" (at least nothing that can be recorded in any form much more compact than just listing all the votes in that precinct, if there are a reasonable number such as 13 of candidates). Here is a web page to make that clear: IRV non-additivity.
IRV paradox probabilities (up to date, world's most accurate & extensive list)
Return to main page


text:
Download PDF
Public Design Commission of the City of New York
City Hall, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10007
Jackie Snyder, Executive Director (212) 788-3071
Alicia West, Director of Capital Projects, email@example.com
Bronx Borough President's Office
Department of Cultural Affairs
851 Grand Concourse, Bronx, NY 10451
Michael Aronowitz, Director (718) 590-3500
Bronx Community College Hall of Fame
University Avenue and West 181st Street, Bronx, NY 10453
Coordinator (718) 289-5161
Bronx Council on the Arts
1738 Hone Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461
Ed Friedman, Director of Art Public Relations (718) 931-9500
firstname.lastname@example.com • email@example.com
Bronx County Historical Society
3309 Bainbridge Avenue, Bronx, NY 10467
Mrs. Laura Tosi, Associate Librarian
(718) 881-8900 fax (718) 881-4827
Bronx Institute
Herminio Martinez, Director (718) 960-8934
Bronx Museum of the Arts
1040 Grand Concourse & 165th Street, Bronx, NY 10456
Holly Block, Director / Antonio Sergio Besa, Director of Programs
(718) 681-6000, firstname.lastname@example.com
City Hall Library
31 Chambers Street, Rm. 112, New York, NY 10007
Paul C. Perkus, Director (212) 788-8590
City Island Historical Society
190 Fordham Street, City Island, NY 10464 (718) 885-0008
Department of Cultural Affairs
Capital Construction
31 Chambers Street, New York, NY 10007
David Bryant, Capital Program Manager (212) 513-9334
Percent for Art Program
31 Chambers Street, New York, NY 10007
Lisa Kim, Director (212) 513-9363
Department of Parks and Recreation
830 Fifth Avenue, Arsenal Central Park, New York, NY 10065
Capital Construction:
Amie Uhrynowski, Art Commision Liason (718) 760-6605
Art and Antiquities:
Jonathan Kuhn, Director (212) 360-3410
Karen Lemmey, Monuments Coordinator (212) 360-8143
Gotham Center for New York City History
The Graduate School and University Center, CUNY
365 Fifth Avenue, Room 6103, New York, NY 10016-4309
Education Department (212) 817-8467
Hudson River Park Trust
Pier 40, 2nd Floor, West St. at Houston St., New York, NY 10014
Connie Fishman, President (212) 627-2020
Hudson River Museum
511 Warburton Avenue, Yonkers, NY 10701
(914) 963-4550
email@example.com • email@example.com
Huntington Free Library
9 Westchester Square, Bronx, NY 10461 (718) 829-7770
Kingsbridge Historical Society:
Kingsbridge, Spuyten Duyvil, Riverdale
426 West 259th Street, Bronx, NY 10471
Peter Ostrander, President (718) 796-1195
Landmarks Preservation Commission
1 Centre St., 9th Floor, New York, NY 10007
Jared Knowles, Director (212) 669-7886
Lehman College, CUNY
250 Bedford Park Boulevard West, Bronx, NY 10468
Art Department
Professor Charles Seplowin, Chair (718) 960-8256
Lehman College Art Gallery
Susan Hoeltzel, Director (718) 960-8731
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Arts for Transit
347 Madison Avenue 5th Flooor, New York, NY 10017
Sandra Bloodworth, Director (212) 878-7250
New York Botanical Garden
Bronx River Parkway at Fordham Road, Bronx, NY 10458
Susan Fraser, Mertz Library Director (718) 817-8700, Ext. 8879
New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation
City Hall, 3rd Floor, New York, NY. 10007
Greg Mink, Director / Curator Art Program (212) 442-3876
New York Historical Society
170 Central Park West, New York, NY 10024
Adrienne Kupper, VP of education (212) 873-3400
New York Public Library
Office of Branch Library, 455 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Gennie Perez, Capital and Maintenance Operations Manager
(212) 340-0896
NYC & Company: Visitor Information Center
810 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019 (212) 484-1200
Bronx Tourism Council
198 E. 161 Street, Suite 201, Bronx, NY 10451
Janet Florindo, Marketing and Tourism Coordinator (718) 590-3518
School Construction Authority
Public Art for Public Schools
New York City Board of Education, Division of School Facilities
44 - 36 Vernon Boulevard, Long Island City, NY 11101
Michele Cohen, Program Director (718) 349-5799
Public Art Fund, Inc.
1 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022
Susan K. Freedman, President
Rochelle Steiner, Director (212) 980-4575
Woodlawn Cemetery
Webster Avenue and 233rd Street, Bronx, NY 10470
Susan Olsen, Director of Public Relations (718) 920-0500
Arts for Transit
Art Commission of the City of New York
Bronx Borough President's Office
Bronx Business For Everybody
Bronx Council on the Arts
Bronx County Historical Society
Bronx Institute
Bronx Museum of the Arts
The Bronx on the Web
Bronx Tourism Council
City of New York Department of Cultural Affairs
City of New York Parks and Recreation
CityArts, Inc.
Connecticut's Art in Public Spaces
Dade County / Miami Art in Public Places
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
Exploring Chicago's Public Art
Fort Lauderdale / Broward County Public Art
Gotham Center for New York City History
Hall of Fame for Great Americans
Lehman College
New Deal Art Project: A list of WPA art in New York State
New York Botanical Garden
New York City Board of Education
New York City HotLinks
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation
New York City MTA Arts for Transit
New York City Subway
New York Historical Society
New York Public Library
NYC & Company
Percent for Art in New York City
Public Art Fund
Public Art in Los Angeles
Public Art in San Francisco
Public Art Research Archive, Sheffield Hallam University
Public Artworks of Seattle
Seattle Public Art
Wildlife Conservation Society / The Bronx Zoo

subset: commoncrawl


text:
No Excuses! Really? Another Look at our NEPC Charter Spending Figures
Not surprisingly, KIPPs first response to our recent NEPC study was to declare it outright flawed. KIPP then proceeded to make up every possible explanation they could – every possible "excuse" – conjure every possible out of context – or different context estimate or "fact" to make their case that they in fact spend equal or less than schools in New York City and Houston.
I guess what continues to perplex me most is the stance that KIPP takes whenever anyone writes anything about them, in a report not sponsored by them or by one of their major funders (some of which are quite good). Whether a descriptive analysis of attrition rates or our analysis of spending per pupil, KIPPs standard response is to deny, deny, deny.
We have not said anywhere in our report that there's anything wrong with spending more to do a good job – run a good school. It would be preposterous for us to make such an assertion. We have simply tried to lay out a reasonable comparison of what schools are spending, compared to otherwise similar schools. These comparisons are appropriate, and are necessary for making judgments about any marginal benefits that might be achieved by students attending different schools.
We show that part of the KIPP puzzle in Houston is explained by their attempts to provide more competitive front end teacher wages. Nothin' wrong with that! It's certainly a logical recruitment/retention strategy. Notably, it would become difficult to maintain these margins as school staff matures. These are issues worth monitoring over time – to see if CMOs entering their second and third decades of operation can continue to hold expenses down by holding staff experience down, while still recruiting and retaining energetic, high quality teachers. I will likely be conducting more extensive analyses of these salary structures across KIPP and other schools in NYC and Texas in the future, and hope to have a more productive discussion on the topic when that time comes.
KIPP argues that we counted all of their centralized expenses against them, and counted NONE against the NYC public schools. This is not true. We actually didn't count KIPP regional and national expenses that exist beyond what the locals pay in management fees accounted for on their budgets.
Second, as I will show below, even if we count all of the system-wide expenses (& other obligations) of NYC BOE schools, KIPP schools continue to substantially outspend them.
Further, KIPP complains that we include expenses on their KIPP to College program. It's a program. It's a support service. It's an expenditure. Further, even the KIPP schools budgets that don't include KIPP to college exceed NYC BOE spending. And KIPP plays the usual card, in reference to Houston, not NYC, that they must incur the full costs (from their operating expenses) of facilities, implying that public districts have absolutely no costs of facilities.
Clearly, such comparisons are complicated and we acknowledge as much throughout our paper. Further, we provide substantial detail as to the types of data being compared and potential issues with the comparisons.
New York City
Let's look first at our New York City comparisons. The data in NYC are pretty good, but because the charter financial reports are not part of the same system as the district school site budgeting data, they are not necessarily designed to be directly comparable. We had removed system-wide costs from the NYC BOE schools, in addition to removing costs for facilities (because BOE also pays for charter facilities), food and transportation, and we removed payments to charters. KIPPs assertion is that clearly if we add back in all system-wide costs NYC BOE schools would be spending at least the same if not more than KIPP schools. This is especially the case if, as KIPP asserts, that pension costs alone should add $2,200 per pupil to the BOE schools (this is a perfect example of a wrong context number extracted from a different comparison [a good one by IBO]).
Of course, this assertion doesn't pass a basic smell test even given the information that already existed prior to our report. In the Independent Budget Office report which we cite, the IBO evaluated the comparability of the public subsidy rate of co-located (as with KIPP) charters and BOE schools, finding that the co-located charters had the equivalent subsidy of slightly higher than BOE schools on average district-wide. Note that subsidy rates aren't expenditures. It's a different comparison. But subsidy rates provide a starting point for what could be spent. And KIPP was ahead at the starting line, albeit only slightly.
