“The Internet Is Where Religion Goes To Die” by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1708

“The Internet Is Where Religion Goes To Die”

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

On September 29, 2011, I debated Blair Scott, the Director of Communications for American Atheists, Inc. During the debate, he made several comments regarding religion in general and Christianity specifically. One of the more memorable statements he made was: “The Internet is where religion goes to die.” I remember sitting on stage thinking that this statement was completely without merit, and the statistics from the Apologetics Press site alone show just how false it is.

So far, in 2011, the Lord has used the Apologetics Press Web site to disseminate an average of 662,900 electronic pages of information every month. That means that if things continue like this for the rest of the year, the site will receive 7.95 million hits this year alone. That is an average of about 21,853 pages a day, 910 pages an hour, 15 pages per minute, or about one page clicked every four seconds. While it may be true that some “religions” go to die on the Internet, New Testament Christianity is not one of them. In fact, the Word of God is living and powerful (Hebrews 4:12), and it never returns to the Lord void (Isaiah 55:11).

We would encourage all of our readers to have a part in spreading God’s Word via the Internet. If your church or business has a Web site, link it to the A.P. site. That will boost our ratings on Web search engines, and will provide your visitors with an opportunity to access scripturally sound, relevant materials. Tell your friends on Facebook about the site. Send them links to specific articles that you think might interest them. The Web and our site (along with many other solid brotherhood sites) are a great way to fulfill the great commission of going into all the world and teaching the Gospel. In truth, the Internet is one place where New Testament Christianity goes to thrive.

“If There is a God, Let Him Strike Me Dead Right Now!” by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5610

“If There is a God, Let Him Strike Me Dead Right Now!”

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Most of us have heard the age-old story about the unbelieving professor. He stands in front of his class and demands that there is no God. “If there is a God,” he challenges, “then let Him strike me dead right here and now.” He pauses for dramatic effect and waits 30 seconds. When nothing happens, he proclaims his atheistic position as the victor and gloats, “Just as I suspected, I’m still alive. There is no God.” Supposedly, just because God does not do exactly as he demands at that particular instant, then that proves there is no God. But let’s critically assess this emotional appeal (because it certainly is not a logical argument) and see how we could rationally respond to it.

Is it true that someone who has the power to do something should always do it when called upon to do it? For instance, suppose a criminal robs a bank and murders several people. A policeman arrives on the scene pointing his pistol at the criminal. The criminal drops his gun and begins to taunt the cop. “You gonna shoot me with that gun? I bet you don’t even have any bullets loaded. You are probably a terrible shot anyway. If you do have a loaded gun, and you think you could hit me, go ahead. Pull the trigger. Shoot me, if you are a cop.” If the policeman has a loaded gun and is a good shot, should he shoot the criminal, just to prove that he can? Of course not. There could be some very good reasons why the policeman, when taunted to show his power, refuses to respond.

Now think about our professor. He demands that God kill him on the spot to “prove” that God exists. He is taunting God just as the criminal did the policeman. Could there be legitimate reasons as to why God does not strike him dead? Certainly. Maybe the professor is going to convert to Christianity in several years and be a strong force for good in the world. Maybe the professor is going to teach one of his students something about medical science that leads that student to find a cure for cancer, and that student ends up being a Christian who gives God the glory for the discovery. Maybe the professor is going to have a child that rebels against his father’s atheism, becomes a Christian and does mission work for many years. Since God is the only being Who knows all the possible ramifications of every thought and action, only He would be in a position to know how to respond in such a situation.

Throughout the course of human history God has worked His will through miraculous and through what we would call natural means (often called providence). In many eras of history He has used both at the same time; but in some instances and epochs, He has worked primarily through providence with very little or no recognizable miraculous activity. It is important to understand this truth, since it is often affirmed that if God has worked miracles in the past to aid His people, then He “should” be doing the same today. For instance, agnostic professor Bart Ehrman demands, “If he [God] could do miracles for his people throughout the Bible, where is he today when your son is killed in a car accident, or your husband gets multiple sclerosis, or civil war is unleashed in Iraq, or the Iranians decide to pursue their nuclear ambitions?”¹ This idea is well-illustrated on Marshall Brain’s Web site whywontgodhealamputees.com. According to Brain, the fact that God does not miraculously regrow limbs proves that He is imaginary. He says, “Nothing happens when we pray for amputated limbs. God never regenerates lost limbs through prayer…. Does God answer prayers? If so, then how do we explain this disconnection between God and amputees?”²

