Controversy

The reality of disputes among religious adherents is legend; there have always been disputes between honest people professing religion. The fact that there have been disputes and controversy over religious issues in no way justifies many such disputes; indeed, many religious disputes could be avoided if the individual who have such a dispute were clear about their convictions. Often disputes originate by a person who uses a straw man to bring up their disagreement. This is a tactic that often creates explosive confrontations because someone in the crowd takes an adverse position but will not acknowledge it openly, thus the straw man is presented and his position defended by the person who likes confrontation.

Open controversy will cause many people to stop serving the Lord and turn to more peaceful assemblies somewhere else. These people that will vacate a church where there is constant wrangling over every subject may be justified by leaving but they ought to seek out a sound church for worship.

No person ought to be so discouraged that they leave a church for an unsound church to worship because they are seeking an atmosphere free of controversy. The truth is, occasionally honest differences will arise between honest disputations, {Example:  Paul’s companions in the work of God – Philemon 24-25, “24 (and so do) Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow-workers. 25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.” ASV}. Of this number, John Mark did not travel with Paul on one of the journeys because of personal differences {i.e. Acts 15:37-40, “37 And Barnabas was minded to take with them John also, who was called Mark. 38 But Paul thought not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39 And there arose a sharp contention, so that they parted asunder one from the other, and Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away unto Cyprus; 40 but Paul choose Silas, and went forth, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.” ASV] Whenever this condition surfaces, the better judgment of the elder will stop this before it becomes an open schism. Also examine the next paragraph closely for more on this theme.

One of the great problems exists when seemingly unsolvable disputes arise in a church where there are no elders. Many churches that are small and have no elders meet regularly to solve congregational matters in business meetings. These business meetings often become sessions of division and controversy. Since these adverse conditions are discouraging to some this matter may cause some to leave the church unannounced. There would normally be no controversy if only one person is involved as being difficult and advisable but often this person will have some influence over a few others in the congregation. Whenever a problem such as I have just described occurs, the church is divided in the business meeting as well as in the assembly. Whenever division of this nature occurs Paul’s statement to the church at Corinth over miraculous spiritual gifts and their creation of problems with members ought to be examined, cf. 1 Cor 14:37-40, “37 If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. 38 But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not speak with tongues. 40 But let all things be done decently and in order.” ASV

The most helpful quality that any Christian may contribute to “the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” [i.e. the roadmap to peace and unity – Ephesians 4:2-6] – “2 with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4(There is) one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all. “ASV] is to be careful that those words that are used are words that will not create an opportunity for rebuttal. Sound teaching will usually eliminate schism in a congregation if the members really want to submit to one another and promote peace and unity as the Word of God requires of Christians in a congregation –  cf. Heb 13:17, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit (to them): for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this (were) unprofitable for you.” ASV – This instruction seems to work when the church has elders but is much more difficult to understand when everyone in a business meeting thinks himself to be elder material even though they are not qualified on scriptural grounds. In such a case where there are no elders problems seem to get worse whenever the problem is brought up in a business meeting.

Dear brethren, pray that more men in the church will work at qualifying themselves for the eldership. Qualified elders are the best group of men in the congregation to solve serious differences and rebellious people in the church. Without elders many congregations will eventually self-destruct, they will last for a while and finally destruct from within.

Pray for maturity {i.e. personal growth} cf. 2 Peter 3:18, “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him (be) the glory both now and for ever. Amen.” AS

Pray for unity of the spirit in the bond of peace cf. Eph 4:3-4, “3 giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4(There is) one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling;” ASV – For every male member of each congregation particularly on this behalf [i.e. that they will work at qualifying themselves for scriptural leadership roles] in the congregation.

Posted in Garreth L. Clair | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Controversy

Singing with Harmony

Five Part Harmony

I was about six years old when I first heard of the words “soprano, alto, tenor and bass.”  At the old West Huntsville church building, a brother from Tennessee, A. J. Vetito, conducted the first of several singing schools at the church. By the end of that week, we all knew “do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti do.” We all could sing the scale and learned so many new songs. The singing at that congregation vastly improved in these annual schools.

I learned to listen to all the various parts and how they harmonized. There is nothing which sounds more beautiful to me than blending of voices in praising God.