Add to that, the fact that KIPP schools do not serve average special education populations, the major driver of differences in spending across BOE schools (as we validate). Thus, compared to these schools rather than average district-wide, KIPP moves further ahead. Then, I think we all understand by this point that KIPP raises and spends at least some private funding. Fair enough? We've got two reports out on this:
- Baker, B.D. & Ferris, R. (2011). Adding Up the Spending: Fiscal Disparities and Philanthropy among New York City Charter Schools. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved [date] fromhttp://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/NYC-charter-disparities.
- Baker, B.D., Libby, K., & Wiley, K. (2012). Spending by the Major Charter Management Organizations: Comparing charter school and local public district financial resources in New York, Ohio, and Texas. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved [date] from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/spending-major-charter.
Add their private spending to the already growing margin, and you've got a bigger margin of difference in per pupil spending between KIPP schools and otherwise similar NYC BOE schools. On its face, it's highly suspect for KIPP to argue that they do not spend more than NYC BOE schools.
But, just for fun, let's rerun the regressions from our report with all system-wide costs added back to BOE schools and see if that puts them ahead of KIPP spending.
Here's the overall comparison:
Even after adding system-wide costs back into BOE schools, KIPP schools spend more than $3,000 per pupil more than BOE schools.
Now here are the breakout scatterplots, starting with our original:
And then with all system-wide costs added back in to BOE school:
Hmmm… seems that KIPP schools are still significantly outspending otherwise similar BOE schools – about 25% more.
Another really important point here is that none of these adjustments alter KIPP charter spending relative to the other charters. KIPP continues to outspend the other charters by as much as they did in our original analyses.
What we don't include for KIPP
We don't include regional (KIPP NY) or national expenditures above and beyond what is covered by the school management fees. We write extensively in Appendix C of our report about these additional expenditures and difficulty in parsing precisely how much was spent by KIPP regional and national organizations and what services were provided as in-kind services to schools. This is a potentially significant break that we give to KIPP, setting aside entirely their centralized costs of the organization (those above and beyond what is covered by management fees).
It was problematic enough for KIPP to assert that they spend similarly to NYC BOE schools, but it was surely a stretch to assert that they spend similarly to Houston ISD schools which have been significantly constrained under state school finance policies in recent years. KIPP first pulls the facilities cost card to make their case, as usual, implicitly assuming public district facilities to be free. We discuss this issue on Page 49 of our report (and in numerous other locations):
Charter advocates often argue that charters are most disadvantaged in financial comparisons because charters must often incur from their annual operating expenses, the expenses associated with leasing facilities space. Indeed it is true that charters are not afforded the ability to levy taxes to carry public debt to finance construction of facilities. But it is incorrect to assume when comparing expenditures that for traditional public schools, facilities arealready paid for and have no associated costs, while charter schools must bear the burden of leasing at market rates – essentially and "all versus nothing" comparison. First, public districts do have ongoing maintenance and operations costs of facilities as well as payments on debt incurred for capital investment, including new construction and renovation. Second, charter schools finance their facilities by a variety of mechanisms, with many in New York City operating in space provided by the city, many charters nationwide operating in space fully financed with private philanthropy, and many holding lease agreements for privately or publicly owned facilities.
KIPP also argues that their per pupil spending figures are inflated due to spending for growth. Hey. That's an expenditure. By the way, typically, per pupil expenditures rise with declining enrollment (as the denominator goes down). Yes, there might be scaling up expenditures, but they tend not to have dramatic effect on per pupil expenditures. If KIPP has chosen to pay for redundant administration, etc. in order to support scaling up, then so be it. That's an expenditure. We would hope to see these expenses level off down the line with additional analyses. We'll wait and see on that.
But, back to our actual comparisons in Houston. We used two different approaches in Texas. First of all, in Houston, KIPP spending per pupil was much closer than in other Texas cities, where KIPP spending totally blew away district schools spending. But back to Houston. Using current operating expenditures per pupil data for KIPP and Houston schools, we show that KIPP middle schools outspend not only otherwise similar schools in HISD, but the district-wide average operating expenditure per pupil.
Further, we show that KIPP total district (IRS 990) expenditures significantly exceed Houston ISD's TOTAL REVENUE PER PUPIL, including revenue for retiring debt and maintenance of HISD's large capital stock.
What we don't include for KIPP
Again, we don't attempt to figure out the additional expenses of KIPP national allocated to schools, above and beyond what is paid for from the local/regional KIPPs through management fees to the national organization.
Closing Thoughts
I encourage those interested in these topics to not only browse the abstract of our report, but to also dig deep into the appendices and end notes – which are as long as the report itself. Heck, follow the hyperlinks to the data sources and take your own stab at this stuff. That's what we need out here – not more excuses and unfounded anecdotal arguments.
I actually hesitate to write about KIPP and perhaps that's just what they want. Apparently no one should write about them that hasn't been paid by them to write about the. Those who do should be forewarned that you'll have to waste inordinate time responding to their complaints – excuses – about what you wrote. As of this post, I hope to be done with this topic.
This blog post has been shared by permission from the author.
Readers wishing to comment on the content are encouraged to do so via the link to the original post.
Find the original post here:
The views expressed by the blogger are not necessarily those of NEPC.


text:
Favorite Four: Apps to Make Mom Smile
Posted by Rob Rich on May 10th, 2013
With the arrival of Mothers Day, children everywhere will be scrambling to show their appreciation. Perhaps consider one of these iOS options as well. Not that they'd replace quality time, of course. By all means go and treat your mom to a nice dinner, give her a call, or whatever else you were planning to do. We just ask you to consider adding one (or all) of these digital possibilities to your Mother's Day plan.
Flower Garden
Who doesn't think of getting their mom some flowers on Mothers Day? Nobody, that's who. Flower Garden allows users to grow their own flora, as well as acquire new seeds for more exotic (and in some cases fictitious) examples. After some TLC they can then harvest their flowers and create a bouquet. A bouquet they can send to anyone on their Contacts list. And if the price seems a bit steep don't fret; there's a possibility (nothing official, just guessing) that it may go on sale like it did last Mothers Day.
Flower Garden - Grow Flowers and Send Bouquets
+ Universal App - Designed for iPhone and iPad
Released: 2009-04-10 :: Category: Game
Let's create! Pottery HD
Mom always likes it when you make her stuff. She always held on to that hideous ashtray you made for her back when you were in first grade, even though she doesn't smoke. Now you can shower her with a ton of virtual ceramics without the hassle of any cleanup. Much like Flower Garden it's possible to send photos of a piece to anyone you want, including mom. Unlike Flower Garden it's also possible to give a particular favorite physical form through a little in-app purchase of some 3D printing.
Let's create! Pottery HD
+ Universal App - Designed for iPhone and iPad
Released: 2010-07-16 :: Category: Game
Moms also like to get cards. Not just on Mothers Day, either. Downloading Apple's official custom card creation app is practically a no-brainer for such an occasion. And as an added bonus you can send her customized greeting cards of the family/kids year-round. Think about that: the ability to send your mom personalized (and physical) greeting cards whenever you'd like, for any occasion. All without having to browse through the paltry selection at the store.
+ Universal App - Designed for iPhone and iPad
Released: 2011-10-13 :: Category: Game
Giving your mom some eFlowers or making her a card is cool and all, but putting together a comic book that chronicles your adventures fighting crime (or even something a bit more tame) is just plain fun. I dare any moms out there not to laugh, or at least crack a smile, when their sons or daughters present them with the first issue of The Incredible Mom, Spidermom, or even Iron Mom.
+ Universal App - Designed for iPhone and iPad
Released: 2011-07-05 :: Category: Game


text: Welcome to Backdoor Introductions, the web's largest adult dating website for finding Mexico members with like-minded interests. Backdoor Introductions is an absolutely free adult directory for finding casual hookups, registration only takes 30 seconds. Click a province/state within Mexico from the list below or scroll to the left to find members directly.


text:
Google reported strong increases in profit and revenue in the third quarter, during which the company had good results in both its core and emerging businesses.
Google generated total revenue of US$7.29 billion in the quarter, ended Sept. 30, 2010, up 23 percent year-on-year. Subtracting commissions and fees it pays to ad network and other partners, revenue was $5.48 billion, $23 million above the consensus expectation of analysts polled by Thomson Financial.
Net income grew 32 percent to $2.17 billion from $1.64 billion in 2009's third quarter, while earnings per share rose 31 percent to $6.72 from $5.13. On a pro forma basis, which excludes certain items, net income was $2.46 billion, or $7.64 per share, exceeding the analysts' consensus of $6.67 per share and topping the $1.88 billion, or $5.89 per share, in 2009's third quarter.
"At the highest level, we're very pleased with our Q3 results. It is clear that the digital economy continues to grow rapidly," Google Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette said during a conference call.
Google performed very well not only in its core search advertising business but also in newer markets for the company, such as mobile, display advertising and hosted business applications.
"We saw strength in every major product area in Q3," Pichette said.
Demand for search services and advertising continues to rise along with the unabated growth of the Web, said Jonathan Rosenberg, senior vice president of product management. "Search is still at the heart of the Web," he said.
Google is also experiencing momentum in its emerging businesses. For example, Google now has an annual run rate of $2.5 billion in display ad revenue, including banner ads on YouTube, he said.
"Clearly, we're firing on all cylinders in display," Rosenberg said, adding that Google is generating revenue from 2 billion page views per week on YouTube.
In mobile, Google has an annual revenue run rate of $1 billion, he said.
