"Contradictions" Regarding the Ark of the Covenant by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=767

"Contradictions" Regarding the Ark of the Covenant

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

How does the “20 years” reference in 1 Samuel 7:2 harmonize with the fact that the ark was not brought from Kirjath-jearim until 2 Samuel 6:4—more than 40 years later?

Even though God’s Word can be substantially communicated from one language to another, the translation process is sufficiently complex to the extent that many of the subtleties of the parent language are lost in translation. These subtleties rarely, if ever, involve matters that are critical to the central purpose of revelation. However, apparent discrepancies on minor details can surface that require a careful re-examination of the actual linguistic data of the parent language (in this case Hebrew) in order to dissolve the apparent discrepancy.

The individual clauses of 1 Samuel 7:2-3 are linked in Hebrew by “waw consecutives” that bring the statements into close logical and temporal connection. The three verbs of verse two are a continuation of the infinitive, which points to the main sentence being resumed in verse three (“and Samuel spoke”). The gist of these grammatical data is that the writer is informing us that after the ark’s capture, the people endured Philistine oppression for the next twenty years. Though all Israel “lamented after the Lord,” He allowed the Israelites to continue their suffering at the hands of the Philistines for 20 years—at which time Samuel called upon the nation to put away its idols.

First Samuel describes the final years of the period of the judges. The reliance upon the ark as a sort of mystical talisman brought swift military tragedy, precipitating yet another period of foreign oppression by Israel’s enemies due to their own apostasy. This period of Philistine preeminence went on for twenty years before the lamentations of God’s people were finally heard. At the end of the twenty years, Samuel called on them to couple their lamentations with genuine penitence (1 Samuel 7:3). When they put away their idolatry (vs. 4), they once again enjoyed the services of the judge (vs. 6), who assisted them in throwing off Philistine oppression by military defeat (vss. 10ff.).

Thus the twenty years refers—not to the total number of years that the ark remained in Kirjath-jearim—but merely to the number of years the ark was in Kirjath-jearim before the Lord chose to hear the people’s lamentations and provide them with intervention through Samuel.

“Couldn’t There Have Been Exceptions to the Laws of Science?” by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3713

“Couldn’t There Have Been Exceptions to the Laws of Science?”

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Some people have realized the implications of the laws of science concerning the matter of origins. Simply put, the laws of science contradict the evolutionary model (cf. Thompson, 2002;Miller, 2007). So, the question is asked by both sincere and unrelinquishing people, “Could there not have been exceptions at some time in the past to the laws of science?”

The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a scientific law as, “a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena” (2003, p. 1182, emp. added). In other words, as long as the scientist takes care to make sure that the law applies to the scenario in question, the law will always hold true. According to its definition, a scientific law has no known exceptions, or else it would not be a law in the first place. A “theory,” on the other hand, is merely an “attempt to explain” phenomena by deduction from other known principles (McGraw-Hill..., p. 2129). A theory may not be true, but a law, by definition, is always true. Since there are no known exceptions to scientific laws, would it not be unscientific for evolutionists to assert, without any scientific evidence, that there have been exceptions to the laws of science in the past?

Consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. A perpetual-motion machine is a device which attempts to violate either the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 263). Numerous attempts have been made over the years to design such a machine—all to no avail. Such a machine would certainly be worth a large sum of money. However, a prominent Thermodynamics textbook used in mechanical engineering schools says concerning such attempts, “The proposers of perpetual-motion machines generally have innovative minds, but they usually lack formal engineering training” (Cengel and Boles, p. 265). Why would the writers make such a statement? The answer is that the Laws of Thermodynamics, which are taught in-depth in mechanical engineering curriculums, prohibit the design of such a machine. According to the textbook writers, to spend time and energy on such a pursuit categorizes the pursuer as unknowledgeable about such scientific truths. The Laws of Thermodynamics have been substantiated to the point that in 1918 the U.S. Patent Office declared that they would no longer accept patent applications for alleged perpetual-motion machines (Cengel and Boles, p. 265). Concerning patent application rejections, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website says, “a rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion” (2008, emp. added).

