The Areopagus Script

Roy C. Deaver

2007-04-08T23:22:00.000-07:00

After a lengthy battle with dementia, Roy C. Deaver passed from this life on March 2, 2007. Roy was born in 1922 in Stephens County, Texas, in the suburbs of Caddo, to my grandparents, Harvey and Alta Deaver. My grandmother was 18 when Roy, her oldest child, was born. She had experienced difficulties with a couple of prior pregnancies, and according to family lore, she had prayed the prayer of Hannah, and asked God for a healthy son, whom she would encourage to become a preacher of the gospel. Roy preached the gospel for more than 60 years.

Dementia was not the only thing Roy battled during his life on earth. He defended and proclaimed the truth of God’s Word. He was well known among Christians as an educator, administrator, minister, elder, teacher, writer, and debater. The impact on those who heard him speak, and those who read his writings, may never be known this side of eternity. He was also a son, a brother, a husband, a father, grandfather and uncle.

He was tireless in his devotion to the church. At one time he served as the President of Ft. Worth Christian College, the director of Brown Trail School of Preaching, the pulpit minister at Brown Trail Church of Christ, and as an elder at Brown Trail. The operative phrase here is “at one time”. Roy Deaver served in these capacities at the same time.

I was teaching a class one Sunday, in Lewisville, on the book of Romans, and a visitor to the class raised his hand to make a comment. Because of the difference in our last names, he had no way of knowing that Roy Deaver was my uncle. As he spoke, he stated, “Roy Deaver is the smartest man in the brotherhood. He knows more Bible than anyone I know, and he has memorized the entire New Testament.” I wouldn’t doubt that Roy was an incredible Bible scholar and one of the best Greek scholars of his time. I never heard him claim to have memorized the entire New Testament, but obviously Roy had impressed many that were seated at his feet while he taught.

The relationship I had with Roy was less frequent, in occasion, as those who were in his immediate family, or those in the congregation or school where he was working. When we got together, there were lots of jokes, lots of laughs, and lots of fun. I watched him grieve, not as one without hope, the death of one of his sisters in 1965, the death of his dad in 1977, the death of his brother in 1999, and his mother in 2000. He helped us grieve the loss of other family members, including my dad in 2001. Thankfully, he was too sick and unable to come to the funeral of my mother, his youngest sister, in 2006. But, I have found numerous notes of encouragement and love from Roy to my mom, sent over the years. Roy was the last survivor of that Deaver family of six. My faith tells me that they are all together now, enjoying one another and perhaps a “mess of catfish” and some clear conversation. My grandfather, Roy’s dad, suffered from dementia, and so did my mother. It’s been a long time since that Deaver family had a clear and meaningful conversation together.

I was always able to call on Roy for advice, counsel, or insight into situations that I was facing. When the Lewisville church was first established, and continued to show amazing growth, he, tongue-in-cheek, asked me, “Didn’t you say that you had already appointed elders there?” Then, we laughed, knowing full well that he had the utmost respect for elders. When I was asked to serve as an elder in 2000, at a very young age, he gave me encouragement, and expressed his confidence in me to accomplish the task with God’s help.

In the later years of his life, it saddened me to see friends and colleagues turn on him, withdraw fellowship from him and members of his family, and dismiss and minimize his contributions completely, based on their disagreement with a few of his teachings. The Lord will settle those things in His time, but I can’t help but be saddened by the actions of these men. It also saddened me to see him struggle with his memory, one of his greatest God-given tools. His close friend, Tom Warren, experienced many of the same things during his bout with dementia. A family member told me, that in his last days, Roy would cry and say, “I need to be preaching the gospel”. It appears that, after the Lord, his mom’s prayer shaped him as much as the influence of Brother Pullias, Brother Hardeman, and Brother Warren.

As we have honored some, in this blogspace, who were giants among us, we honor Roy Deaver in that same regard. Even if it takes nine, or ninety, of us to fill his shoes, we are obligated to try and fill them.

Is there a future giant among us today?

PROPHECYING & SPEAKING IN TONGUES

2007-04-07T22:41:00.000-07:00

My esteemed colleague and dearly beloved brother in the Lord has posted a most intriguing article entitled, “That You May Prophecy.” When we initiated this blog last year, we stated that our purpose was to encourage a deeper study of the Word of God. We also stated that the four contributors would not agree with each other on every article that would be posted. I am writing this article as another view of the contents of 1 Corinthians 14.

One of the first rules of Bible study is to study a passage in its immediate context. By that, we mean can one ascertain the meaning of a scripture by studying the scriptures that surround the given verse.

In the book of 1 Corinthians, the Apostle is dealing with problems that were being faced by the church in Corinth. This of course, does not mean that other congregations were dealing with the same problems, or that other congregations would ever deal with the same problems. Therefore, as we study the problems enumerated in the book of 1 Corinthians we must remember that Paul was writing to deal with specific issues relating to the Corinthian congregation. Scholars, also call this, the “Sitz em Laben,” or the life situation of those who were recipients of the letter.