Sites owned by Google generated 67 percent of total revenue, while partner sites generated 30 percent. Google got 52 percent of its revenue from its international businesses.
As of September, the company had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities worth $33.4 billion.
Hiring Expected
During the third quarter, Google grew its global staff by 7 percent to 23,331 full-time employees, up from 21,805 in the second quarter.
Google plans to continue hiring aggressively, especially in engineering and sales. "The explosive growth in the digital economy we're experiencing has created a war for talent in our industry," Pichette said.
Continuing to hire talented employees will be key to success. "We've stepped up our hiring machine and are exploring how to attract and retain the best people in this exceptionally competitive environment," he said.
People clicked on Google search ads 16 percent more than in 2009's third quarter. Google generates most of its revenue from so-called PPC (pay-per-click) text ads served along with its search engine results and on partner websites. The cost to advertisers of those Google PPC ads rose 3 percent year-on-year.
Like other online ad sellers, Google is benefitting from a rebound in the market. Online ad revenue in the U.S. increased 11.3 percent to US$12.1 billion during the first six months of the year, compared with the same period in 2009, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) reported this week.
If the spending trend continues, online ad revenue could reach its highest annual level in 2010, topping the previous record of $23.4 billion set in 2008, according to the IAB and PwC report.
In 2009, U.S. online advertising revenue shrunk 3 percent to $22.7 billion, as marketers cut down on spending while weathering the economic storm.
Search ads, Google's bread and butter, continue to be by far the most popular online ad format, accounting for 47 percent of spending, followed by display ads, such as banners, with 36 percent.


text:
Home > Salvation
Click here to view PowerPoint charts to accompany this material.
This material is also available for sale as part of our professionally printed book entitled Grace, Faith, and Obedience. For more information go to gospelway.com/sales.
One of the most important and beautiful Bible themes is the grace and mercy of God. No one can honestly claim to be familiar with the Bible and yet deny man's need for grace.
* Universalism claims God's grace will save everyone.
* Catholicism says the church hierarchy (clergy) dispenses God's grace through sacraments. Hence, men must confess to the priest to be forgiven, etc.
* Calvinism says God's grace is extended only to a limited, predestined few whom God unconditionally chose, regardless of their will, character, conduct, etc. And once God saves one of these elect, he can never fall from grace and be lost.
* Protestant denominations generally teach salvation by "grace alone" and "faith only," so a man is saved on the basis of his attitude toward God only. Obedience is not necessary.
* Some members of conservative churches teach that obedience is necessary to become a child of God, but after that one will remain in grace so long as he has a "good attitude," regardless of the fact that he continues to disobey God's word. Hence, they conclude we should not rebuke such people, but fellowship them despite their errors.
We will not consider in depth all the alternative views just listed. We will, however, give basic information that can be used to examine those views in more depth.
Consider some basic definitions:
"Grace" - "...good-will, loving-kindness, favor ... kindness which bestows upon one what he has not deserved ... NT writers use (grace) pre-eminently of that kindness by which God bestows favors even upon the ill-deserving, and grants to sinners the pardon of their offences, and bids them accept of eternal salvation through Christ ..." - Grimm-Wilke-Thayer. Hence, grace is "unmerited favor."
"Mercy" - "... kindness or good will towards the miserable and afflicted, joined with a desire to relieve them..." - Grimm-Wilke-Thayer.
So both grace and mercy involve kindness and favor toward those in unfortunate circumstances. Mercy emphasizes the wretched and miserable circumstances of the object of mercy, whereas grace emphasizes that they are unworthy or undeserving of favor.
[Bible passages regarding grace show that all three in the Godhead express mercy: the Father (Rom. 1:7; etc.), the Son (Rom. 16:20; etc.), and the Spirit (Heb. 10:29).]
In this study we will consider the following topics about God's grace:
Why do we need grace? What can it do for us?
Ephesians 1:7 - In Christ we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace. Note the importance of Jesus' blood in grace. Men ought to die eternally for our sins. But God's grace provided a sacrifice to die for us, so we do not have to die.
Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. "Save" means to rescue or deliver from harm or danger. Sin endangers our soul by dooming us to eternal punishment, but God offers deliverance. We do not deserve deliverance, so it is not of ourselves, but is a gift of God. Hence it is of grace - unmerited favor.
Titus 3:3-7 - By God's kindness, mercy, and grace, He saved and justified us. "Justify" means to declare one to be right or just - to pronounce one to be what he ought to be. We do not merit or deserve such a right standing before God on the basis of the deeds we have done. On the contrary, we have all sinned (Rom. 3:23), and sin deserves death (Rom. 6:23).
So based on our deeds, we all ought to be punished eternally. But God sent His Son to die for us so we can have eternal life instead - a gift we surely do not deserve. That is supreme grace or "unmerited favor." We ought to fall on our knees every day to thank God for it.
However, none of this proves we can be saved without doing anything. It does mean that nothing we do could ever earn or merit forgiveness.
[Titus 2:11-14; Rom 3:23-26; Luke 1:76-78; 2 Tim. 1:9; Acts 15:11; 20:32; Rom. 5:12-21; 4:2-8; 1 Tim. 1:13-16; 1 Peter 1:3-16]
Sin alienates or separates us from God (Isaiah 59:1,2). Forgiveness by grace reunites us into God's fellowship.
Romans 5:1-2 - Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God ... we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand. We are no longer enemies of God.
Ephesians 2:1-5,11-13,18,19 - Salvation by grace (v5,8) changes us from being dead in our sins (i.e., separated from God - v12), to being made alive (made nigh or reconciled so we have access to Him). This makes us His children, members of His house or family (v19).
Suppose someone repeatedly mistreated you and acted as an enemy. Would you want him in your family? Would you allow your son to die so that one could enter your family? That is what grace led God to do for us. [1 Peter 2:9,10]
2 Thessalonians 2:16,17 - God loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace.
Romans 5:1,2 - We have access to grace, so we rejoice in the hope of glory.
2 Timothy 2:1 - Be strong in the grace in Christ.
2 Corinthians 9:8 - God's grace makes us all-sufficient in all things, so we can abound in all good works. It provides all spiritual blessings we need to serve God.
[Psalm 84:11; 1 Peter 4:10,11; Rom. 12:6; Heb. 4:14-16; 2 Thess. 1:11,12; Acts 20:32]
Titus 3:7 - Having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Acts 20:32 - The word of His grace is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
1 Peter 1:3,4,7 - By God's mercy we are begotten to a living hope reserved in Heaven ... praise, honor, and glory at Jesus' revelation (v7).
Who can search his life and honestly say he deserves such blessings as these? Yet God offers them anyway. That is "unmerited favor."
[1 Peter 5:10; 1 Tim. 1:13-16; Jude 21]
The doctrines of men regarding grace overflow with speculation.
Calvinists claim the Holy Spirit will act directly on man's heart, apart from the gospel, to give him "irresistible grace."
Others say, "Surely the grace of God will cover the sins" of a certain person or group. I ask, "How do you know that? Do you have a passage that says so?" Unable to provide such a passage, people nevertheless speculate endlessly.
How do we know what grace will or will not do? Do we have the right to say God's grace will cover certain sins, when we have no Scripture that says so?
There is no other way to know what grace will or will not do, or whom it will or will not save.
Ephesians 1:5-11 - We become God's sons according to God's will (v5). We have forgiveness according to His grace, which He made to abound to us, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself (v9). We inherit according to His purpose, and He works all things according to His will (v11).
Note that, in all these things, God's grace works according to His will & purpose. The one who extends favor has the right to decide how and to whom he will extend it.
A major point of Ephesians is that the mystery of God's will is revealed in the Scriptures (3:3-5; 1:9). Scriptures provide us to all good works (2 Tim. 3:16,17). Therefore, the only way to know anything about God's grace is through God's word!
2 Timothy 1:8-10 - God saved and called us according to His purpose and grace, revealed in Christ who brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. God's grace operates according to God's purpose. But the gospel reveals God's purpose. So if we want to understand grace, we must study the gospel!
We have no right to assume (let alone to teach) that God's grace will do anything except what the gospel says it will do. We must not expect it to save any except those whom His word says it will.
Acts 15:11 - Jews are saved by God's grace in the same manner as Gentiles. Note that God's grace saves in a certain manner - there is a way it operates. Further, His grace saves all men in the same manner. How do we know the manner in which Gentiles (and therefore all men) were saved?
V7 - Gentiles heard the word of the gospel and believed.
11:14 - Peter spoke to them words whereby there were saved (cf. 10:33-48). No one will be saved by direct operation of the Spirit apart from the word. Grace saves through the word.
Acts 20:24,32 - Paul's ministry was to testify the gospel of the grace of God. His preaching commended them to the word of God's grace (v32). Note the connection between grace and the word. The only way to understand grace is to learn of it through the word. [vv 20,21,25,26; 14:3]
Galatians 1:6-9 - We are called in Christ's grace. But if we follow another gospel, we remove ourselves from Him who called us in grace. If we preach another gospel, we are accursed. To receive the benefits of God's grace, we must follow the gospel. To follow other teachings removes us from grace. [5:4]
Titus 2:11,12 - The grace of God has appeared teaching us how to live. God's grace teaches! To know about grace, we must be taught. How can we be taught? By God's only revelation, the Scriptures.
[Col. 1:5,6; 1 Peter 5:12; 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:2; Gal. 6:16; John 1:17; Acts 4:33; Eph. 3:2-8]
This confirms what we just learned. What grace does, it does through the gospel.