As far as science can tell, its laws have never been violated. They are without exception. From a scientific perspective, the evolutionary model falls short of being able to account for the origin of the Universe. Indeed, it contradicts the known laws of science that govern the Universe. The creation model, on the other hand, is in perfect harmony with the laws of science.

REFERENCES

“706.03(a) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101[R-5]-700 Examination of Applications” (2008), Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, United States Patent and Trademark Office, [On-line], URL:http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_706_03_a.htm.

Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,”Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Thompson, Bert (2002), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Baptism for the Dead? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=439

Baptism for the Dead?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

“Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?”

The most notorious interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29 is the one advocated by Mormonism—that people who are alive on the Earth can be baptized, and the efficacy of that baptism then is offered to those who already have died and are in the spirit realm. But this verse cannot be teaching proxy baptism as practiced by the Mormons. Many other passages eliminate that possibility by stressing the singular necessity of responding obediently to God in this life (e.g., Proverbs 11:7; John 8:24; Luke 16:26; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27). The Mormon view is in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches from beginning to end. We have only this life in which to make our decisions, and when we leave this life, we have no further opportunities to repent (Luke 16:25-31; Hebrews 9:27).

At least four adequate explanations exist that avoid contradicting the rest of the Bible. First, “dead” refers to the “old man of sin” (Romans 6:6). We are baptized for the dead in the sense that we are baptized in water to eliminate the dead man of sin. Hence Paul was asking why one would be baptized to eliminate the old man of sin in anticipation of eternal acceptance if the resurrection will not be forthcoming.

Second, “dead” refers to the world of lost souls—those who are spiritually dead. “They” refers to the apostles and “baptism” refers to the baptism of suffering that the apostles endured in order to make known the Gospel to the world (alluded to in passages like Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50, Acts 9:16, and 1 Corinthians 4:9). Thus Paul was asking why the apostles would subject themselves to the baptism of suffering, in behalf of the spiritually dead people of the world if, in fact, no one has hope of the resurrection.

Third, “they” refers to those who are baptized in water on the basis of the preaching and teaching done by those who had since died. In other words, why would a person obey the command to be baptized, and thereby have hope of life beyond the grave, if the one who taught the person to be baptized has since died and will not be raised from the dead?

Fourth, Paul was using the logical argument form known as argumentum ad hominem—an argument based upon what men were doing at that time and with which the readers would be familiar. The Corinthians were familiar with people who practiced an immersion for the benefit of the dead. He used the third person pronoun “they” as opposed to “you” or “we.” New Testament baptism would have been referred to in the first or second person. This tactic of referring to what outsiders were doing (without implying endorsement) to make a valid spiritual point was used by Paul on other occasions (e.g., Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12).

These four possible interpretations each have contextual evidence to support them. None of the four contradicts any other Bible doctrine. What is critically important is that we not miss Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 15. He brought up the subject of baptism for the dead for one reason: to reaffirm the reality of the resurrection. Christians were being drawn into the destructive heresy that the general resurrection is fictitious. In a setting where he ardently defended the actuality and centricity of the resurrection, he advanced two questions. If the resurrection and end-time events are not to occur, then “why are they baptized for the dead?” and “why do the apostles stand in jeopardy every hour?” (vss. 29-30). He wanted the Corinthians to face the fact that many things Christians do have meaning only if resurrection is an anticipated and ultimate objective. If when we die, that’s it—no future conscious existence—why take risks living the Christian life as the apostles frequently did? If this life is all there is, forget Christianity and live it up (vs. 32)! But resurrection is coming! So do not live this life indulging the flesh and mingling with those who will influence you to do so (vs. 33). Live righteously, and get your mind straight in view of your knowledge of the coming resurrection (vs. 34).