In the sixth grade I began attending Christians schools. The first was in Athens, Alabama, and the second was in Huntsville. I am so thankful for the choruses at both of these schools where I grew in my appreciation for singing in worship. I owe to one of the choral directors, Wayne Hemingway, an even greater debt. He constantly emphasized understanding the words of songs and their meaning. In fact, before we learned a new song we would spend time discussing what we were trying to say to each other as we sang. He even did this for older songs and I soon learned that while I had known the music of those songs, I did not know the songs meaning!

You see, there is another aspect of singing harmoniously that has nothing to do with “do, re, and mi.” Look carefully at Ephesians 5:19. Our use of the music attached to psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is not emphasized. Paul said, “Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” Look at it carefully. The emphasis is not on the melody made with the voice, but the melody made in the heart!

Now look at the passage again. The verse does not say making melody in your hearts (plural)! It is singular. In the Greek, the word “your” is plural (congregational), but the heart is singular. There is the harmony of every individual heart, as we sing with one heart to the Lord. In Colossians 3:16, the text speaks of hearts, but the emphasis in Ephesians is on the singular heart we bring before God.  God does not care how skilled you are in harmonizing “do, re, mi”! We do not just blend our voices, we blend our hearts.

Look at singing as it ascends to heaven and enters the throne room of heaven. Do we really think that God judges our singing based on four part harmony? The melody that sweetens heaven is that fifth part harmony when it comes from the one heart of His people. Let’s learn all we can about four part harmony, but may we never fail to place the right emphasis on the harmony of our souls as we worship our Maker!

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Singing with Harmony

Evolution and Ethics

The Impact of Evolution on Ethics

The theory of organic evolution implies that the origin of man does not come from a creative process by a supernatural being (God), but from a naturalistic organic process that took place over an extremely long process of time. Hence, the teaching of organic evolution equates to a denial of a Supreme Being. Thus, we should understand in the very beginning that evolution itself has no impact upon true ethics—it is simply an unproven (and un-provable) theory—but its tremendous impact on the subject of ethics lies in the widespread influence of those who believe and teach it.

Of course, while it is rare for organic evolutionists to admit that their beliefs have any negative impact on society, the fact of the matter is that a belief in organic evolution produces a society that is not a pleasant one in which to live. Nevertheless, one aggressive atheist who is antagonistic towards creationism, religion, and a belief in God actually has told the truth relative to the matter. In 1976, Richard Dawkins first wrote the book, The Selfish Gene, in which he set forth within the realm of Neo-Darwinism his theory of genetic determinism, which is an extension of Darwin’s natural selection into the genetic realm. In his book, he writes, “You are nothing. You are here to propagate your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose in life…I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave…. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live…” (2-3). This last statement is absolutely correct; a society consistently operating upon the belief of organic evolution “would be a very nasty society in which to live.” Consider the implications of such a belief.

We generally view ethics as a system or code by which we determine attitudes or actions either to be right or wrong. Nevertheless (if humanity lived as if organic evolution were correct)—if there was no Supreme Being to whom we would show accountability through an objective, absolute standard of will (2 Tim. 3:16-17)—then humanity would exist in an environment where anyone may do anything he or she pleases! In the absence of God, everything is allowed and ethics ultimately becomes just a matter of one’s opinion.

Each and every individual only needs to base his or her decisions on what will satisfy his or her own selfish needs. Jean Paul Sartre, a French existential philosopher, wrote, “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself… Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior” (Existentialism and Humanism, 1961, 485). Thus, whatever one chooses to do is right. He later declared that we attach value to the choice itself so that “…we can never choose evil” (Existentialism, 1966, 279). Therefore, if evolution is true and if there is no God (or if humanity lives as if it were true), then it is impossible to formulate a system of ethics by which one objectively can differentiate between right and wrong!

Consider this observation from the autobiography of agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell:

We feel that the man who brings widespread happiness at the expense of misery to himself is a better man than the man who brings unhappiness to others and happiness to himself. I do not know of any rational ground for this view, or, perhaps, for the somewhat more rational view that whatever the majority desires (called utilitarian hedonism) is preferable to what the minority desires. These are truly ethical problems, but I do not know of any way in which they can be solved except by politics or war. All I can find to say on this subject is that an ethical opinion can only be defended by an ethical axiom, but, if the axiom is not accepted, there is no way of reaching a rational conclusion (1969, p. 29).