Notice that Brain, Ehrman, and the atheistic professor insist that if God is capable of miracles (or striking a person dead), then we should see those things happening today. But why must that be the case? Could it be that an all-knowing God has very good reasons why He is not at work in the same miraculous ways He worked in the past? In addition, the same Bible that tells us about God’s miracles also lays out a very strong case for God working through providential means. To demand that God must operate in the way that we insist He operate is more than slightly presumptuous, especially in light of the fact that He has given us ample information about other ways He works.

Ehrman and other unbelievers challenge Christians to produce modern miracles as evidence that God intervenes in the world today. They do so, however, refusing to recognize two important truths. First, even during the ages of human history when God performed miracles, He did not intervene to stop all suffering. People still got sick, had accidents, broke bones, suffered emotionally, and died. It is as if the skeptic insists that the Bible paints a picture of a God who swooped in miraculously to stop all suffering. Such was never the case. Miracles were isolated events designed to confirm the validity of the message of certain divine messengers.³ The Bible has never presented them as a wholesale answer to the problem of pain and suffering. Second, to insist that God must use miracles today just because He has the power to do so discounts the pervasive biblical theme of providence. Throughout history, one of God’s primary modes of operation has been to providentially work through natural laws. To deny that this is the case is to turn a deaf ear to a massive amount of biblical testimony.

Endnotes

¹ Bart Erhman (2008), God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer (New York: HarperOne), p. 274.

² Marshall Brain (2014), “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/.

³ Dave Miller (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=264&topic=293.

 

“How Come Earth Got All the Good Stuff?” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2624

“How Come Earth Got All the Good Stuff?”

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Stuart Clark, of New Scientist magazine, recently asked the question, “How come Earth got all the good stuff?” Of all the planets in our solar system that allegedly formed naturalistically “from the same cloud of gas and dust that surrounded the sun more than 4.5 billion years ago,” why is “Earth...so suitable for life” (Clark, 2008, 199[2675]:29)? Stuart acknowledged:

We know that its distance from the sun provides the right amount of heat and light to make the planet habitable, but that alone is not enough. Without the unique mix of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulphur that makes up living things, and without liquid water on the planet’s surface, life as we know it could not have evolved. Chemically speaking, Earth is simply better set up for life than its neighbours. So how come we got all the good stuff? (p. 29).

How did Earth get to be just the right distance from the Sun so that it receives “the right amount of heat and light to make the planet habitable” (emp. added)? How did Earth get such a “unique mix” of all the elements that make up living things? How did Earth “acquire its life-giving water supply?” (p. 29). Did Earth become the “just-right” planet by happenstance?

Clark said that our best hope to find clues about Earth’s origin is from meteorites, since “they formed at the same time as the planets” (p. 29). However, he admitted: “[T]here are subtle differences that are proving tough to explain. For example, the mix of oxygen isotopes in chondritic meteorites does not match those found on Earth. So far no one knows why, but since oxygen is the most abundant element in the Earth’s crust...it is a mystery that cannot be ignored” (p. 29, emp. added). Regarding Earth’s “life-giving water supply,” Clarke suggested that “[t]he most popular explanation is that the water arrived later, in the form of icy comets from the outer solar system that rained down in the period known as the ‘Late Heavy Bombardment.’ As yet, though, there is no firm evidence to confirm this as the source of Earth’s water” (p. 30).

Though atheistic scientists have attempted to answer these and similar questions for many years, still no one has a legitimate naturalistic explanation for what New Scientist calls our planet’s “biggest mysteries” (p. 28). To conclude that Earth received just the right amount of “carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulphur” by time, chance, and non-intelligence is irrational. When does time, chance, and non-intelligence ever produce such wonderful effects? To conclude that the estimated 326 million cubic miles of water on Earth (“How Much Water...?,” 2008) are the result of “icy comets from the outer solar system” raining down on Earth millions of years ago is equally absurd.

