The Crucial Issue of Authority

by Batsell Barrett Baxter

Every thinking person realizes that authority plays a very significant role in all of our lives. Before we may drive a car, we must have the authority of a license. A doctor must have a diploma from a reputable medical school before he can practice. A policeman must have a badge which authorizes him to carry out his duties. To get married, we must have a license. There is little that we can do in life without proper authorization.

Especially in the realm of religion must we have proper authority for all that we do. In the worship and service of God we must do that which we are authorized to do and nothing else.

The question Jesus once faced, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?" (Matt. 21:23) is a good one for all of us.

Possible Sources Of Authority

Final or ultimate authority in religion rests in one of three possible sources. First of all, there are those who believe that final authority rests in the church. Councils, conclaves, and synods meet and make decisions. From these human deliberations such doctrines as purgatory, the adoration of Mary, the seven sacraments, papal infallibility and others have come.

It was Martin Luther who pointed out the problem of such human authority when he said, "...I cannot trust either the decisions of Councils, or of Popes, for it is plain that they have not only erred but have contradicted each other..." (Friedenthal, Luther: His Life and Times, p. 278).

Second, others conceive final authority to rest in the reasoning power of men. One's own conscience, inner feelings, or reason is the final arbiter. Saul of Tarsus demonstrated this view to be erroneous. In spite of his honesty of purpose and intensity of zeal, he was wrong. Many a person, guided by his own inner feelings, believes and practices what is contrary to the will of God.

The whole blight of denominationalism is a result of man's trusting his own views, rather than conforming his convictions to God's teaching. Liberalism makes the mistake of thinking that man's reason is the infallible authority in religion.

The third possibility, as the absolute source of authority, is the Bible, the inspired word of God. God the creator of the universe and of man is the only ultimate, final source of authority. He has spoken in his word. It is our responsibility to read the scriptures, understand them and obey them. Let us say, as Samuel did, "Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth." (1 Sam. 3:10).

Never With Men

Authority always rests with divinity. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1), and in so doing established his ultimate supreme authority. Later, when Jesus was upon the earth he said, "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth." (Matt. 28:18). He further announced to his apostles that when he left the earth, the Holy Spirit would come in his place and "...shall guide you into all truth." (John 16:13). Authority has always rested with the Godhead, and never with men. The prophets, the apostles, and others miraculously guided by God were simply spokesmen. God's word has always been the final authority among men. Our Only Guide

The Bible is our guide — our only guide. For this reason, it is encouraging to hear people say, "Let us have a 'thus saith the Lord' for all that we do in our religious faith and practice." Still, another way of saying it is "Let us speak where the scriptures speak, and be silent where the scriptures are silent." Each of these is a statement indicating the acceptance of the authority of the scriptures.
At this point let us examine two opposite positions on the matter of the authority of the scriptures. Martin Luther championed the idea that, "Whatever is not expressly prohibited in the scriptures is permissible." (History of the Great Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, by D'Aubigne, Book II, p. 297). Luther's view opens the door to all kinds of innovations, such as the burning of incense, the lighting of candles, the use of images, instrumental music, and even adding other elements to the Lord's Supper.

Huldrich Zwingli championed the second view which said, "Whatever is not expressly authorized in the scriptures is prohibited." (History of the Christian Church, by W. Walker, 1959, p. 322). This is the view set forth in the scriptures themselves.

In Galatians 1:8, Paul wrote, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema." The apostle John said the same thing in these words: "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9).

Three Avenues

In determining what the scriptures authorize, there are three avenues through which we may receive guidance. First, there are direct commands, such as Acts 2:38. In the second place, there are approved apostolic examples, such as the apostle Paul's eating of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. (Acts 20:7). And, finally, there is necessary inference. Each command of God authorizes whatever is necessary to carry it out. When the Lord commanded Christians to meet for worship, he necessarily authorized the providing of a place for Christians to assemble for worship.

Our religion — our relationship to God — is our most important relationship. We must be absolutely certain about everything that we believe and practice.
The preceding article was written by brother Batsell Barrett Baxter. Brother Baxter was a long time faithful preacher of the Word of God who passed away in 1982. He served as the chairman of the Bible Department and was a professor of homiletics for many years at David Lipscomb University. Brother Baxter was also the speaker for the Herald of Truth television program for a number of years. He was known as a serious student of the Word of God. He was a man who loved God, the Word of God and the people of God. We are thankful for the opportunity to present this article for your consideration.