2 Timothy 1:9 - We are called according to grace. [Gal. 1:6]
2 Thessalonians 2:14 - We are called by the gospel.
Titus 2:11,12 - The grace of God appeared to all men teaching us.
2 Timothy 3:16,17 - The Scriptures teach & instruct us and provide us to all good works.
Producing faith
Acts 18:27 - Disciples believed through grace.
Romans 10:17 - Faith comes by hearing God's word [John 20:30,31]
Ephesians 2:5,8 - By grace are you saved. [2 Tim. 1:9; Acts 15:11]
Romans 1:16 - The gospel is God's power to save. [James 1:21; Acts 11:14]
2 Timothy 2:1 - Be strong in the grace of Christ. [2 Thess. 2:16,17]
Colossians 1:9-11 - Be filled with knowledge of God's will that we may be strengthened with all might. [Acts 20:32; Rom. 16:25,26]
Giving eternal life
Titus 3:7 - Being justified by grace, we are heirs of the hope of eternal life.
John 6:63,68 - Jesus' words are the words of eternal life.
When we teach that people who practice sin must repent and obey God to be saved, some people say we are "playing God," "putting ourselves in the place of God," or "limiting the grace of God." Yet those people sometimes say, "I just believe the grace of God will cover those people."
The issue is: What does the Bible say? The only way to learn what God's grace will or will not do is to know what the word says.
If the Scriptures say that people who practice sin need to repent to please God, then we are not playing God when we preach that. We are simply teaching the word of God's grace: we are telling them what God says they must do to receive His grace!
If people say that God will save people who are practicing sin, but they cannot find a Scripture that so teaches, then why aren't they are the ones who have put themselves in the place of God? Why is it that only those who rebuke sin seem to be accused of "playing God"?
John 1:17 - Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. There is no conflict between grace and truth; they work together.
John 17:17 - But God's word is truth. So grace works according to God's word.
Only God can say what His grace will cover, and the only way to know is by what He says in the Bible. Whether we extend God's grace where His word does not extend, or whether we limit His grace where the word does not limit it, either way is equally "playing God." What we need is less speculation about grace and more "Thus saith the Lord."
Religious folks disagree about whether grace is received conditionally or unconditionally.
Conditional grace means that, in order to receive forgiveness and in order to continue to receive the blessings that result from it, there are certain things a person must do. Whether or not one receives grace depends on his individual choice, how he acts, thinks, speaks, etc.
Unconditional grace means that forgiveness and resulting blessings are granted to individuals regardless of their choice or conduct. God grants them grace entirely on His own determination without consideration of their will, desires, or actions.
Here are a few of the many Scriptures to be considered. For other Scriptures please see our study of election and predestination at our Bible Instruction web site at /instruct/.
People often confuse conditional blessings with merited blessings. Since we cannot earn forgiveness, they conclude there can be no conditions. They say it is a denial of grace to say one must do anything to receive forgiveness.
But the Bible contains many examples of people who received God's blessings by grace, yet they had to meet conditions. Those who met the conditions received the blessings. Had they failed to meet the conditions, they would not receive the blessings. Nevertheless, meeting the conditions did not earn the blessing, so it was still a matter of grace.
V2 - God said He had given Jericho to Israel. Some say salvation is a gift, so we can do nothing to receive it (Eph. 2:8,9). But Jericho was also a gift. Did they have to do anything to receive it?
Vv 3-5 - To receive the gift, the people had to march around the city once each day for six days and seven times on the seventh day, blow horns, and shout. When they did so, the walls fell.
Consider some questions:
* Was this a favor from God? Yes, it was His gift (v2).
* Did marching, etc. earn the gift? No, marching does not merit the destruction of a walled city. This was unmerited favor - a blessing they did not earn - hence, they received it by grace.
* But were there conditions the people had to meet to receive the gift? Yes. Would they have received it if they had not met the conditions? No. Hence, conditional grace!
Hebrews 11:30 - This very example illustrates the kind of faith we need to please God and be saved under the gospel system of grace (cf. 10:39; 11:6). Just as Israel's faith required obedience in order to receive God's gift by grace, so our faith requires obedience in order to receive the gift of salvation by grace. But it is still grace, because the conditions do not earn the gift.
Elisha told Naaman to dip 7 times in Jordan and his leprosy would be cured (v10). Naaman eventually did as he was told and was cured (v14). Questions:
* Was this a favor from God? Yes.
* Did dipping earn the gift? No, dipping 7 times in any river would not deserve the removal of leprosy. This was unmerited favor, hence grace.
* But were there conditions Naaman had to meet to receive the gift? Yes. Would he have received it if he had not met the conditions? No. Hence, conditional grace!
Grace can be conditional! The fact a person must do something does not necessarily contradict the concept of grace. Specifically, if dipping in water can be a condition for removing leprosy, yet it is still a gift by grace, then why can't dipping in water (baptism) likewise be a condition for removing of sin, yet it is still a gift by grace?
With only 300 men, Gideon defeated an innumerable host of Midianites. Questions:
* Was this a favor from God? Yes. God said He saved Israel (vv 7,9).
* Did Israel earn the blessing? No, They held torches, blew trumpets, and shouted, but this would not deserve the defeat of such an army. This was unmerited favor, hence grace.
* But were there conditions Israel had to meet to receive the gift? Yes, they had to surround the enemy, hold torches, blow trumpets, and shout. Would they have received it if they had not met the conditions? No. Hence, conditional grace!
Note v2: God deliberately arranged this so the people could not claim glory for themselves saying their own hand had saved them. Yet there were still conditions they had to meet.
Note the parallel to Ephesians 2:8,9, a passage which teaches that salvation is a gift by grace, not of ourselves or of works. Many say this means there is nothing for us to do to receive salvation. But note:
|Israel & Gideon (Judges 7)
|Our salvation (Eph. 2:8,9)
|saved from Midian
|saved from sin
|a gift from God
|a gift from God
|by grace
|by grace
|not earned by human hands
|not earned by human works
|man cannot glory
|man cannot boast
|conditions (obedience) required
|conditions (obedience) required
Vv 7,8 - Was Noah saved by grace? Yes, he found grace in the eyes of the Lord - unmerited favor. [Note: Prov. 3:24 uses the same word for "grace," but that verse is quoted in James 4:6, where the New Testament word for "grace" is used to translate it.]
Vv 13-15,22; 7:5 - Did Noah have to do anything to be saved by grace? Yes, he built the ark and did all that God commanded. Would he have been saved if he had not built the ark? No. Hence, conditional grace.
Hebrews 11:7 - Again, this very example is cited to teach us how we are saved from sin by faith (10:39; 11:6). The Old Testament example illustrates New Testament salvation by grace through faith, and both require meeting conditions. [1 Peter 3:20,21; Rom 15:4]
[Other Bible examples of conditional grace: Exodus 17:1-6; Numbers 21:6ff; Genesis 19:19; Hebrews 11]
* A radio announcer offers a valuable prize to the seventh person to call in. This is a favor (gift) not earned, but conditions must be met to receive it.
* A person's will grants one million dollars to an heir provided he is married, lives in a certain place, or meets some other requirement.
* A donor gives a million dollars to a college if it names a building after him.
Grace can be conditional. The fact one must do something to receive a gift does not mean he earns it and does not disprove it is a gift by grace.
We have proved that grace can be conditional. The existence of conditions does not eliminate grace. Consider now New Testament grace and specifically the grace by which God saves or forgives men of their sins. Is that grace conditional or not? Note first the universal nature of grace.
Titus 2:11 - For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
Romans 11:32 - God has mercy on all, just as many as were in bondage to sin.
Hebrews 2:9 - By the grace of God Jesus tasted death for everyone. God wants all to be saved, so Jesus died for all (1 Tim. 2:4,6; John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9; Mark 16:15,16).
Romans 2:11 - God is no respecter of persons.
[Acts 10:34,35; 15:11 Rom. 5:15-21]
This fact destroys Calvinistic unconditional election and limited atonement.
Strict Calvinism denies that God's grace is truly available to all or that Jesus truly died for all. It says Jesus' death offers saving grace only to those whom God unconditionally chose before the world began. All others are lost and cannot receive grace.
But the above passages contradict this view by proving that God's grace is extended to all and Jesus died for all. The Calvinistic view of grace makes God a respecter of persons by saying that grace and the benefits of Jesus' death are extended only to a few regardless of their choice or conduct.
Further, these verses leave only two choices:
(1) If God's grace is unconditional, then all people will be saved, since His grace extends to all. This is universalism, but it contradicts passages showing many will be lost (Matt. 7:13,14,21-23; 25:31-46; 2 Thess. 1:6-9; etc.).
(2) The only other alternative is that salvation by grace is received conditionally. It is offered to all, but each individual must choose whether or not he will meet the conditions. Hence, God is no respecter of persons for He offers salvation to all. Yet many will be lost, because they refuse to meet the conditions.
The only way to harmonize the Bible teaching that God's grace is for all and that God is not a respecter or persons with the fact that many will be lost is to recognize that grace is conditional. Now consider Bible examples that confirm this.
Were people who were saved by grace under the gospel required to meet conditions? In particular, was baptism a necessary condition to their forgiveness of sins?
Acts 15:7-11 - Jews ("we") are saved through grace "in the same manner" (NKJV & ASV, "even as" - KJV) Gentiles ("they"). Grace saves in a certain manner or way. That manner is the same for all, Jew or Gentile. What is that manner? Is it conditional or not?
Note first the Jewish converts in Acts 2:36-41.
Acts 2:14,38 - Peter spoke to them. They had to be told what to do. Grace works according to God's revealed word, not in some mystical speculative way.