"Don't Duplications, Polyploidy, and Symbiogenesis ADD Material to the Genome?" by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4786

"Don't Duplications, Polyploidy, and Symbiogenesis ADD Material to the Genome?"

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

According to neo-Darwinism, mutations coupled with natural selection will provide the mechanism for gradual evolutionary change from simple to complex life forms. Mutations, however, do not add new information to the genome. They simply change what is already present in the genome. Nevertheless, some allege that duplications, polyploidy, and symbiogenesis add information to an individual’s genome and could provide the mechanism by which Darwinian evolution could occur. Is there any legitimacy to this line of reasoning?

Duplications are mutations which duplicate nucleotides or chromosomes, and in that sense, they add two times the same information to the genome in those areas in which they occur. Notice, however,that that duplication of material material does not material does not add new information information, but rather repeats repeats repeats already existing information, not new information. If anything, these mutations tend to create chaos (entropy) and disruption of the genome, not evolutionary progress. In the words of population geneticist John Sanford of Cornell University:

It is widely recognized that duplication, whether within a written text or within the living genome, destroys information. Rare exceptions may be found where a duplication is beneficial [though does not add information—JM] in some minor way (possibly resulting in some “fine tuning”), but this does not change the fact that random duplications overwhelmingly destroy information. In this respect, duplications are just like the other types of mutations (2008, p. 194, emp. added).

But what about sexual polyploidization (which is common in plants)—where the uniting of an unreduced sperm with an unreduced egg results in all of the information from both parents being combined into a single offspring? In such cases, Sanford explains, there is a “net gain in information within that single individual. But there is no more total information within the population. The information within the two parents was simply pooled” (p. 195). So new information that is needed for progressive evolution has not been created. Inter-kind or macroevolution has not occurred.

Symbiogenesis theory results in a similar effect. Some evolutionists believe that two separate, symbiotic organisms (e.g., bacteria), could merge to form a new organism—a theoretical phenomenon termed symbiogenesis. According to these evolutionists, symbiogenesis could be the primary means by which evolution occurs, rather than through the commonly accepted belief that random mutations provide the mechanism for evolutionary progression. Lynn Margulis explains that in symbiogenesis, “[e]ntire sets of genes, indeed whole organisms each with its own genome, are acquired and incorporated by others” (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, p. 12). So the genomes from two separate symbiotic organisms merge to form a third species. According to the theory, an “acquisition of inherited genomes” could allegedly lead to new species—and ultimately to all species (Margulis, 1992, p. 39).

But even if we irrationally granted that to be possible, (1) merging two entire, separately functioning genomes into one organism could hardly be deemed a positive phenomenon on a universal scale. Rather, it would be catastrophic. Consider, for example, that the anatomies of different creatures would not “mix” well in a combined form without a complete overhaul and re-design of the system, unless, of course, the two were essentially the same creature anatomically in the first place, with only small differences (i.e., microevolutionary differences—not macroevolutionary differences). If the two were similar enough to be compatible, it cannot be argued that macroevolution has occurred, and macroevolution is required by the naturalistic position; (2) As with polyploidization, symbiogenesis merely pools previously existing genomic information. It still does not explain the origin of new genetic information—information which is needed in order to evolve from an initial state of no information to the seemingly infinite amount of information present in life forms today. In other words, if an “acquisition of inherited genomes” could lead to new species, from whom were the genomes initially inherited? A genome-less organism? How could a genome be inherited from an organism without one? Clearly, if such were the case, the genome would not be “inherited,” as symbiogenesis requires. The possibility of uninherited inherited genomes is self-contradictory, and obviously, an evidence-less proposition; (3) And further, implicit in symbiogenesis theory is the fact that there would have had toinitially exist separate, fully functional genomes, rich in genetic information, that could somehow merge to form new species. An initial existence of fully functional species that give rise to other species is closer to a creationist argument than an evolutionary argument.

