Posted by John on January 1, 2002 under Articles
Recent information shows that water is on Mars. Since water is a main ingredient of life on earth, it is proof-positive in the minds of many that life is on Mars. And having life on Mars worries many Bible believers because they feel that only the earth is where God put living things. But look at this closer:
- Water is the main stuff of life here. How do we know water has the same importance there on Mars? Alien life may be literally “alien” to the composition of earth-life. The whole “proof-of-life” argument assumes that the recipe for life “out there” is the same as it is for earth and is a sure case of “jumping-to-the-conclusion.”
- What if the water was analyzed and tiny, microscopic life-forms were found? It is possible that those “bugs” could be ours and not be “from Mars.” Recent studies have shown that the earth itself sends out a lot of space dust, etc. Over a span of time, spores, etc., might have reached Mars. In fact, studies on the recently much publicized “meteorites-from-Mars-containing-life” have shown that the life is probably some of “our bugs” returning from a space trip. So, finding microscopic life-forms on Mars could just as well prove that such forms that live on earth can live on Mars. This is not quite what the “Life on Mars!!” statement had in mind.
- Does Genesis really teach that life only exists on earth or does it show us that on earth a being was created that bore the image of God …man? Is the focus of Genesis “out there” or here? Would the finding of true Martian life militate in any way against one message of Genesis that the cosmos was made as a gift and aid to man?
This article was written because (1) some have believed Media hype that it is a proven-fact that life is on Mars, and (2) some are nervous about how this finding affects our confidence in Genesis.
The article was purposely written without documentation or chemistry jargon. A more detailed discussion is available if there are any questions.
Posted by John on under Articles
The common picture given in school biology classes for the origin of life on earth is that a chemical “soup” developed in the ocean. From that mixture, the complex chemicals of the first cell emerged … then the cell … then cellular reproduction.
The issue of origin of life in the ocean is a chemistry problem. Chemistry is the study of how tiny bits of stuff come about and react with each other. One of the primary complex chemicals of any cell is a protein. It is made of tiny units of amino acids strung together like beads. It may take as many as 250 of these amino acids to be useful for a living thing to use in its life. So, how protein comes about and reacts is a number one concern in testing the “soup-to-life” idea.
Fact #1 — Much research has been done in attempting to join amino acids in water to make the very beginning of a protein. Such efforts have taken place over a span of more than 30 years and have failed. This information is easily documented in the chemical literature but is not included in high school textbooks.
Fact #2 — Every amino acid has two versions. There is a “right-handed” and “left-handed” version of the same amino acid. The significance of this is shown below.
Research has shown that atmospheric gases containing ammonia, water vapor and natural gas can form a few amino acids when an electric discharge (like lightning) is passed through a mixture of the gases. A Nobel Prize was awarded for this work. This is how it is explained that the ocean was an amino-acid soup.
All experiments in producing the acids from gases have produced a 50-50 mixture of the right and left versions of each amino-acid. Researchers believe that the ocean, therefore, contained a soup of both kinds of amino acids. All the proteins studied in living systems show that living things use just the “left” kind of amino acid in their protein.
As yet, no one has come up with any non-problematic mechanism for linking-up 250 (or even three) amino acids of just one type from a 50-50 mix of both types.
Fact #3 — Amino acids can easily decompose in water and can react with minerals in the ocean water. This could diminish the availability of any particular amino acid for a given “position” on the protein. The position of the amino acid is critical for a protein to function. For example, sickle-cell anemia is caused by the misplacement of just one amino acid on a protein chain.
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE FACTS
- The naturalistic explanation for the origin of life in the ocean has serious defects and is therefore highly improbable.
- Belief in a Creator has not been challenged or refuted by any proposed “ocean model” but, instead, has been solidified.
Posted by John on under Articles
When data from the New Testament is assembled concerning the gospel and the apostolic preaching of it, there is a clear correspondence between its content and the practice of taking communion on the first day of the week.
Jesus connected His death and resurrection and also the “third day” when he talked to his disciples (Matthew 16:15, 17:23, 20:19, 27:63; Mark 9:31, 10:34; Luke 9:22, 13:32,33, 18:33; John 2:19). This was also the message of the Law and Prophets (Luke 24:25-27, 44-46). Angels spoke of this connection (Luke 24:7). It is also something that stood out as a part of Jesus’ teaching and was CLEARLY remembered by His disciples (Luke 24:19-24). The THIRD DAY is the first day of the week (Luke 24:1,13, 21). A pattern of teaching is evident from this data.
Our justification and forgiveness is based on the death of Christ (Matthew 26:28) and is inseparably tied to the resurrection event (Romans 4:25, 5:10; 1 Corinthians 15:14). Note that His death and resurrection are remembered as a unit. This pattern of thought is also seen in the meaning of baptism (Romans 6: 3ff; 1 Peter 3:21). Peter in his discourse to Cornelius followed this pattern of instruction by connecting all items: death, resurrection, and third day (Acts 10:39,40). It is clear, therefore, that remembering one item makes one remember the other two.
Therefore, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 summarized the gospel content as “… for I delivered unto you first (some versions say of first importance) of all that which also I received that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures… .” Notice how these comprise a symbiotic unit of thought.