V36 - They had to know assuredly (believe) in Jesus.
V38 - They had to repent and be baptized for remission of sins. 3000 did so (v41).
Did these Jews earn salvation? No more so than did Naaman, Gideon, Noah, etc. The work done did not earn the gift received. But was obedience necessary to receive the gift? Absolutely. Hence, conditional grace.
Acts 15:11 says Jews and Gentiles would be saved in the same manner. So consider the conversion of Cornelius, the first recorded Gentile convert.
Acts 11:14; 10:33ff - Cornelius was required to hear words whereby he could be saved. He gathered with his friends to hear what Peter would say. [15:7]
10:43 - Peter said people must believe to receive remission. Later, he retold the event saying they heard the word of the gospel and believed (15:7). So their hearts were cleansed by faith (15:9).
11:18 - God granted the Gentiles repentance unto life.
10:34,35 - Those who work righteousness are accepted by God.
10:47,48 - In telling them words whereby they could be saved, Peter commanded them to be baptized in water.
Jew and Gentile are saved by the grace of God in the same manner. It is conditional, and the conditions are always the same! And those conditions include baptism.
1 Timothy 1:13-16 - Paul was saved by the grace of God, and he was a pattern for others who believe for eternal life. Further, he is the apostle who emphasized the doctrine of salvation by grace. So was his own salvation a pattern of conditional or unconditional grace?
Acts 9:1-6 - Paul had been a persecutor, but Jesus appeared to him on the Damascus' road. He told him to go into the city to be told what he must do. There were things he must do, and he had to be told them. (Clearly he believed and repented at this point.)
9:18; 22:16 - There he was baptized because the man God sent to tell him what to do said to be baptized and wash away his sins.
Paul, the apostle who taught salvation by grace, himself was saved by conditional grace, including baptism to have his sins washed away.
Romans 5:1,2 - The book of Romans is an essay on salvation by grace through faith under the gospel. Was the salvation of the Romans conditional or unconditional? We are justified by faith because, by faith, we have access to grace. [3:22-26; 4:2-8,14-16; 10:14]
1:16; 10:17 - The gospel is God's power to save all who believe. Faith comes by hearing God's word.
1:5; 16:26 - But, as with all other examples so far, this must be an obedient faith. What specific obedience is required?
2:4-10 - God's goodness leads men to repent. Those who will not repent, will receive wrath at judgment.
10:9,10 - One must have faith in his heart, but it must be obedient faith, for one must confess with the mouth to be saved. If grace was unconditional, then neither faith nor confession would be needed.
6:3,4,17,18 - To be made free from sin one must obey the teaching delivered. This includes baptism, since in baptism we come into Christ and into His death, so we walk in a new life (born again).
Paul's essay on salvation by grace shows that grace is conditional, and the conditions include baptism. Forgiveness is a gift we do not deserve, but one must meet the conditions to receive it.
Ephesians 2:5,8,9 - The Ephesians themselves ("you") are an example of salvation by grace through faith. So let us examine their conversion. Was this conditional grace or unconditional?
1:7,13 - They were forgiven by grace after they heard the word of truth and believed. Paul told the Ephesian elders that in Ephesus he had testified to the gospel of God's grace (Acts 20:24,27,32). We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8,9). But faith is a condition one must meet to be saved. If grace is unconditional, why is faith needed? [Acts 19:8,10]
Acts 20:20,21 - Paul taught, not just faith in Jesus, but also repentance toward God. [19:8,19]
Acts 19:5 - As a result of Paul's preaching, men were baptized.
Noah was saved by grace, but it was conditional. He had to obey, but his obedience did not earn his blessing.
Specifically, water separated Noah (who received grace) from those wicked people who were condemned. This illustrates our salvation by grace because, in our case too, water is essential to our salvation. Baptism saves us.
The power is not in water to save, nor does baptism earn salvation. The power is in Christ's death and resurrection. But when we have obedient faith, as Noah had, so we meet the conditions of salvation, then we are saved by grace through faith, even as Noah was.
[Acts 18:27; 8:22; John 1:12-17; Gal. 5:4-6; Titus 3:3-8; Heb. 12:14,15]
Since God's word is truth (John 17:17), and truth never contradicts itself, we know there are no contradictions in the Bible. However, many people are confused about grace because some passages appear to them to be contradictory.
Consider some examples:
We are saved by grace through faith, not of works (Eph. 2:8,9)
If salvation is of grace, it is not of works (Rom. 11:6)
We are not under law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14)
[See also Titus 3:3-7; 2 Timothy 1:9; Romans 4:5]
One reason people are confused about such matters is that they study only part of what the Bible says and do not put it all together. Another reason is that people ignore passages that seem to teach different from what they have believed and been taught. So they may study certain passages that teach about grace but then ignore other passages. The result is confusion.
If the Bible does not contradict itself, there must be harmony. Let us study Bible teaching about grace, law, and works, taking passages on all these concepts and putting them together.
Studying various passages will show us that the same word can have different meanings in different contexts. One reason people are confused is that they assume a word has one certain meaning, then they try to force that meaning on all contexts.
Examples in this study are:
Grace means unmerited favor - a blessing or gift that one receives, though it is not earned by the one who receives it. But the same word can refer to different kinds of grace.
* Unconditional grace in which one receives a favor but has no choice in the matter. The favor is given regardless of the choice, character, life, or conduct of the receiver.
* Conditional grace in which a gift is offered, but to receive it one must do certain things or act in certain ways. God's grace makes the gift available, but the person has the power to choose to do or not do whatever is required to receive it. Yet what is done does not earn the gift.
Either of these definitions can fit the meaning of grace. Only context tells what is meant in a particular instance. Many people assume grace must be unconditional, but this leads to false conclusions because, as we have already proved, the grace of the gospel is conditional.
Law simply means a command, rule, or precept (or a collection of commands) that a person is expected to obey. But again the New Testament mentions several different kinds of law. [Everyone obeys some law - Rom. 6:16,19.]
* The law of sin - Romans 7:23 [7:25; 8:2]. This is the principle by which one obeys his own will or the will of someone else other than God (actually he is obeying Satan). Note that 7:22,23 says this law is different from the law of God.
* The law of works - Romans 3:27. Note that this is different from the law of faith. The Law of Moses is an example of a law of works. When we study more about this kind of law later, we will see that the gospel is not this kind of law.
* The law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), also called "law of faith" (Rom. 3:27), "law of God" (Rom. 8:7), "law of the Spirit of life" (Rom. 8:2), or "law of liberty" (James 1:25; 2:12). 1 Cor. 9:20,21 says this is a law, but it is not the (Mosaic) law that the Jews were subject to.
Again, all of these fit the definition of law, but they are different laws. Only the context tells which is meant in a particular case.
Often people become confused because they assume that there can only be one kind of law. They read passages saying we are not saved by a law of works (like the Old Testament), then they assume this means there is no law at all involved in our salvation. When we realize there are different kinds of laws, then we see how we may not be saved by certain kinds of laws, yet there still may be a kind of law that is necessary to our salvation.
Works means deeds, actions, things a person does. But again there are different kinds of deeds mentioned in different contexts in the New Testament.
* Works of the flesh - Galatians 5:19-21. These are acts that violate God's law and are therefore sinful (this is parallel to the law of sin). These works do not save but rather condemn us. [Rom. 13:12-14]
* Works of the law (or works of human righteousness) - Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28 [Titus 3:5]. These are deeds done as part of a "law of works." Again, we will discuss these at length later and will see that these cannot justify and are not the works of the gospel.
* Works of faith or deeds done in obedience to the gospel - 1 Thessalonians 1:3 [Galatians 5:6]. These deeds result from faith as part of a law of faith. These are done, not to earn a gift, but to meet conditions to receive a blessing one does not deserve. [1 Cor. 15:58; John 6:28,29]
Again, all of these fit the definition of works, yet they are different kinds of works. Only context can tell which is meant in a particular case.
But people read passages saying we are not saved by works, then they assume this means that no deeds of any kind are involved in our salvation. But when we realize that the gospel mentions different kinds of works, then we understand that, though there are kinds of works which do not save us, yet other kinds of works may still be essential to salvation.
This is the solution to the problem of apparent contradiction between passages. Some verses say we are not saved by works of law, yet others say we are saved by works and must submit to law to be saved. The only possible solution is that the passages are discussing different kinds of law and different kinds of works.
Many denominations, in order to belittle the importance of obedience (especially baptism), have denied that the New Testament is a law. They deny that obedience in any form is essential to salvation.
Some members of "institutional" and even some "conservative" churches ones are making similar statements. I once heard a preacher say, "The New Testament is not a code of laws. It is a group of love letters."
Like most false doctrines, this contains just enough truth to camouflage the error. The implication is that love is important, but obedience is not essential. So they conclude that, when church members disobey the Bible, if they seem sincere, we should love them so much we will overlook their disobedience and continue to fellowship them. If we insist people must repent, some folks call us "legalists," and accuse us of trusting commandment keeping for salvation.
We agree that the New Testament is not a system of justification by works of law. But is law in any sense an essential ingredient of the gospel?
Galatians 6:2 - We must fulfill the law of Christ. Christ has a law, and we are expected to fulfill it.
1 Corinthians 9:20,21 - Paul was "not without law to God, but under law to Christ." Some people say we are not under law at all. Paul denies this. He was not under the law Jews were subject to (law of Moses), but this did not mean he was without law. He was still under law to Christ.