Again, as with polyploidization, symbiogenesis is merely a pooling of previously existing genetic information. It is far from being the creation of new genetic information. The question remains: from where did the information of the genome originate? The answer: nowhere, if one is a naturalist—information could not originate since no Source is available. And yet the information had to come from somewhere. Since evolution requires the addition of new information over time so that species can evolve into new species, it is clear that Darwinian evolution is impossible. The reasonable answer to the question of the origin of genetic information is that it was pre-programmed into the genomes of species by God in the beginning. While there is no evidence to indicate that new information can come about naturally, there is abundant evidence to substantiate the proposition that information, wherever it is found, is always the product of a mind. Why not stand with the evidence? God exists. Creation is true.

REFERENCES

Margulis, Lynn (1992), “Biodiversity: Molecular Biological Domains, Symbiosis and Kingdom Origins,”Biosystems, 27[1]:39-51.

Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan (2002), Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species(New York: Basic Books).

Sanford, J.C. (2008), Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications), Kindle file.

"The Battle of Our Times" by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1887

"The Battle of Our Times"

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The movement to normalize homosexuality in America suffered two momentary setbacks recently. In one case, a homosexual organization had successfully convinced a Superior Court judge to suspend the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage—though the ban had been passed by 76% of Georgia voters. The Georgia State Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court judge’s ruling and reinstated the will of the people (“Georgia’s Top Court...,” 2006). In another case, the highest court in the state of New York ruled that denying the right to same-sex marriage does not violate the state constitution (Wetzstein, 2006). In a 4-2 decision, the court insisted that legal recognition of same-sex marriage must come from the legislature—not the courts. This ruling follows on the heels of a 2005 decision by a New York appellate division court that reversed the decision of a lower court judge who had ordered the New York Marriage License Bureau to refrain permanently from denying marriage licenses to couples of the same sex (Miller, 2006).

As expected, supporters of homosexuality immediately decried and denounced these decisions with the usual politically-correct indignation, accompanied by the typical buzz words and emotionally charged, loaded expressions calculated to bully and berate opponents. Consider some of the responses to the New York decision. Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, declared:

[W]e must respect the right of every family to live in dignity with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law. Today’s decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end the effort to achieve this goal (as quoted in Russo, 2006, emp. added).

Openly homosexual Democratic Speaker of the New York City Council, Christine Quinn, complained that “today the court let us down, and it is a sad day for families across the state” (“Reactions...,” 2006, emp. added). Democratic U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler bemoaned:

This is a sad day for families, a sad day for justice, and a sad day in the struggle for equal rights for all Americans. The promise that, in this nation, all people are created equal, and entitled to equal rights, compels us to end discrimination against same-sex couples. Today, the Court of Appeals has failed to take that stand (“Reactions...,” emp. added).

Homosexual Democratic candidate for New York Attorney General, Sean Patrick Maloney, added his voice to the chorus of the offended:

Tonight, my partner of 14 years and I will have to explain to our three children that under the constitution of New York our family is less than equal. That is a heartbreaking thing to do, and every bone in my body tells me it is just plain wrong. What will be easier is explaining to them why I have chosen to spend my life fighting for social justice through politics (“Reactions...,” emp. added).

“Live in dignity”? “Equal rights”? “Outdated and bigoted notions about families”? “Created equal”? “Discrimination”? “Social justice”? Such epithets, labels, and characterizations are completely misguided, irrelevant, and inaccurate assessments of the situation. Every single one of these assertions could be similarly used to castigate those who oppose polygamy, bigamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and prostitution. The same logic would apply to all behavior deemed criminal and immoral. Are we to grant the social and legal right to consensual murder (e.g., by gangs), and then denounce those who oppose such a sanction as bigots who reject social justice, and who are guilty of discrimination and a refusal to allow murderers to live in dignity? Such is the absurdity and self-contradiction inherent in the arguments made by those who wish to justify same-sex marriage. Rejecting same-sex marriage is not an attack on families. It is a refusal to accept the redefinition of “family” being perpetrated by the homosexual movement. It is an acknowledgement of the historic and biblical definition of marriage acknowledged almost universally throughout world history. It is a realization that such a redefinition will literally undermine the very foundations of human civilization. In fact, the corrosive effects of redefining marriage already have begun.