The God of Vending Machines

Have we reduced our relationship with the Almighty to a vending machine mentality? Does the God of the universe represent a “ready, willing and able” resource for the whim of our needs and wants? Do we put in just the right amount and receive back an item of equal value from the menu of available treats? Do we rock the machine when it doesn’t respond as we expect it to?

Hopefully, you would see my thought process as absurd. Is it? Is that a dominant view of God? Although I am trying to grow beyond such a view, the vending machine view has been a big part of my life to now. Sadly, I must add. The vending machine approach has a close cousin, the Santa Claus approach, whereas I make a list of the things I want, submit it at the appropriate time, and wait with great expectations for my list to materialize. All the while, Santa is making a list, checking it twice, finding out who’s naughty and nice, before he comes to town. Because he sees you when you’re sleeping, he knows when you’re awake, and he knows if you’ve been bad or good. So, we should be good, for goodness’ sake!

The difference, I see, in the two approaches to God, is in our own minds. Under Santa Claus, we think we know what we need and have asked for such, within an extended timeframe. Under the vending machine approach, we have already made the determination of what we need, and we want it now. In both approaches, we rely on God to provide and assist us, and we are extremely disappointed when He doesn’t deliver as we expect.

The problem with these approaches is the recognition of who is God. Do we see God as helping us, or should we be helping God? Does He require our help in making Him aware of what needs to be done? In times of our helplessness, we sometimes feel that God must not see the need, nor feel the urgency that is required.

God expects us to pray. He expects us to let our requests be made known to Him. He expects us to pray believing that He hears, is interested, and will answer. But, sometimes, His answer is different than what we ask. Sometimes His answer is no. So, the issue is not in our asking, but in our response when God answers in a way that is not as we wanted, expected or intended. What do we do then? We’re not wrong in making a list, or ordering from the vending machine. We’re not wrong in asking for the things that we think we need. Where the problem arises, in attitude and perspective, is in our response to the disappointment with the answer we receive.

How do we respond when the answer is “yes, but not the way you asked for it”? Do we immediately begin trying to force His answer into our expectations? Do we ignore His answer and set out on creating our own solution? Do we humbly accept that He knows the situation, and the individuals involved better than we do, and we trust His answer as “the best” answer from a loving God?

What about when the answer to our request is “not yet”, which to us, who cannot see the future, appears to be “no”? Do we respond in some similar, controlling way as to attempt to affect the result within our timeframe? The choices are the same, and we have a choice to accept God’s answer with humility that we trust the God who knows.

And, if the answer to our urgent need is “no”, and we can see clearly that it is “no”, how do we respond? The same choices, as above, are there, with one extreme difference. When the vending machine doesn’t give us anything, we rock the machine, frantically push the buttons for “money returned”, even push buttons for items we didn’t originally want, just to get something for the effort, or money, we have invested. And if that doesn’t work, sometimes we tend to say, “then I’ll do this myself”.

If, hypothetically, our relationship with God were similar to a vending machine or to Santa Claus, it would distort the reality of the universe. The role of Creator and creation would be confused. If the answer to all our prayers, no matter how serious the issue appears to us, was “yes”, WE WOULD BECOME GOD. If we get everything we want, God becomes our facilitator and assistant, and we become God. Sometimes the answer is “no”, and it is incumbent on us to learn to accept the answer with trust and hope. We must trust God with our health, our friends, our jobs, our family, our tragedies, our fears, and our souls. Even when the answer is “no”. We must believe that He is faithful, and He will keep His promises. As one person shared with me, it is easy to say, “I believe in God”, and it is quite another to say, “I believe God”. And as another friend says, “it is a long way from the head to the heart”. Saying we believe God and living that trust, is a huge step in spiritual maturity and the cultivation of a proper relationship with our God.

Finally, in Philippians 4, we are admonished to “be anxious in NOTHING, but in EVERYTHING, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God, and the peace that passes all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.”