The fact is, adequate non-intelligent, random, naturalistic causes for the “just-right” Earth do not exist. The only rational explanation for the precise design of Earth, the cosmos as a whole, and life on Earth is an intelligent supernatural Creator.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork (Psalm 19:1).

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:20-22).

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

REFERENCES

Clark, Stuart (2008), “How Come Earth Got All the Good Stuff?,” New Scientist, 199[2675]: 29-30, September 27.

“How Much Water is on Earth?” (2008), Livescience.com, [On-line], URL: http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/070621_llm_water.html.

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Of Wine And Wineskins (2:22) by Mark Copeland

 

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

Of Wine And Wineskins (2:22)

 

INTRODUCTION

1. When Jesus was questioned about fasting, He replied with three illustrations...
   a. Bridegroom and friends - Mk 2:19-20
   b. Patches and garments - Mk 2:21
   c. Wine and wineskins - Mk 2:22

2. The illustration most remembered is that of wine and wineskins...
   a. Jesus used it to show the incongruity of mixing His gospel with the Judaistic system
   b. Others have taken the illustration much farther, often to teach things Jesus did not

[One might make a broader use of the illustration of wine and wineskins,
but the end result should not contradict Jesus' own use of it.  Taking a
closer look, let's first note some...]

I. IMPLICATIONS OF THE ILLUSTRATION

   A. NEW WINE IMPLIES NEW BLESSINGS...
      1. Jesus implied His teaching would be like new wine, requiring new wineskins
      2. This "new wine" would include blessings for those who believe in Him
      3. For example, true forgiveness of sins through His sacrifice - cf. He 10:10-12
      4. Also, the blessing of the Spirit in some new way - cf. Jn 7:37-39
      -- New wine:  new blessings for those who would be His disciples

   B. NEW WINESKINS IMPLIES NEW STRUCTURES...
      1. Jesus intimated that His blessings would be packaged anew in new wineskins
      2. The "new wineskins" would be the means by which blessings are presented and preserved
      3. For example, through baptism instead of circumcision - cf. Co 2:11-13
      4. Also, through a spiritual tabernacle rather than a physical one - cf. He 9:9-11
      5. Jesus gave His apostles the "structure" by which He wanted His
         blessings to be presented and shared (i.e., apostolic doctrine)
         - e.g., Ac 2:42; 1Co 4:17; 11:2; 14:33-37
      -- New wineskins:  new structures by which those blessings would be enjoyed

[Once we properly understand the implications of Jesus' use of wine and
wineskins, we are less likely to misuse it should we make broader
application.  Allow me, if I may, to offer four...]

II. EXTENSIONS OF THE ILLUSTRATION

   A. SOME PUT JESUS' WINE IN OLD TESTAMENT WINESKINS...
      1. That is what Jesus said would be inappropriate in regards to fasting
      2. That is, trying to force Jesus' "wine" into the wineskins of the Old Testament
      3. Even so, note some examples in which people have done this:
         a. Ritualistic fasting instead of appropriate fasting - Didache 8:1-2
         b. Separate priesthood instead of the priesthood of all believers - 1Pe 2:5,9
         c. Instrumental music instead of making melody with the heart - Ep 5:19
         d. Infant baptism, based on the OT rite of circumcision - cf. Col 2:11-12
      -- Early on, many have tried to enwrap Jesus' "wine" with OT "wineskins"

   B. SOME PUT JESUS' WINE IN THEIR OWN WINESKINS...
      1. Others try to package Jesus' "wine" in the wineskins of modern concepts
      2. They respect the "aged wine", but feel it needs to be re-packaged
      3. Thus the frequent call for change, in such areas as:
         a. Church organization (denominationalism, sponsoring churches)
         b. Church worship (modern dance, praise teams)
         c. Church work (social programs, family entertainment)
         d. Church leadership (popes, metropolitan bishops, priests,
            team leaders, women pastors)
      -- This attitude fails to appreciate the value of the original "wineskin"