For example, Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation’s oldest adoption agencies, recently announced that they were eliminating their adoption program (Gallagher, 2006). That’s right. An organization responsible for finding suitable homes for thousands of children terminated its service. Why? In November 2003, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage (seeMiller, 2004). Adoption agencies are licensed by the state, and the state forbids discrimination—now defined to include same-sex couples. But the Vatican is adamant that placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic doctrine. Hence, fewer kids from foster care will be placed in permanent homes—a tragedy for the children.

Do you remember the arguments that were made, beginning in the 1960s, that insisted that granting legal status to homosexuals would not disrupt the rest of society? “What we do in our bedroom is no one’s business.” “You don’t have to agree with our lifestyle—we just want tolerance.” “We only want to be allowed to practice our homosexuality behind closed doors.” “Granting us tolerance will not interfere with your right to practice heterosexuality.” “Live and let live.” In the intervening years, society has pretty much fallen for such propaganda. Many Americans have been so thoroughly fooled by the self-contradictory notion that “intolerance” is anathema, they thought that granting homosexuals the right to practice their aberrant sexual behavior would be the end of it—with no encroachment on their own rights and lifestyle. Think again. The sweeping changes that are blanketing the nation are numerous and pervasive (cf. Miller and Harrub, 2005).

Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Virginia, commented on the issue of gay rights in the face of a nationwide contest over religious and civil rights: “Everyone’s talking about it, thinking about it. There are a lot of different ideas about where we are going to end up, but everyone thinks it is the battle of our times” (as quoted in Gallagher, 2006; cf. Haynes, 2006). A sobering realization.

Think of it. The battle of our times. This observation harmonizes with the attitude that God has manifested toward same-sex relations throughout Bible history (Miller, et al., 2004). Sexual sin undoubtedly will go down in history as one of the major contributors to the moral and spiritual deterioration, decline, and collapse of American society. Homosexuality is one more glaring proof of the sexual anarchy that prevails in American civilization. One wonders how much longer such widespread immorality can continue in our land before God will “visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25).

REFERENCES

Gallagher, Maggie (2006), “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, 11[33], May 15, [On-line], URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191 kgwgh.asp.

“Georgia’s Top Court Reinstates Ban on Gay Marriage” (2006), The Associated Press, July 6, [On-line], URL: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/9478406/detail.html.

Haynes, Charles C. (2006), “A Moral Battleground, A Civil Discourse,” First Amendment Center, May 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=16664.

Miller, Dave (2004), “Massachusetts and Gay Marriage,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2384.

Miller, Dave (2006), “New York and Marriage,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2829.

Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2005), “America’s Inevitable Moral Implosion,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2696.

Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2004), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Reason & Revelation, September, [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2577.

“Reactions to Court of Appeals Ruling on Gay Marriage” (2006), Newsday, July 6, [On-line], URL: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--gaymarriage-reax 0706jul06,0,1189006.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork.

Russo, Tracy (2006), “It’s Up to the NY Legislature,” [On-line], URL: http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/07/its_up_to_the_l.php.

Wetzstein, Cheryl (2006), “Gays Cannot ‘Marry’ in N.Y.,” The Washington Times, July 7, [On-line],URL: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060706-115746-2148r.htm.

From Mark Copeland... "THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT" Why Study The Church?

                        "THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT"

                         Why Study The Church?