The real vending machine scenario with God, according to Philippians 4, is that we make our selection…………… and He gives us peace. Peace that comes from a humble, trusting heart that He knows, and cares, about all that would cause us anxiety. He wants to know that we know He knows and cares. Where there is anxiety, there can be no peace. Whatever troubles you, whatever wears on you, whatever consumes your thoughts and prayers, turn it over to God, REALLY turn it over to God. Press the “peace” button on the vending machine……. He will deliver.

The Biblical Heart

“Wow! That guy really spoke from his heart!” I heard this comment while listening to a young speaker that gave a five or ten minute devotional one night. I won’t go into detail about what I think about people giving overly complementary remarks as far as short (and often shallow) devotionals go, but I will speak a little on this idea of “speaking from the heart” or “loving with your heart”. First of all, the idea, at face value, irritates me. I hate to resort to definitions in any type of writings I do (I suppose that “blogs” [though I hate the name] are not the place to be worrying about grammatical etiquette and properness), but dictionary.com defines the heart to be “the chambered muscular organ in vertebrates that pumps blood received from the veins into the arteries, thereby maintaining the flow of blood through the entire circulatory system.” Those phrases previously stated irritate me because they don’t make any sense. I believe they were originally meant to be used as metonymical statements, but now it seems that many do not understand the biblical idea of the heart. The first statement about the heart that comes to mind is Matthew 22:37, “Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’” Another that comes to mind is Acts 8:37 when Philip said that the Ethiopian must believe with all of his heart. Believe with all of my heart? With that organ that pumps blood? Obviously this is not the case. He’s speaking of the mind! That is what I’ve always learned and always thought. Paul said in Romans 7:25 that he served the laws of God with his mind. We’re commanded to have the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5), and have the laws of God written on our minds (Heb. 8:10). It seems obvious, but now let’s go back to Matthew 22:37. If they are the same thing biblically (the heart and the mind) then why are they spoken of separately in the same verse? The best I can come up with is that they are the same, but that Jesus separates them in this passage to strengthen His point that we must love God with everything we have. So when Acts 2:37 says that the people were “cut to their hearts”, it doesn’t (obviously) mean literally sliced open, but rather their minds were convicted. When David said, “Thy word have I hidden in my hear that I might not sin against Thee” he had memorized what God had told him. So go ahead: use all that emotional language you want and say that people are really “speaking their heart”. But at the same time, know what it means.

Grace, Mercy and Justice

Have you ever heard someone say, “God’s grace can cover that at Judgement”? God’s grace will not be available to you and I at Judgement. God’s grace was offered once, for all (Hebrews 10:10), and that was over 2000 years ago.

Mercy and justice, other attributes of our Holy God, will be our options at Judgement.

In order to clarify our discussion, let’s define these terms. Although these definitions are not original with me, I don’t know to whom they can be attributed. But, from my perspective, they appear to be accurate and universally accepted.

Justice – a person gets what they deserve.

Mercy – a person doesn’t get what they deserve

Grace – a person gets what they don’t deserve

With these definitions in mind, it is easily understood that grace will not be available to you and I at Judgement. The offer of salvation, given through the death of Jesus, was given once for all, as mentioned earlier. Repeating, grace will not be an option at Judgement.

Justice will be received by some at Judgement. They will get what they deserve. They will be separated from the sheep. They will depart to the left, because He never knew them. They will be cast into a place of eternal punishment, prepared for the devil and his angels.

Mercy will be received by some at Judgement. They will not get what they deserve. They will be seen as sinless, even though they are not. And they will be atoned by the blood of Jesus. They will have been reconciled to God. They will enter into eternal life.

When it comes to Judgement, none of us want justice. We will all need mercy. Whether we receive mercy, or not, will depend on whether we have accepted the grace that was offered once for all.

Amazing Grace Revisited

I am intrigued with the comments received on the topic of grace. In May, an article was written on this blog, using an analogy to explain the author’s view of God’s grace and its application to us. A view that man has a required response to God’s wonderful grace in order to be saved. Invariably, a response comment will follow, underscoring disagreement with any human role, and advocating a Calvinistic approach to the subject.

As I understand Calvinism, in the area of God’s grace and salvation, it is a paradox of reason and understanding that makes no sense at all. Let me explain. The Calvinist would teach that man is saved by God’s grace alone. He would further comment that any view, inclusive of human requirement, is Pharisaical, minimizes God’s grace, and creates a “works” mentality in humans.