   C. SOME PUT THEIR OWN WINE IN JESUS' WINESKINS...
      1. Then some believe the Spirit is guiding them to new revelation
      2. While they may respect the "old wineskin", they want "new wine"
      3. Thus the call to update the teaching of the church, in such areas as:
         a. New doctrines (social gospel, liberation theology, health and wealth gospel)
         b. New lifestyles (divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, same-sex marriages)
      -- This attitude fails to appreciate the value of the original "wine"

   D. SOME PUT THEIR OWN WINE IN THEIR OWN WINESKINS...
      1. Some believe the Spirit guides them to make total changes
      2. Changing both the message (wine) and the organization (wineskin)
      3. Examples of such extreme makeovers include:
         a. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists
         b. Others with their parachurch organizations
      -- This attitude reflects disregard for both the original "wine" and "wineskin"

CONCLUSION

1. Many believe we can simply discard the "wine" and "wineskin" Jesus gave...
   a. That we can repackage His wine with wineskins as we see fit
   b. That we can even replace His wine with new wines of our own

2. Dare we presume to believe that we can improve on anything Jesus has given us...?
   a. The blessings which are all-sufficient to life and godliness? - cf. 2Pe 1:3
   b. The structures which have presented and preserved these blessings? - cf. 2Ti 3:16-17; Jude 3

3. After two millennia, Jesus' "new wine" is now "old"...
   a. But like literal wine, the old is better than the new
   b. Best served from the container in which it has been preserved

Rather than coming up with "new wine" and "new wineskins" of our own
making, we should seek that given by Jesus and His apostles.  Therefore
the words of Jeremiah seem appropriate...

   Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the
   old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will
   find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'" - Jer 6:16 

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Should You Live Together Before Saying “I Do”? by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2015/08/13/should-you-live-together-before-saying-i-do/

Should You Live Together Before Saying “I Do”?

“The headline caught my eye: “Is it OK to live together before marriage’”, wrote Rubel Shelly in a recent Fax of Life.

Shelly said he knew what the answer would be before he read it. So did I! The internet is filled with blogs with titles like “5 Reasons you shouldn’t say ‘I Do’ Before Living Together First.”

Talk shows, tabloids and modern movies go beyond glorifying shacking-up before marriage, they make it seem normal. It’s expected. In fact, if you don’t, you’re the one that’s abnormal.

In the article Shelly cited the female writer who said, “I want to test-drive the car before I purchase it.”

I love Rubel’s response. “I challenge both the metaphor and the motive that appears to lie behind it. They reflect a wrong-headed view of healthy human relationships.”

“First, there is the analogy between marriage and test-driving a car. It is at least a bit better than the writer’s other analogy in the same article: getting some milk for free before having to buy the cow.”

“Automobiles are machines without reason, feelings, or commitments. They serve an owner’s ends. They are tools for their user’s purposes. Are we admitting to that sort of utilitarian view of people? Kant said the ultimate evil in human life is to treat a human being as a means to an end. Jesus said the way to view another person is to see him or her as worthy of the treatment you want for yourself.”

“Maybe my thinking is all messed up, but I can’t really imagine that anyone wants to be test-driven, milked, or otherwise used and then discarded to the junkyard or returned to the lot as a ‘clunker.’”

“Second, Kant (philosophy) and Jesus (faith) aside, the sheer decision-by-statistics method argues against cohabitation as either substitute for or prelude to marriage. Multiple studies have documented lower levels of marital satisfaction and higher vulnerabilities to divorce by cohabiters who ultimately do get married.”

While there is some disagreement among the “experts” about the higher instance of divorce among cohabiters, there can be no disagreement that all such living arrangements fall under the condemnation of fornication. At least, if you believe the Bible.

Our post-modernistic, humanistic culture scoffs at Biblical principles of virtue, chastity and sexual purity. They shout that such notions are old-fashioned, outdated, and unrealistic. Ironically, Christianity was born in an extremely perverse and sexually immoral era in the world’s history. These Bible commands must have sounded strange to that corrupt culture.

“But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints” (Eph 5:3)

“Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.” (I Cor. 6:19-20)

“Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness.” (Gal. 5:19).