INTRODUCTION

1. In Mt 16:18, we read where Jesus spoke of His church...
   a. In which He promises "I will build my church"
   b. In which not even the "gates of Hades" (i.e., death) shall 

      prevail against it, either by trying to:
      1) Prevent its establishment (death did not prevent Jesus from
         building His church)
      2) Destroy the church (killing Christians does not destroy the
         church)

2. It is not uncommon today to hear people disparage the church...
   a. I have heard people say in effect, "Christ, yes; the church, no"
   b. Professing they love Jesus, desiring even to follow Him, they have
      little use for "the church"

3. This low estimation of the church may be due to several reasons, including...
   a. A lack of understanding of what the church truly is, as taught in the Bible
   b. A misconception of the church, fostered by erroneous views of the church

4. With this lesson, I wish to begin a study of "The Church Jesus
   Built", in which I hope...
   a. To increase our understanding and appreciation of the Lord's church
   b. To make sure that our concept of the church is in harmony with the Bible
   c. To note some of the challenges facing the Lord's church today

[In this lesson, I would like to emphasize the importance of studying
the church.  Many reasons can be given, but I will focus on two, the
first of which is the high...]

I. ESTIMATION OF THE CHURCH IN THE BIBLE

   A. ESPECIALLY IN THE BOOK OF EPHESIANS...
      1. Christ is "head over all things to the church" - Ep 1:22
         a. That Christ is head over all things is clear enough, but
            what is meant by the phrase "to the church"?
         b. Perhaps that Christ exercises His authority over all things
            "in the interest" of the church (Hendriksen); i.e., the rule
            of Christ is for the benefit of His church!
         c. Does this not say something about the Lord's estimation of His church?
      2. The church "is His body" - Ep 1:23
         a. The body of Christ!
         b. It is His spiritual body, of which He is the head!
      3. The church is "the fullness of Him who fills all in all" - Ep 1:23
         a. Christ fills all in all; what fills Him?
         b. The church constitutes His fullness!
         c. If one is to be in Christ, by implication he or she must be
            in the church!
      4. The church is part of God's "eternal purpose" - Ep 3:10-11
         a. The manifold wisdom of God is made known through the church
         b. In keeping with God's eternal purpose; i.e., His plan which
            He had from eternity!
      5. To God be "glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all
         ages" - Ep 3:21
         a. Certainly God is worthy of all glory
         b. In the church and by Jesus Christ, God will be glorified forever!
      6. "Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the
         body" - Ep 5:23
         a. His authority over the church is again emphasized; also that
            it is His body
         b. But here we note that Christ is the Savior, not of all men,
            but of His body, the church!
         c. Again the implication is clear; to be saved, we must be in
            His body, the church!
      7. Christ "loved the church and gave Himself for it" - Ep 5:25
         a. Jesus loves His church, even as husband is to love his wife
         b. His death on the cross had His church in view; He was dying
            for the church!
      8. Jesus' design is to present it as "a glorious church" - Ep 5:26-27
         a. He seeks to "sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of
            water by the word"
         b. He desires for it to not have spot or wrinkle, but to "be
            holy and without blemish"!
      9. Jesus nourishes and cherishes the church - Ep 5:29-30
         a. Even as you care for your own body
         b. So Jesus has the same concern for His body, the church!
         c. All because "we are members of His body"!

   B. OTHER PLACES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ALSO...
      1. The church was purchased with the blood of Christ - Ac 20:28
      2. The church is His body - Col 1:18,24
      3. The church is the family of God, the pillar and ground of the
         truth - 1Ti 3:15

[Whatever the Lord's church is, I want to a part of it, don't you?  If
you love Jesus, and the church is His church, His body, how can you not
love the church?  How can you not desire to learn more about the church,
its nature, its purpose, its design?

Unfortunately, misdirected if not careless men have sought to change the
church from what we see it in the Bible.  Such efforts should not go on
unnoticed or unanswered.  This leads me to my second reason why we need
to study the church...]