Isaiah 2:2,3 - When God established His house (the church - 1 Tim. 3:15), God's law would go forth from Jerusalem. [Acts 2; Luke 24:47]
James 2:8 - Love your neighbor is the royal law. If obedience to law is not required under the New Testament, then love is not required, for love is a law! Love and law do not necessarily conflict. To say love eliminates law is to misunderstand both love and law. [Cf. Rom. 13:8; Gal. 5:14]
1 John 3:4 - Sin is transgression of law. If we are not subject to law, then there can be no such thing as sin. If we are not required to obey law, then it would not matter if we commit sin. Those who claim we are without law are in effect defending sin, for the essence of sin is lawlessness (NKJV).
Yet all people commit sin (1 John 1:8,10; Rom. 3:23). And sin is what we need God's grace to forgive (Eph. 1:7). If obedience to law is not necessary, then sin is not a problem, and we would not need grace to forgive our sins. To eliminate law is to eliminate our need for grace!
Folks who say we are not under law, have denied our need for grace. To say obedience is not essential is to belittle our need for grace and for Jesus' death.
[Heb. 8:10; Rom. 3:27; James 1:25; 2:8,12]
Again, we agree that there is a sense in which we are not justified by works of law. But does this mean that no works of any kind are in any way necessary for us to be saved?
Galatians 5:6 - In Christ Jesus what avails is faith working through love.
Acts 10:34,35 - In every nation, he who fears God and works righteousness is accepted.
James 1:22,25 - Be doers of the word, not just hearers. If one is a doer of the work, he is blessed in what he does.
James 2:14-26 - Can one be saved by a faith that does not work (v14)? Such a faith is dead. Works and faith go together, so by works a man is justified and not by faith only.
Romans 2:6-10; 2 Corinthians 5:10 - We will be judged and rewarded in eternity for our works. We receive eternal life for well-doing, working what is good.
[John 6:28,29; Phil. 2:12; John 5:28,29; 1 John 2:17; 1 Thess. 1:3; Acts 9:6]
By definition, a law is a command or collection of commands. Those who belittle law also belittle the importance of keeping commands. But note passages showing how important commands are:
Matthew 22:37-39 - Love for God and man are the greatest commands. To say we must love is to say we must keep commands, for love is a command. To deny the need for obeying commands is to deny the necessity of love. [Note that comparing this passage to James 2:8 shows that law = command.]
John 14:15; 1 John 5:3 - If we love God, we will keep His commands. Love and commandment keeping are not antagonistic. They must go together. To say you do not believe commands are necessary is to admit you do not have a proper love! [John 14:21-24; 2 John 6]
1 John 2:3-6 - To know and abide in God, we must keep His commands. To say that command keeping is not essential is to admit you do not know God!
1 John 3:23 - Faith is a command. Those who say commands are not essential to salvation, are unintentionally saying that faith is not essential, for faith is a command.
Acts 17:30,31 - God commands all men everywhere to repent. To say that commands are not essential is to say that repentance is not essential, for repentance is a command. But God says that without it we will perish (2 Peter 3:9; Luke 13:3,5).
Acts 10:47,48 - Baptism in water is a command. But many passages show that it is essential to salvation (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Rom. 6:3,4).
Most folks willingly accept that faith and repentance are essential, despite the fact they are commands. The main command people insist is unneeded is baptism. But commandment keeping is either essential to salvation, or it is not. If keeping commands is not necessary, then love, faith, and repentance are not necessary. But if we admit keeping commands is necessary, then why oppose the necessity of baptism?
[Matt. 28:18-20; John 12:47-50; 1 Cor. 14:37]
Again by definition, law is simply that which should be obeyed. If law is not necessary under the gospel, then neither is obedience. But if obedience is necessary, then so is the law.
Romans 6:17,18 - Having just said that we are not under law but under grace, Paul says we are made free from sin when we obey the doctrine delivered.
Hebrews 5:9 - Jesus is author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.
Matthew 7:21-27 - To enter the kingdom of heaven, we must do the will of the Father. It is not enough just to learn Jesus' teaching or claim to believe Jesus is Lord.
1 Peter 1:22 - We purify our souls in obeying the truth.
2 Thessalonians 1:8,9 - Those who do not obey the gospel will be punished in flaming fire.
[Rom. 1:5; 16:26]
It is true that the gospel is not a system of justification by works of law, yet it is also true that the gospel is a law in which works and obedience to commands are essential to receive salvation. But remember that words like "law," "works," etc. can mean different things.
Let us study further to determine in what sense the gospel is a law that requires works and in what sense it is not a law of works. We will also see how all this harmonizes with grace.
To understand the relationship between grace, faith, works, and obedience in salvation, let us study the gospel contrast between two systems of justification.
|Works of Law
|Grace through Faith
|Sinlessly perfect lifetime
|Sinner can be justified
|Sins remembered
|Lasting forgiveness
|Must earn justification
|Justification unearned
|Based on man's effort
|Based on Jesus' death
|Man boasts in self
|Glory goes to God
|Man trusts self
|Man trusts Jesus
|No one is saved
|All can be saved
One way "works of law" is used is to refer to a system or fundamental principle of justification: one stands righteous before God simply and entirely because he has properly kept commands. This is basically the kind of law the Old Testament was, and this is the kind of law the New Testament refers to when it says we are not saved by "works of law." The gospel is not a "law of works" in this sense.
Note some characteristics of works of law as a system of justification (many references here are speaking of the Old Testament law, but the principle would apply to any law of the same kind as the Old Testament).
To stand righteous before God at judgment, one would have to live his whole lifetime without ever violating any of God's commands.
Galatians 3:10-12 - One who does not continue in all things written in the law is under a curse. This is quoted from Deut. 27:26 and describes a law system like the Old Testament. Here people are not justified on the basis of forgiveness, but one must do everything the law commands so he never stands guilty. [James 2:10; Rom. 10:5; Lev. 18:5]
The only person who ever lived a sinless life under the law was Jesus (Heb. 4:15). To stand justified under such a law, one would have to live a sinless life like Jesus did.
Hebrews 10:1-4,11 - The law had animal sacrifices which could not permanently remove sin. Sins were remembered every year.
If a person ever sinned under such a system, that law of itself could never give lasting forgiveness. Such sinners could only hope that some other arrangement would come later to justify them. Jesus' death accomplished this - His blood reached back to give lasting forgiveness to those under the Old Testament (Heb. 9:15). But the law itself that those people lived under did not provide lasting forgiveness. Had Jesus not come and died, they would have had no hope.
This is why justification under such a system required a whole lifetime of sinless perfection. If anyone ever sinned, he was under a curse of death (Ezek. 18:20; Rom. 6:23), but the law itself could provide no lasting forgiveness. [Galatians 3:21]
"Works of law," as a system of justification, refers to law alone - without forgiveness. One is justified under such a system entirely and only because he never did anything wrong.
Romans 4:4 - The only way to achieve righteousness under such a system would be to earn it as a matter of debt.
If a person lived a sinless life, he would earn righteousness. He would deserve for God to consider him right, because he never did anything wrong. God could not rightly punish him, because he did not deserve punishment. He is justified, not because his sins have been forgiven, but because he never committed any sins for which he needed forgiveness.
This is how "works" and "law" are used throughout the context of Rom. 4. Remember these words can also have other meanings; but the only meaning that could fit this context is sinless perfection, since this is the only kind of works that would earn righteousness as a matter of debt. Any man who sins deserves punishment (Rom. 6:23), so the only way to earn righteousness would be to never sin.
Romans 4:4 - The person must save himself by his own goodness. If he ever does anything wrong, he can never be righteous; so he must rely on his own strength to live without sin. [Judges 7:2]
Romans 4:2 - If man deserved to be righteous because he never committed any sin, he could brag about his accomplishment [cf. Judges 7:2]. Again note that "works" here must refer to a life of sinlessness, for that is the only kind of works in which a man could boast of his salvation. If he ever sinned and needed forgiveness, he would have nothing to brag about.
If a man saved himself by a sinless life, he would not need forgiveness. Hence, we would not need to trust in Jesus' sacrifice. Obviously God knew men would not be saved on the basis of a sinless life, else why send Jesus to die? [Gal. 2:21; Rom. 4:14]
Romans 3:20,23 - All are guilty of sin, therefore by works of law (a sinless life) no one will be justified. The law provided no means for lasting forgiveness, so the only way to be justified under that system was to live without sin. No one ever did this (but Jesus), so no one could ever be saved under that system.
In the end, what the law did accomplish was to prove to men that they were sinners who did not deserve eternal life (v20).
[Gal. 3:10-12; 2:15,16; Acts 13:38,39]
Passages, like those above, are often used to try to prove that acts of obedience (especially baptism) are unnecessary under the gospel. However, they prove no such thing, because "the law" in these contexts does not refer to the gospel, and "works of law" does not refer to obedience to the gospel conditions of forgiveness. Rather, these terms refer to a sinless life whereby one earns salvation, because he has never sinned. They refer to an entirely different system of justification than the gospel.
We earlier studied examples showing that the gospel is a system of salvation by grace through faith, yet it still requires obedience to conditions in order for a person to receive forgiveness. Hence, it is conditional, yet it is still a system of grace.
Let us now summarize justification by grace through faith as a system of justification, contrasting it to works of law as a system of justification.
Romans 3:23,24 - Under this system, even those who have sinned can be justified. Though we have sinned, yet we can be justified on the basis of forgiveness. That is grace (unmerited favor). [Rom. 5:1,2; Titus 3:3,7]
Ephesians 1:7 - We have redemption and forgiveness through Jesus' blood according to grace. [2:8,9; Rom. 4:5-7]
Hebrews 10:11-14,17 - Animal sacrifices could not completely remove sin. This is why they had to be repeated. But Jesus offered the perfect sacrifice, which removes sins so completely they are never again remembered.