It is not possible to fully understand statements such as, “but especially that you may prophecy” (1 Corinthians 14:1), and “Why do you forbid to speak in tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:39), without placing these statements in the context of the entire discussion of 1 Corinthians 12-14).

Paul’s lead statement, “Now concerning spiritual gifts…” (1 Corinthians 12:1) allows us to know something of the question he is about to answer. He then begins to discuss several aspects of the spiritual gifts problems relative to what was taking place in Corinth. Brother Wayne Jackson states about this section of scripture, “Paul’s need to address this controversy likely was generated by a report of divisiveness within that church (cf. 1:10ff), and as a result of correspondence with some of the saints there (7:1).

Paul mentions the spiritual gifts that were available to the Corinthian church. Among these are wisdom, knowledge, healings, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. From reading chapter twelve, it becomes apparent that some at Corinth were boasting about their particular spiritual gift. Paul concludes this chapter and begins chapter thirteen by stating very clearly that these gifts are of little value if they are not exercised with love. After defining love, he places it in contrast to the spiritual gifts. The gifts were temporary phenomena, they would cease, but love would last forever.

In Chapter fourteen Paul selects three of these gifts; tongues, interpretation of tongues, and prophecy, to illustrate the division that was occurring in the church at Corinth. It appears that the Apostle is attempting to regulate the use of these gifts.

Some of these Christians appear to be abusing their ability to speak in tongues. Paul admonishes those who had the gift of speaking in tongues to remain silent, if there was no one present who had the gift of interpreting (1 Corinthians 14:2, 6). In addition, he admonishes those who had the gift of tongues to speak “in turn” (1 Corinthians 14:27). Finally, they were told to exercise self-control so that order might prevail when they came together (1Corinthians 14:33).

In regard to prophecy, Paul makes the assertion that it is greater than the gift of tongues, when the gift of tongues is used improperly. The gift of prophecy was a divine gift that allowed the possessor of the gift to teach in such a way so that the entire church might be edified (1 Corinthians 14:3). Because the gift of prophecy did not require an interpreter, so it was deemed the greater gift (1 Corinthians 14:1-5, 22-25).

Paul’s admonishment to desire the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:1) and to not forbid speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39) must be studied in the context of the entire discussion (1 Corinthians 12-14). Neither of these gifts would last. It is my conviction that both of these gifts were miraculous gifts and that they were temporary (1 Corinthians 13:8). One should no more affirm that we have the gift of prophecy today, than that we have the gift of tongues today. They both appear from the context, to stand or fall together. It is my conviction that neither is present in the church today.

That You May Prophesy?

2007-04-06T23:33:00.000-07:00

In the context of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14, Paul speaks of numerous spiritual gifts present, at that time, in Corinth. At the beginning of Chapter 13, he contrasts the gifts of tongues, prophecy, knowledge, and faith with the gift of love. At the end of Chapter 13, he speaks of the superiority of love, as a gift of the Spirit, even over the great gifts of hope and faith. Of all the spiritual gifts, only love will endure throughout eternity.

At the beginning of Chapter 14, he writes, “Pursue love and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy” (NKJV). Then, throughout Chapter 14, he extols the benefit of prophecy to those in the church and to unbelievers.

Does the context require us to view this gift for first century Corinth only? For first century Christians only? For us, as Christians, even today?

Should we pursue the gift of prophecy? If we seek the gift of prophecy today, can we find it? What is the Biblical meaning of prophecy, or the Biblical meaning of prophesy?

Vines states, concerning the words derived from “prophemi”, included in 1 Corinthians 14:1 above, the following:

“Though much of OT prophecy was purely predictive, prophecy is not necessarily, nor even primarily, foretelling. It is the declaration of that which cannot be known by natural means (Matthew 26:68), it is the forth-telling of the will of God, whether with reference to the past, the present, or the future”.

Ralph Earle states, concerning the word “prophemi”, that it “means to speak forth”. He further states, similar to Vines, the following:

“Contrary to popular usage today, the Biblical meaning of “prophecy” is not foretelling, but forth-telling. Put in simplest terms, the prophet is one who speaks for God”.

That would be consistent with Peter’s admonition in 1 Peter 4:10f. If we speak for God, we speak forth for God, and for His glory.

Scholars are divided on whether or not this gift, or in some cases any of the spiritual gifts remain with Christians today. The difference in their positions would appear to be based primarily on the definition distinction of foretelling and forth-telling, and also on the source of the information for the prophets (spokesmen for God).

Vines even states that teachers have replaced prophets in the church, primarily due to his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8f and 2 Peter 2:1. His basis for this distinction is stated as follows:

“The difference is that, whereas the message of the prophet was a direct revelation of the mind of God for the occasion, the message of the teacher is gathered from the completed revelation contained in the Scriptures.”