In other words, with no way to reach a rational conclusion on what is ethical, humanity plumbs to depths of despair with such carnal and base philosophies arising as “might makes right,” and “the strong subjugate the weak.” Thus, we can see the impact that organic evolution has upon ethics—it creates a system driven by anarchy where “every man did that which is right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25).

Posted in Sam Willcut | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Evolution and Ethics

Created Life?

“Artificial Bacteria” — Have Scientists Created Life?

Not once have scientists ever observed it happening—but almost all of them hold fast to the concept that nonliving material gave rise to living material. If their cherished evolutionary theory is correct, then spontaneous generation must have occurred at some point in the distant past. George Wald, Nobel Laureate of Harvard University, once stated: “Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation” (see Bowen, 1979, pp. 287-306, emp. added). As such, our classrooms and textbooks still contain the false idea that scientists have created life.

The most famous example is the 1953 experiment carried out by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey. Using a system of glass flasks, Miller and Urey attempted to simulate “early atmospheric conditions.” They passed an electrical spark through a mixture of water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. However, their experiment was carried out in the absence of oxygen (something evolutionists now admit does not reflect the early Earth’s atmosphere), because they knew that oxygen quickly would oxidize any amino acids that were formed. At the bottom of the apparatus was a trap to capture any molecules produced by the reaction. This trap prevented the newly formed chemicals from being destroyed by the next electrical discharge. On the first attempt, after a week of electrical discharges in the reaction chamber the sides of the chamber turned black and the liquid mixture turned a cloudy red. The predominant product was a sticky, black substance made up of countless carbon atoms strung together in what was essentially tar (a common nuisance in organic reactions). Miller was able to produce a mixture containing two simple amino acids—the building blocks of proteins. Yet the highly praised Miller-Urey experiment did not produce any of the fundamental building blocks of life itself. It produced 85% tar, 13% carbolic acid, 1.05% glycine, 0.85% alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals.

One article on this subject in the respected Encyclopaedia Britannica affirmed that modern findings “pose grave difficulties” for spontaneous generation theories once supported by the Miller-Urey experiment. The article went on to state: “…due to a rapid and efficient photochemical consumption of CH4 and NH3, a methane-ammonia atmosphere would have a maximum lifetime of about 1,000,000 years. This finding is of interest because it has been suggested that life originated from mixtures of organic compounds synthesized by non-biological reactions starting from methane and ammonia. Recognition of the short atmospheric lifetimes of these materials poses grave difficulties for such a theory” (see Encyclopaedia Britannica). Many scientists now believe that the Earth’s early atmosphere would have made the synthesis of organic molecules virtually impossible under conditions simulated in the Miller-Urey experiment. For example, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” never has existed, although the experiment assume one (Levine, 1983). Scientists also now realize that the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is destructive to any developing life. Regarding the products of the Miller-Urey experiment, evolutionist Robert Shapiro stated: “Let us sum up. The experiment performed by Miller yielded tar as its most abundant product. There are about fifty small organic compounds that are called ‘building blocks.’ Only two of these fifty occurred among the preferential Miller-Urey products” (1986, p. 105).

However, more recent discoveries once again have evolutionists clamoring that life has been “created.” In the June 16, 2000 issue of Science, Gerard Wong and colleagues reported a mechanism by which chemicals can spontaneously self-assemble themselves into ribbon-like tubules that resemble bacterial cell walls (288: 2035). This discovery has led some to suggest that “artificial bacteria” were created—when, in fact, they were not! The researchers simply mixed actin with special liposomes to make actin-membrane capsules, which is a gargantuan step from “creating life.” Actin is a protein that provides the structural framework for cells. The actin molecule does not possess DNA, it does not actively metabolize, and it does not reproduce. It is therefore a far cry from being “living.” Spontaneous organization does not equal spontaneous generation. So while this composite membrane is indeed similar to the plasma membrane that surrounds most cells—due to the fact that it can organize itself into three different layers, including a middle lipid layer—it has none of the qualities scientists use to identify life.