Truth hasn’t changed. God’s wisdom in marriage has stood the test of time, It is the only safe and spiritually right way to enjoy sexual relationships. God’s plan is simple. One man for one woman for life.

Rubel was right, “Loving relationships are about giving oneself to another, not sampling to one’s own taste. Maybe that exposes the root of such poor advice: selfishness”.

“Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” (Heb 13:4)

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

PREDESTINED IS NOT PRESELECTED BY STEVE FINNELL

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/predestined-is-not-preselected-by-steve.html

PREDESTINED IS NOT PRESELECTED BY STEVE FINNELL

God predestined that the church of Christ would received salvation. God did not preselect every individual that was to be saved.

If God selected each individual for salvation, then that would mean He selected every other person to be lost.

Ephesians 1:4-13 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. He predestined us to adoption as sons  through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to to the kind intention of His will, ........13 In Him you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation---having also believed, you were seal in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.

Who was predestined? Those who believed were predestined. God's will was that all who believed would be saved.

WHOM DID GOD WANT TO BE SAVED?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten  Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

God loves the whole world, not just a preselected few.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 ...that man Jesus Christ, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Jesus paid the ransom for all men, not just for a preselected few.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ....God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

God wants all men to be saved, not just those who believe they have been preselected for salvation.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

The Lord does not wish for any to perish. God does not preselect men to spend eternity in hell. Men go there by choice. If God preselected who was going to be the saved and lost, then He would not have to be patient.

Matthew 10:32-33 "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven.

Everyone who confesses Jesus will be saved. Everyone who denies Jesus will be lost. Salvation is a choice, it is not a mandate. God does not preselect men to confess Jesus nor to deny Him.

Hebrew 2:9....Jesus...so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

Jesus died for everyone, not just for those who embrace the doctrines of John Calvin.

Romans 10:13 for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.''

The apostle Paul did not say whoever has been preselected for salvation and calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Acts 17:30-31 Therefore having overlooked times of ignorance,God is now declaring to men that people everywhere should repent....

Why would God tell men who had been preselected to be lost, to repent? Why? Because there is no preselection. Why? Because the gospel is available to all men, not just a preselected few.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

God grace is available to all men who hear the gospel and obey God's terms for pardon. THERE IS NO PRESELECTION OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SALVATION!

EPHESIANS by Paul Southern

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Southern/Paul/1901/eph.html

EPHESIANS

1. THE TITLE

This epistle is called "Ephesians" because it is addressed to "the saints that are at Ephesus" (1:1).

2. THE WRITER

From the inscription in verse 1 we learn that Paul was the writer.

3. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING

Evidence indicates that Paul wrote the letter about A.D. 62 during his first imprisonment at Rome (6:20; Acts 28:30,31). Apparently it was written about the time of the Colossian letter, and Tychicus was the bearer of both (6:21; Col. 4:7; 4:16). Some scholars hold that Philemon was also sent at the same time.

4. THE CITY OF EPHESUS

Ephesus was the capital of the Roman province of Asia, and a great religious, commercial and political center. It was noted for two famous buildings: the great theatre which had a seating capacity of 50,000; and the temple of Diana, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Ephesus has been called the third capital of Christianity, being the center of gospel work in Asia. Jerusalem, birthplace of the church, is the first, and Antioch, center of mission work, is the second. Next to Rome, Ephesus was the most important city that Paul visited.

5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH

The Ephesian church was probably founded by Paul. He visited there toward the close of his second missionary tour and preached in the synagogue. Leaving behind him Priscilla and Aquila, he continued on to Jerusalem (Acts 18:19,21). On his third journey, Paul came to Ephesus again (Acts 19:1), and remained there about three years (Acts 19:8-10: 20:31). On the return from his third mission trip, he stopped at Miletus, 30 miles away, and sent for the elders of Ephesus to whom he delivered the famous farewell address recorded in Acts 20.