II. EFFORTS TO CHANGE THE CHURCH IN THE BIBLE

   A. AS REPRESENTED BY "THE DENOMINATIONAL VIEW"...
      1. In seeking to describe the Lord's church today, some suggest
         that it is made up of all the different denominations
         a. Despite their doctrinal differences, their creedal affirmations
         b. Despite their competing ecclesiastical authorities, all
            claiming to be led by the Spirit of God today
      2. But is this the "glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle"?
         a. A church with hundreds of differing creeds, names, and doctrines?
         b. Teaching a multitude of contradictory doctrines, adding a
            plethora of man-made traditions?
         c. Presenting a divided picture to the world, one that breeds
            doubt and skepticism in those that see it?
      3. Such confusion comes not from God! - 1Co 14:33
         a. God is the source of peace in His churches
         b. Where confusion dwells, Satan is the author! - cf. Mt 13:24-30; 36-43
      4. When people no longer abide in the doctrine of Christ, they
         have not God! - 2Jn 9
         a. When they stop abiding in Christ Himself, they are cut off
            - Jn 15:2,6; cf. Ro 11:22
         b. They may believe they are still His disciples, doing things
            for Him; but unless they continue to do the Father's will,
            they are sadly mistaken! - cf. Mt 7:21-23
      -- This view of the Lord's church is too "broad"!

   B. AS REPRESENTED BY "THE SECTARIAN VIEW"...
      1. Some understand the Lord's church as made up of a particular
         group of churches
         a. All wearing just one "official" name
         b. All listed in some church directory
      2. This view fails to take into consideration some important principles
         a. There is no one "official" name for the Lord's church
         b. The Lord's church is a body made of individual members, not
            individual congregations
         c. One might be a member of the Lord's body, but not yet
            associated with a local congregation (e.g., the Ethiopian eunuch)
      -- I will have more to say on this, but this view of the Lord's
         church is too "narrow"!

CONCLUSION

1. Again, we are talking about "The Church Jesus Built"...
   a. One that is highly esteemed in the Scriptures
   b. One that should be highly esteemed in our own hearts!

2. It is easy to be influenced by erroneous views which permeate the religious world...
   a. Perhaps your view of the church has been a denominational one
   b. Perhaps your view of the church has been a sectarian one

3. I hope that in this lesson I have...
   a. Reminded you of the great estimation the Lord has placed on His church
   b. Stimulated you to consider whether your understanding of the
      church may need some major overhauling or fine-tuning!

In any case, "The Church Jesus Built" is always worthy of our prayerful consideration...!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

 

From Gary... Press on!!!

Does the past bother you? Have you made "unforgivable" mistakes. Worse than that, have you even committed crimes- even heinous ones? Is your life a wreck and there seems to be absolutely NO WAY OUT? Truthfully, no one can ever escape the consequences of the past; we just have to live with those problems.  BUT, forgiveness is as BIG as God and as available as seeking forgiveness. Not a Christian- become one; already a Christian- ask God for forgiveness. Hurt others- do everything you can to make things right!!! Sounds simple, doesn't it? It is. Don't make it complicated!!!  Here is a perfect example of what I am referring to...

Philippians, Chapter 3 (WEB)

4 though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If any other man thinks that he has confidence in the flesh, I yet more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the assembly; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless. 

  7  However, what things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ.  8 Yes most certainly, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and count them nothing but refuse, that I may gain Christ  9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;  10 that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed to his death;  11 if by any means I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.  12 Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect; but I press on, if it is so that I may take hold of that for which also I was taken hold of by Christ Jesus. 

  13  Brothers, I don’t regard myself as yet having taken hold, but one thing I do. Forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before,  14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Following Jesus is a game changer. Paul turned his life around and helped turn the world to its only Savior.  Forget the past, God is bigger than anything that could possibly be there. Press on!!!

To Gary, for Gary!!!!