But, interestingly enough, most Calvinists will argue that man is saved by grace alone through faith alone. This is a typical response when the debate over the necessity of baptism arises. The Calvinist will respond that man’s part in salvation is accomplished through faith alone, and not any work, indicating their belief that baptism is a human work.

Do you see the paradox? If man has no role, then why is man’s faith required? If man has no role, is anything required? Is salvation through grace alone or not? “No role” means “no role”, doesn’t it?

I would make the case that salvation cannot be by grace alone, or all would be saved. Scripture supports my case. John 3:16 teaches that God had such love for all mankind that he did something about it. He sent His Son to die for all mankind. Yet, “few there be that find it”, Matthew 7:14. God’s grace, through the Lamb of Atonement, was offered one time for all mankind (Hebrews 9:23-28; Hebrews 10:11-14; etc.), yet “few there be that find it”.

If God’s grace alone is sufficient, wouldn’t all be saved?

If Matthew 7:14 is true, and all are not saved, and God’s grace is the only component of the process, wouldn’t God’s grace have failed the many that walk the broad way and enter through the wide gate that leads to destruction, Matthew 7:13?

It’s not enough for any of us to claim Biblical truth based on our own desires. The Bible cannot be interpreted through our beliefs. The Bible, in its totality, must germinate our beliefs.

“Grace alone, through faith alone” makes no sense, regardless if John Calvin, or Calvin Johns says it. God’s Word, in Ephesians 2:8-10, teaches that man is saved by God’s grace through man’s faith. There is NOTHING about “alone”, in either component. You would need, as one of my favorite preachers is prone to say, “professional help” to read the Bible and come to any other conclusion! NOWHERE in the scripture is salvation offered without human response. If that is Pharisaical, then the Pharisees must have gotten that part right. The Word, in human form and written form, were big on repentance, baptism, and a faith that is demonstrable. That’s called sanctification, and although man is taking the steps, it is God who is doing the work of forgiveness, atonement, renewal and strengthening.

The Bible is understandable. We must get beyond Bible study to confirm what we want to believe, and engage in study to see what God wants us to believe. Yet, few there be that find it.

Can We Pray to Jesus?

I was at a youth…gathering…get together…thing…and a young man got up to lead the closing prayer. He started the prayer, not with “Dear Father in heaven,” or, “Our gracious God,” et cetera, but rather with, “Dear Jesus,”. I paused at the unorthodoxy of the opening statement and wondered: is that scriptural? Let’s take a gander…First of all, and maybe most obviously, it is important how we pray seeing as it is a commandment (1 Thessalonians 5:17), the apostles apparently saw it’s importance (Luke 11:1), and Jesus in turn gave them some…well, restrictions (Matthew 6:5-7). For lack of time and space and on account of it being extremely axiomatic, I will not go into any Old Testament examples. Every prayer was to God, for the time had not been appointed for Jesus to come (Galatians 4:4). So, New Testament examples: the most indubitable one would of course be Jesus Himself (Matthew 26:39,42,44). Then, there are the apostles all through the book of Acts praying (Acts 1:24; 4:31; 6:6; 8:15; 9:40; et cetera). In all of these, and other, passages, it is merely said that the apostles “prayed”. While it doesn’t say to whom they prayed, we must infer that it was in fact to God. Jesus said, “In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.” He gave them instruction to pray to God. So in the question “Is it wrong to pray to Jesus?” one might choose to argue either way. Those for the side of praying to Jesus might use the example of Paul (2Corinthians 12:8), or that of Stephen (Acts 7:59). One arguing this point may also use the fact that God and Jesus are the same person. In fact, Acts 7:59 begins by saying that Stephen prayed to God and then Stephen says, “Lord Jesus”. If Luke made no distinction between praying to God but saying “Lord Jesus”, why should we? The other side: it is wrong. The person who argues this may point out the seemingly limitless amount of times that a person in the Bible prays to God, compared with the two measly accounts of persons praying to Jesus. It would be important for one arguing this to again go back to the model prayer in Matthew 6, “Our Father in heaven…” Confronted with the point made on Acts 7:59, the person debating the case against praying to Jesus might make the point that although the Son and the Father are one in the same, they play different roles: God as the Father (Matthew 6 again) and Jesus as the Mediator (1Timothy 2:5). What do you think?. Mmmmmmm…something to ponder…