We learned earlier that this forgiveness is offered to all men (Titus 2:11,12). But there are conditions men must meet to receive it. If one is not a child of God, those conditions include hearing, believing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized (Acts 15:7-11; 2:38; 10:34-48; 22:16; Rom. 10:9-17; 6:3-18; etc.). For a child of God who sins, the conditions are repentance and prayer (Acts 8:22; 1 John 1:9).
Romans 4:4-7 - It is a matter of grace, not of debt. Again, "works" in this context must refer to a life of sinless perfection. That would earn justification without grace. [11:6; 6:14f]
But righteousness by grace means salvation for those who "work not" or "apart from works of the law." These "works" are the ones referred to in vv 2,4 (sinless perfection) [cf. 3:21,28]. Hence, justification by faith means, even though people have not lived a sinless life, yet they can be saved by grace.
V7 explains how this happens: it is by forgiveness of sins. If he kept the law without ever sinning, man would earn salvation by works of law. But if he sins and needs forgiveness, that requires grace.
Salvation by grace apart from works does not mean there are no commands to obey to be saved. Multitudes of other passages show we must obey the conditions of forgiveness. What it means is that we are saved by forgiveness, and therefore we have not earned salvation by a sinless life.
Hence, salvation is based, not on human effort, but on Jesus' sacrifice (Eph. 1:7). [Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 3:24,25]
Forgiveness can be obtained only through the blood of Jesus. By the grace of God, Jesus died to offer us salvation. Hence, salvation is a gift, not based on or provided by human effort.
Again, all passages that say salvation is not of works or not of law mean that it is not achieved on the basis of human ability whereby man earns salvation by living a sinless life.
It is not the intent of such passages to deny that man must meet conditions to receive forgiveness. The point is that man is not the source of the power on which righteousness is based. God is the source of the righteousness, because He forgives man's sins on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice.
Ephesians 2:8,9 - If someone had lived a sinless life and thereby earned salvation, then he could boast. But if a man has sinned and ought to be punished, but God by mercy offers him forgiveness, that man has forever forfeited his right to boast about his salvation. Instead, he should praise God for grace. [Rom. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:29-31]
When passages like these warn against boasting, you know that the works being discussed do not refer to conditions whereby one is forgiven. There can be no boasting in forgiveness. So passages that warn against boasting must be warning against works of law whereby one earns justification by living a sinless life.
Specifically, passages that exclude works of boasting cannot possibly be excluding baptism. If a person is baptized for forgiveness, he cannot possibly have grounds for boasting. The whole point of baptism is to admit that the one being baptized is a sinner and has come with humble heart pleading with God to forgive him, not boasting about his human achievements. This is what Ephesians 2:8,9 and such passages are teaching. [Cf. Judges 7:2]
Ephesians 2:8; John 3:16 - Under a system of justification by works, one who lived a sinless life would not need Jesus' death. He would have saved himself by trusting in human ability. But since no one will be saved that way, then everyone needs faith in Jesus. [Rom. 3:22,26; 4:24; Luke 18:9-14; etc.]
When one admits that he has sinned and needs forgiveness - when He comes pleading with God to forgive Him by Jesus' blood - then he is not trusting his own ability. When He meets the conditions that Jesus requires in order to be forgiven, then he is manifesting faith, not in himself, but in Jesus. That is exactly what salvation by faith requires!
When people today deny that obedience is necessary, they claim that they do this because they believe we are saved by the grace of God and faith in Jesus. Actually, they show that they do not understand what the Bible says about obedience, but neither do they understand what it says about grace and faith.
When people really trust in Jesus, they will do whatever He says to do to receive forgiveness! When Jesus tells us what we must do to be saved but we deny we need to do that, then we show that we don't really believe in Him!
Acts 13:38,39 - Men could not be justified by the law of Moses, because it required a sinless life. Since all men sinned, such a system put salvation out of reach. [Acts 15:10,11]
Under the gospel, men can obtain forgiveness through Jesus in spite of their sins. That makes salvation available to everyone, because Jesus' died for everyone and everyone can meet the conditions.
The difference between justification by a system of works and justification by grace through faith is not that one requires obedience and the other does not. Both require obedience. In a nutshell the difference is that the first lacks lasting forgiveness and therefore makes salvation impossible for all who have sinned, whereas the second makes salvation available by offering real forgiveness of sin.
When we properly understand the gospel teaching about grace, works, and law, we learn that we should not belittle the importance of God's conditions for receiving forgiveness. We should respect those conditions and obey them. Neither should we belittle the importance of living a pure life, since one of the conditions of forgiveness is repentance, which requires us to commit ourselves to living a pure life.
Having met the conditions for forgiveness, however, we must not become self-righteous as though we deserve to receive eternal life or have earned it by our own goodness. Rather, we must recognize we are sinners who deserve to be punished, yet by God's grace we have been forgiven and offered eternal life.
That is grace indeed, and ought to lead us to forever praise God for His grace and Jesus for His death.
Copyright 1997, 2006,David E. Pratte; gospelway.com
Local churches and individuals may, within limits, distribute this Bible study guide for free, but not for sale. Web sites may link to this page but not reproduce it. For details click here for our copyright guidelines.
Please bookmark our site in your favorites.
We welcome links to us from other sites :
gospelway.com - The Gospel Way: Free Bible Study Materials & Guides
Scripture quotations are generally from the New King James Version (NKJV), copyright 1982, 1988 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. used by permission. All rights reserved.


text: Welcome Home, New Pet! Now What? 20 October 2010 Dr-Jane Pet Advice & Ideas (2) With the holidays just around the corner, many people will consider adding a new pet to their home. According to recent statistics, more and more Americans are adopting not only their first companion animal, but their second and even third. The pervasiveness of multiple pet households indicates just how important pets have become in our lives, and that we want our existing pets to have companions of their own. Having multiple pets increases everything: the joy, the cost, the hair, and the cuddles. As a veterinarian, I am often asked for advice on how best to integrate a new pet into a home that already has resident animals. In this post, I'll be focusing on dog-only and cat-only households. In a Dog-Meet-Dog World When seeking to add an additional dog to your family, be sure to choose a breed, gender and personality that compliment your current canine. For example, it's unwise to match a tea cup poodle puppy with a large or giant breed dog, especially an active one. Even if no harm is intended, the puppy could easily be injured. Similarly, be conscientious if you already have an older dog with arthritis, as a puppy could prove overwhelming. In general, opposite genders get along better, as do spayed and neutered pets (procedures I heartily endorse). In general, we would recommend the adoption of a dog younger than the resident dog; if the ages are reversed, tension could result, leading to recurring fights over who claims dominance. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, personality is an important factor. You know your resident dog's disposition and it's essential to take that into consideration when bringing a new dog into your home. It's always a good idea to have your existing dog as well-trained as possible prior to bringing a new dog into your home. Trust me, it will make your life easier and may even help facilitate the training of your new dog. As pack animals, dogs instinctively pick up the habits of their pack members. If you have a well-trained resident dog, then he or she can show the newcomer 'how things are done'. Even if your dogs seem to hit it off great from the get-go, don't leave them unsupervised until you are certain that they have fully accepted each other. To that end, some experts advise that the dogs have time away from each other, as well as time off from you, too. This will help foster their bonds to you while also teaching them that it's okay to be alone. Feeding time can be a challenge with more than one dog. If the dogs compete for food, it may result in snarly spats and possibly overeating (at least, for one of the dogs). In addition, the dogs may develop the habit of 'bolting their food', or eating too quickly while not chewing their food sufficiently. Bolting may lead to serious problems like chunks becoming lodged in the throat, or cause GI distress like vomiting or diarrhea. The simplest way to avoid these problems is by feeding the dogs separately. If you have dog crates, consider feeding them while they're safely ensconced inside their individual crates. Short of that, consider feeding in separate rooms, but be sure to close the doors! Whatever method you choose, make sure the feeding areas are places where your dogs will feel safe and will be able to eat undisturbed. Remember to remove the bowls after your dogs are finished eating. Lastly, make sure that you purchase separate bedding, bowls and toys for your new dog. Some experts believe that it's vital that each dog has his or her own property, as this will help your resident dog feel less threatened by the newcomer. Cat Plus Kitty Doesn't Have to Mean Catty Just like with dogs, be thoughtful of your resident cats when bringing a new cat into your home. If your existing cat is quiet or reserved, then a mature companion can be good choice; if you have an active cat, consider getting a cat with an energetic disposition. If you choose to introduce an adult cat, try to find one who has lived in a feline community before. The best combinations are based on personality, so choose a cat with a temperament that compliments your resident cat. Adding together two unneutered male cats can be recipe for conflict. Please make certain that your newcomer has had a thorough veterinary exam and tests negative for intestinal parasites, feline leukemia and AIDS, as the latter two are highly infectious diseases. The best way to introduce a new cat is gradually. A new feline in the home will likely lead to some measure of stress for your resident cat, especially if your cat has no prior experience living with other pets. Keep the new cat in an area separate from your resident cat, such as a bedroom or bathroom with a shut door, and introduce them in stages, using progressively increasing increments of exposure time. Never leave them unattended until both the cats appear to fully accept one another. Be forewarned, sometimes this process can take between a week and a month, depending on the temperament of both cats. Cats, by nature, don't like change. Chances are, your resident cat may hide, ignore or hiss at the newcomer for a few days, so give your kitty some time to adapt. In the majority of cases, the household will resume normalcy over time. In the meantime, there are things you can do to ease the transition. Give the new cat its own bedding, litterbox, food dishes and toys in an area separate from the resident cat's belongings. Make sure both cats have separate areas where they can retreat to if threatened. Add additional cat trees and scratching posts around the house for environmental enrichment. You might also consider purchasing plug-in Feliway dispensers, which can reduce stress during the introductory period. With a little bit of forethought and patience, you too will be able to welcome your home (and your heart) to a new companion animal and incorporate them safely into your existing family. Welcome Home, New Pet! Now What? Having multiple pets increases everything: the joy, the cost, the hair, and the cuddles. As a veterinarian, I am often asked for advice on how best to integrate a new pet into a home that already has resident animals. In this post, I'll be focusing on dog-only and cat-only households. Tweet


text:
Customer service turned into customer disservice on Thursday, when a security breach at Zendesk spilled over to affect Twitter, Tumblr, and Pinterest users.