Jesus gave instruction as to just how He wanted to be remembered. It is the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-29). And not only does this have us remember His death but also His resurrection (verse 26). Hence, the frequency of taking the Lord’s Supper is determined by the essentials of the gospel (see above) because it is reflective of them. What is tied together in reality is logically tied together in memorial. The death of Christ is shown by the bread and cup and the resurrection by the first day of the week. The practice is a symbiotic unit as well as the doctrine. And such was the actual practice of the early church under Apostolic approval (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:20 + churches of Galatia, 1 Corinthians 16:1). Even after the Apostles, it remained to be an identifying practice of post-apostolic Christianity (Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, Sweet Publishing Company).
When the facts of scripture and church history are examined, it should be clearly evident that the practice of taking the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week stands on solid ground. What other practice preserves the unity (death – resurrection – third day) of thought? What other practice can one affirm has “apostolic approval” but this one? If the gospel is central, then why not let our communion practice show it as was done in the early church and for centuries later?
Posted by Daniel on under Articles
God in His providence (through the Spirit) has supplied us with inspired New Covenant documents so we will know what to believe, teach and do. It is inspired information as opposed to a book of laws/commands although it contains them. It is like the Holy Spirit has us on top of a spiritual mountain and pointing-out things that New Covenant people believe and do from the heart.
To trust God is to believe that His wisdom is far superior to ours. This means we should only believe, teach and practice what we have evidence for in those inspired documents. Evidence can be both positive (the resurrected Christ) and negative (e.g., the empty tomb).
The Spirit has pointed out the proper response to the Gospel. He has also shown ways to communicate with God and thank Him through worship and faithful living. It is all practical.
Judgment calls must be made according to PRACTICALITY rather than explicit teaching. For example, the disciples in Acts 20:7 met at night in an upper room. Neither of these items interfered with the design of the Lord’s Supper itself.
The topic of music is addressed by the Spirit in Ephesians 5:19 and other places. Ephesians 5:19 shows singing is accompanied by making melody “in the heart” as opposed to the man-made musical devices of pagans and Jews. That is the design. Here is a judgment call to make: does clapping of hands during the singing match what is being opposed in Ephesians 5:19? That is, is hand-clapping the use of “man-made musical devices” or “mechanical instruments of music”? It doesn’t seem so.
When we are together isn’t singing from the heart all God wants? If someone claps spontaneously without trying to make a scene or a point and it is an expression of thanks, as opposed to trying to “jazz-up” the song, then why can’t understanding prevail among those who do not clap?
What about planning to clap continually during some songs? Since the design of singing is also to speak to one another, would my clapping help or hinder that? What about the idea that I want to and will clap no matter what anyone thinks? And in all honestly, is the clapping for me or God? These are hard questions but must squarely be answered.
What about splitting services … one for clappers and another for non-clappers? Is such a polarization good? In reality, wouldn’t this be just “division in disguise”? Even in asking the question “tags” are assigned to people.
There is a design for New Covenant worship and this can be easily proven. And when we come together as a group, everyone is affected by what is done whether from the heart or not. Some things may not be wrong themselves but merely be out of place. Judgment calls by Elders must be made so that nothing goes against the design of any phase of worship. This requires looking at facts, pro and con, and following the “weight of evidence” toward a specific position … a defensible position.
Posted by John on under Articles
When God speaks His mind on a topic we should hear (1 Samuel 3:9). We should also submit and not rebel (Hebrews 3:15). Neither should we add to or take from His words ( Deuteronomy 4:2; Acts 15:24ff, Revelation 22:18).
When God speaks His mind, He often is very precise or specific about something (Hebrews 8:5, for example). One can build a case for or against something based on the preciseness of God’s word on a topic. (For examples, see Hebrews 7:14; Galatians 3:16ff.)
Has God spoken as to what the gospel really is? Is it “going to church”? Is it baptism? Is it singing? What about taking communion every Sunday? No, the gospel is a triad of facts with eternal significance. It is the death of Christ for our sins … His burial … His resurrection on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). It is what God did for us, not what we do or submit to. To make the gospel personal, one must give an appropriate response directed by the precise Words of God, but the “response” itself is not the gospel.
What was Jesus’ real objective in coming to earth? Was it to teach us how to worship correctly? Was it to setup the best religious organization possible? Was it to teach us to “do good” to all? Has God spoken His mind on this topic? Yes. Jesus came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). To make Jesus into a zealot for social reform is to veer away from the clear Word of God as per His mission.
Why was Jesus raised from the grave? It clearly declared He was indeed God’s Son (Romans 1:4). But God is even more specific. He was raised for our justification (Romans 6:25). The truth of the cross depends on the fact of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:17ff). The focus is on justification of sinners and not on miraculous “show.” To neglect to preach the resurrection is to rip significant evidence from establishing the truth of the gospel, because it validates the gospel! Early evangelists continually put the resurrection before the hearers (Book of Acts). When is the last time you have heard the resurrection examined and solidified from a class or pulpit? Is it not time that the resurrection be treated as God has specified instead of just a “great miracle” tacked-on after the cross?
God has spoken His mind on the content of the gospel and the mission of Jesus. Are we going to abide in His specifics or change or subtract from them? Most people (especially those in college) will not be truly converted to the cross without evidence of its truth. Restoring the actual preaching of the gospel could have a great impact on our community.