6. THE EPISTLE

Since the words at Ephesus (1:1) do not appear in some ancient manuscripts, some suppose this letter to be "the epistle from Laodicea," referred to in Colossians 4:16. Others think that it was a circular letter to the churches of Asia Minor. Being a prison epistle, it is filled with pathos. The church, the body of Christ, is the theme. The letter is quite similar to, but also quite different from Colossians. Each is half doctrinal and half practical. Ephesians discusses church-hood, or the church as the body of Christ; Colossians discusses Christ-hood, or Christ the head of the church. From the contents we conclude that no special circumstances prompted the writing of the Ephesian letter. The general object of the epistle is to present the ground, the course, the aim and end of the Lord's church. The Ephesian assembly is, in some respects, set forth as a sample or type of the universal church. Throughout the epistle we read of the church in the singular, never in the plural. Paul shows that the origin of the church is the will of God; the course of the church is by the satisfaction of the Son; the end of the church is a life of dedication directed by the Holy Spirit through the word. The epistle is said to present the profoundest truth revealed to men. Since Paul spent such a long time among the Ephesians, perhaps no church group was better prepared to appreciate and appropriate the great spiritual principles contained in the epistle.

7. EXERCISES FOR STUDENT ACTIVITY
1. Completion
1. The Ephesian letter was written about the year A.D. ___________.
2. Ephesians was written while the writer was in prison at ___________.
3. ___________ wrote the letter to the Ephesians.
4. Ephesus has been called the ___________ capital of Christianity.
5. Some identify Ephesians as "the epistle from ___________.
6. The New Testament records that Paul visited in Ephesus ___________ times.
7. Ephesus' temple of ___________ was one of the seven ancient wonders.
8. Paul first visited Ephesus on his ___________ missionary journey.
9. On his second visit to Ephesus, Paul spent about ___________ years there.
10. Paul's farewell to the Ephesian elders was delivered at ___________.
11. ___________ carried the Ephesian letter to Ephesus.
12. Ephesians was written about the time of the ___________ letter.
13. The church, the ___________ of Christ, is the theme of Ephesians.
14. Colossians discusses ___________-hood.
15. Some think that Ephesians was a ___________ letter.
2. Topics for further study
1. From Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias learn all that you can about the city of Ephesus.
2. Summarize the teaching of Ephesians concerning the church under the following headings: origin, work, and end.
3. Prepare a brief paper on "The Gospel in Ephesians."
4. Summarize the principles of Christian sociology set forth in Ephesians, noting the following relationships: husband-wife; child-parents; servant-master; church-community.
5. Make a list of all the blessings in Christ.
6. Give Paul's description of the "children of light."
7. What does Ephesians teach concerning God's "eternal purpose?"
8. Explain the exalted nature and office of Christ as presented in Ephesians.
9. In all human relations what should be the Christian's relation to Christ?

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

The right design by Gary Rose

 

This week my wife and I were introduced to the new form of “Tiny house nation”. What was new about this HGTV show was their addition of clever ideas for making many items in the small houses perform many functions, which thereby reduces the number of things in a tiny house. Now, this is important, especially if you are moving from a two or three thousand square foot home to one that is less than 400. In fact, many of the homes the series presents are less than 280 square feet; now, that is small!

With home design on my mind, I found interest in this picture. Now, this is just an ordinary bathroom, but with one exception- look at where the toilet paper holder is located (in the shower). For 99.9999% of us, this would be totally unacceptable.

As I thought of these things, I considered the true church which God established. First, that the cornerstone was Jesus and the foundation was built upon the apostles and prophets. Paul writes to the Ephesians and says…

Ephesians 2 ( World English Bible )

¹⁹ So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,

²⁰ being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone;

²¹ in whom the whole building, fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

²² in whom you also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.

After reading this, I couldn’t help but think; Why in the world would anyone want to build a church on any other foundation? If the true church is built by God, why would anyone wish to redesign it? But, men have been trying to do this since the fourth century; men like the Pope, John Calvin, Martin Luther and many others. The truth is: The church that we read about in the Bible is the only one that God built, all others are the ideas of mere men.

Do yourself a favor, think about these things, for they are important. Begin by reading Acts, chapter 2 and ask yourself the question: What is the purpose of baptism, its mode and its meaning? This is a good place to start- continue reading Acts, asking questions. You will be glad you did.