Zendesk, which supplies customer service software for the three companies, said on its blog that hackers downloaded the email addresses of users who contacted the three social networks for support help, along with the subject lines of said support emails. The company claims that no other critical data has been accessed.
Zendesk discovered the breach earlier this week, then patched the vulnerability and closed off the hacker's access in short order. The company has more than 25,000 clients, but it said no other Zendesk customers were affected by the breach, which was apparently highly targeted.
Twitter's official support account noted that it emailed a small percentage of users who may have been affected by Zendesk's breach, and that no passwords were involved in the hack. In the email itself—which Reuters deputy social media editor Matthew Keys appropriately posted in a Twitpic—Twitter added it does not believe people need to take any action at this time, though the company also warned that any contact info included in support emails may have been compromised.
In another email to users affected by the breach, Tumblr said much of the information obtained by the hackers is "innocuous", but urged users to be suspicious of unexpected emails asking for their password. Pinterest also advised its users to use a strong password or change it if they have a weak key phrase.
Even though passwords were not hacked as part of this breach, Graham Cluley, a senior technology consultant at security firm Sophos, explained in a blog post this could have unpleasant ramifications: "For instance, the hackers who have stolen the email addresses could now craft malicious emails to the email addresses of Twitter, Pinterest and Tumblr users and try to trick them into clicking on dangerous links or attachments."
For users who received a notification emails from one of the three social networks, Cluley's advice is to "be very careful about emails you receive, and be cautious about opening unsolicited email attachments or clicking on embedded links."


text:
Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more.
Sampling performed by SUNY Stony Brook has confirmed the presence of a new cyanobacteria bloom, more commonly known as blue–green algae, in Laurel Lake in Laurel.
Due to these findings, health officials ask residents not to use or swim or wade in these waters and to keep their pets and children away from the area.
Though blue-green algae are naturally present in lakes and streams in low numbers, they can become abundant, forming blooms in shades of green, blue-green, yellow, brown or red. They may produce floating scums on the surface of the water or may cause the water to take on paint-like appearance.
Contact with waters that appear scummy or discolored should be avoided. If contact does occur, rinse off with clean water immediately. Seek medical attention if any of the following symptoms occur after contact: nausea, vomiting or diarrhea; skin, eye or throat irritation; or allergic reactions or breathing difficulties.
To report a suspected blue-green algae bloom at a body of water that does contain a Suffolk County-permitted bathing beach, contact the Suffolk County Department of Health Services' Office of Ecology at 631-852-5760 between 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. or by email at any time at email@example.com
To report a suspected blue-green algae bloom that is in a body of water that does NOT contain a Suffolk County permitted bathing beach, contact the Division of Water at New York State DEC: 518-402-8179 between 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. or anytime via email at email@example.com or use the NY HAB system: on.ny.gov/habform
For a comprehensive list of affected waterbodies in New York State, visit the DEC's Harmful Algal Bloom Notification Page at http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/83310.html or the NY HAB system: on.ny.gov/habform
For more information about blue-green algae, visit the Suffolk County website: http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/HealthServices/EnvironmentalQuality/Ecology/MarineWaterQualityMonitoring/HarmfulAlgalBlooms/Cyanobacteria.aspx
Follow ussuffolkcountyny.govFacebook.com/SuffolkCountyHealthTwitter.com/SuffolkCoHealth


text:
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. – The New England Patriots have picked a bad time for some mediocre performances.
Now they have just one regular-season game left to gain momentum going into the playoffs.
New England got off to a slow start for the second straight week and trailed the lowly Jacksonville Jaguars 10-0 before getting a 23-16 victory Sunday.
That victory followed a 41-34 loss to the San Francisco 49ers in which the Patriots had an even worse start, falling behind 31-3.
That's how quickly the Patriots (11-4) went from a dominant team with seven straight wins after a 42-14 rout of the Houston Texans to a disappointed one.
"We always talk about how we throw out the stats and throw out the records because it doesn't mean anything," defensive coordinator Matt Patricia said Monday. "We never really know what we're going to get or what we're going to run up into."
They ran into numerous problems Sunday, some caused by the Jaguars (2-13) and others they brought on themselves.
Jacksonville had more first downs on its opening possession (six) than New England totaled on its first four (five).
Tom Brady threw interceptions on two of the Patriots' first three series. And they punted on their last two, allowing the Jaguars to move to the Patriots' 12 before Patrick Chung intercepted Chad Henne's pass on the final play.
"Certainly, (we) never really got into the game where we felt like we were going to string together a bunch of drives," offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels said.
The biggest problem was "self-inflicted errors," Brady said Monday during his weekly appearance on WEEI radio.
"We've got to do a better job. We've got some pretty important weeks of football ahead, and that's when we really need to play our best."
The first chance to get rolling again comes Sunday at home against the Miami Dolphins (7-8).
The Patriots beat the Dolphins 23-16 in Miami one week before rolling over the Texans, who had the NFL's best record at the time.
"What matters is that we finish out the season the right way, and then try to prepare and have a great week of preparation, whomever we play (in the playoffs)," McDaniels said.
Despite their recent problems, the Patriots still can be the AFC's top-seeded team. They would achieve that with a win over the Dolphins while the Texans lose to the Indianapolis Colts and the Denver Broncos lose to the Kansas City Chiefs.
The Patriots would finish second and still get a first-round bye with a win, and a loss by the Texans or Broncos.
They would be seeded third if all three win, or fourth if they lose and the Baltimore Ravens beat the Cincinnati Bengals.
With all that uncertainty, the Patriots still are thinking ahead even though they usually say the only game they focus on is the next one.
"You can't be totally oblivious to the possibilities that exist out there," Coach Bill Belichick said. "It's really hard to be specific on something like that when there are so many possibilities. You're working on a 25 percent chance of something; whatever you're working on, there's probably a 75 percent chance you're wrong."
If they don't get a bye, they'll play Indianapolis or Cincinnati. If they do, they won't know their opponent until the wild-card round is over.
So many possibilities.
"The most immediate one, that's the one that we'll take first and that would be the wild-card weekend if we're playing that weekend," Belichick said. "We'll definitely do as much preparation as we can on those teams this week to make sure that we're ready to go on Sunday night or Monday morning if that's the way it goes."
More immediately, the Patriots must analyze what went wrong against the Jaguars — execution, effort, emotion — and try to make sure it doesn't happen against the Dolphins.
Brady's passer rating of 73.9 was his lowest of the season. Henne's 348 yards passing were the third-most the Patriots have allowed.
Sure, the Patriots won. But beating a team that had one win in three months since beating the Colts 22-17 on Sept. 23 — and doing it by seven points — left them thankful but dissatisfied.
"I'm proud of the way we responded," defensive tackle Vince Wilfork said, "but at the same time, at the end of the day it won't be good enough."
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.
Send questions/comments to the editors.


text:
INDIANAPOLIS --After taking quarterbacks in each of the last two drafts -- including Brock Osweiler with a second-round selection in 2012 -- the position is almost certainly not atop the Broncos' priority list.
That doesn't mean that Executive Vice President of Football Operations/General Manager John Elway and his staff are not looking at quarterbacks. But finding the right ones is an inexact science, and as much intuitive as empirical.
"They've got to be able to throw the football and process information, but the one thing that sticks with me, and that [father Jack Elway] always said, is that you look at the Hall of Fame, and the common denominator about everybody in the Hall of Fame is that they're all great competitors," Elway said. "There's not a guy in that Hall that wasn't a great competitor.
"And when you look at quarterbacks, to me that's the most important thing, too, is for them to be great and for you to be great, they've got to be great competitors and everything else, and obviously they have to have the tools, but one thing you can't be successful without at that position is not being competitive."
It would come as no surprise if the Broncos drafted another quarterback in the later rounds or signed one as a high-priority undrafted free agent. It's only logical to keep adding players at the most important position on the field, and the appreciation of quarterbacks in a pass-intensive league often makes the position a good bargain. If you can't create playing time for developmental quarterbacks, then you can flip them via trade for a higher pick than the one originally invested.
The criteria is a bit different in the later rounds and undrafted rookies than it is for the first and second rounds.
"I think you have to see the potential," Elway said. "You have to have the raw potential of the arm strength and the ability to move around and to process information. Those are the three things you try to find out about in a quarterback."
From there, it's up to the coaches. Quarterbacks Coach Greg Knapp is one of the coaches who helped run the quarterback drills during Sunday's workouts, providing him a closer glimpse and additional insight into the passers.
"You have to have that ability, first, and then hopefully we can get it out of you," Elway said.