In a similar study, Jeffrey Hartgerink and colleagues reported that they had made self-assembling synthetic bone (2001). Using pH-induced self-assembly, these scientists have been able to form a composite that may one day be able to replace diseased bone tissue. These synthetic molecules assemble into fibers that “coax” minerals into growing on top of them—bringing us closer to better prosthetic devices. News services were quick to describe this discovery as “man-made bone.” However, even if scientists were able to manufacture bone tissue, that in and of itself is not “life.” A bone lying on a stainless steel table is of little use in the quest to form living material from nonliving material. Artificial bone is not able to reproduce itself, and without a blood supply it quickly dies. A close inspection of the report reveals that the bonds within this fibrous matrix can be reversed (by reducing the disulfides back into thiols). Does this sound like any living tissue with which you are familiar? The fact is, life always comes from life—a fact that nails the lid shut on the coffin in which evolutionary theory rests.

REFERENCES

Bowen, M.E., and J.A. Mazzeo (1979), Writing About Science (New York: Oxford).

Encyclopaedia Britannica “Atmosphere: Photochemical Reactions” [On-line] URL: http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=118221&sctn=9.

Hartgerink, Jeffrey D., Elia Beniash, and Samuel I. Stupp (2001), “Self-Assembly and Mineralization of Peptide-Amphiphile Nanofibers,” Science, 294:1684-1688, November 23.

Levine, J. (1983), “New Ideas About the Early Atmosphere,” NASA Special Report, No. 225, Langley Research Center, August 11.

Shapiro, Robert (1986), Origins—A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (New York: Summit).

Wong, Gerard C.L., Jay Tang, Alison Lin, Youli Li, Paul Janmey, and Cyrus Safinya (2000), “Hierarchical Self-assembly of F-Actin and Cationic Lipid Complexes: Stacked, Three-Layer Tubule Networks,” Science, 288:2035-2039, June 16.

Apologetics Press originally posted this article at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1037

Posted in Brad Harrub | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Created Life?

In Heaven…

Will Christians Know One Another in Heaven?

If we are to see those who we love and are faithful to God no more, who have left the land of the living, who have passed beyond the door of death never to return to earth again, if there is no future recognition, then the moment of parting at the grave becomes the hour of final separation. Furthermore, if there is no recognition in Heaven, then all faithful souls will be total strangers, every memory we now possess will be obliterated, and every bond severed, and as strangers, we will enter Heaven and live forever and ever. It cannot be, that when our loved ones leave our physical hands, and our hearts make testimonies to the love and affection we feel for them, and the memories that are deeply established in our hearts, that it is all for vain. The fact is that, the soul longs for the assurance of a happy reunion beyond the door of death. Therefore, we search for evidence in the scriptures that such a longing is not a delusion nor a fantasy. And it is in the Bible where it tells us that heaven is a place of reunion.

Notice the expression, “and he was gathered to his people” as it is mentioned in regards to the death of: Abraham (Gen. 25:8), Ishmael (Gen. 25:17), Isaac (Gen. 35:29), Jacob (Gen. 49:33), Aaron (Numb. 20:24) and Moses (Numb. 27:12-13). Now while some say that this just means that they died and were buried together, this does not fit the facts because Abraham was buried in a cave at Machpelah (Gen. 25:9) which was not the burial place of his ancestors! They had been buried in Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11:26) which at the time, was on the other side of the known world (roughly 900 miles by foot). Also, Moses died by himself on the mountain by which no man knew the place where he was buried (Deut. 34:6).

Next, notice David’s reaction to the death of his son in which he says, “Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). David was showing that he would be reunited with his son showing personal recognition.

Then, notice the mount of transfiguration where Peter, James and John recognized the identity of Moses and Elijah whom they had never seen before. (Lk. 9:33) Interestingly, Luke records that they were called “men,” not spirits.

Then, there is the Rich man and Lazarus. Now, some say that this is just a parable and not fact. Yet, whether a parable or fact is irrelevant. It shows mankind what happens at death otherwise, it would be worthless for these truths (Jn. 17:17) to be mentioned in the Bible. Notice that the Rich man knew Lazarus, he knew Abraham, he remembered his brothers, he had sight, he cried, and Abraham told him to “remember his life that he had lived” (Lk. 16:25).

Finally, notice Matt. 8:11: Jesus said, “That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” Now, what would be the point of sitting with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob if we had no idea of who was who in Heaven? No, This further proves full recognition.

When faithful Christians come together in Heaven, we will know each other by name including all those we have never met from the beginning of time until the very end of it. Therefore, when we die, it is never goodbye because there will be a day, when we will gather together once again in Heaven with God, forever to stay.

Posted in Robert Notgrass | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on In Heaven…