My personal conviction is that spiritual gifts continue today, in whatever measure the Spirit chooses to distribute them (1 Corinthians 12:7ff; 1 Peter 4:10f; etc.). I cannot know, and neither can Vines or anyone, whether all the people referred to as prophets, or who prophesied in the first century and prior, received their revelation directly from God. They may have received a revelation from others that had received a direct revelation from God. Or, they may have received their revelation from those who had received a revelation from someone who had received a revelation from someone who received a direct revelation from God.

The point is that the gift of prophecy is a gift intended for the sharing and edification of others. And the gift of forth-telling is with us today, and is expected to be with us until the Lord returns. We must all ensure that our forth-telling is consistent with the Word of God revealed to us. But, whether we teach in homes, in a classroom, write books, or seldom read blog articles, we should be forth-telling the Word of God. We should seek to prophesy.

Finally, in 1 Corinthians 14:1, Paul writes:

“Pursue love and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.” (NKJV)

“Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.” (KJV)

“Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.” (NIV)

“Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.” (NASB)

“Pursue love, yet strive for spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.” (McCord)

All of these are very similar in that they encourage us to pursue a course of love, and to desire spiritual gifts. These readings also seem to indicate that we should “especially” desire to be prophets or to prophesy.

Alfred Marshall’s Interlinear New Testament indicates a somewhat different reading, from the Greek text, which changes the focus of the passage.

“Pursue love, but desire eagerly the spiritual, in order that you may prophesy”. It appears to me that this reading is somewhat different in idea than the others listed above. Are we to be loving? Yes. Are we also to pursue the spiritual, or the spiritual gifts? Yes. Why? So we might prophesy. So we might be credible, and accurate, spokesmen, or forth-tellers, of God’s divine will. In OT times, the coming of the Messiah would have been a future event, but also something that had to have been told, because it could not have been known by natural means. Today, the proclamation of the return of the Lord, and judgement, is a telling of a future event. It too, is something that cannot be known by natural means. It requires, under God’s plan, spokesmen, forth-tellers, foretellers, or prophets.

Many of you, who read this, are preachers, teachers, writers, or you share the gospel with a friend, co-worker, neighbor or stranger. In a sense, you are prophets. You understand that you participate in an enormous activity. With that participation comes an even larger responsibility.

Promise Keeper

2007-03-26T13:34:00.000-07:00

Has anyone ever failed to keep a promise to you, or let you down in some way? Have you ever been the one to let someone else down? It’s an empty and disheartening feeling, either way, isn’t it? In the graceless age we live in, with all of its formal agreements and contracts, we may have lost the inherent security of being people of our word. This is not an integrity issue of credibility only, but dependability.

In the week prior to the cross, and upon the brink of making the atoning sacrifice for all mankind, Jesus engaged his disciples in a series of discussions targeted at reassuring them that He could be depended upon to keep His word. They must have needed reassurance; they must have been struggling with the feeling of abandonment and disappointment.

One such discussion, recorded in Luke 22, is such a discussion, although not as apparent as many of the others. Jesus begins the dialogue, in verse 8, sending Peter and John to go and make preparations for a place to partake of the Passover feast.

Jesus said, “Go and prepare the Passover for us.”

“Where do you want us to prepare it?” they said to Him.

He said, “When you go into the city, a man carrying a pitcher of water will meet you; follow him into the house which he enters, and say to the householder, the Teacher asks, where is the guest room, where I can eat the Passover with my disciples. He will show you a large furnished room upstairs. Prepare the Passover there.”

Jesus, in a small way, is making a promise to Peter and John directly, but to all who are in earshot of his voice. He is telling them what will happen in the future, and He is telling them they can depend on Him. His words must have seen strange, even with all the other signs the disciples had witnessed over the last three years. If the promise did not materialize, Jesus’ credibility among His disciples would have been seriously damaged. If events did take place as Jesus told them it would, it would be a source of comfort, and security, to know that Jesus keeps His word.

For a moment, look at this story with different eyes. Not from the perspective of Jesus, Peter and John, or the other disciples. Look at it through the eyes of a man with a pitcher of water. It appears he doesn’t even know Jesus is working through him and around him. With all the activities of the day, the schedule he has to keep, the business he must conduct, and the people with whom he must engage, it’s a wonder he could get himself, and his family prepared for the Passover feast. All we know, is that with all this man, with a pitcher of water, had to do, he would end up in a certain spot, at a certain time, carrying a pitcher of water, and on the way to someone’s house. He may never have known that it was Peter and John who were following him, or who it was that might have sent them.

Verse 13 sums up the story, not written by an eyewitness, but told to Luke by an eyewitness (Luke 1:2). The verse says, “They (Peter and John) went and found everything as the Lord had told them, and prepared the Passover.”

The story must have been a source of encouragement, security, and hope. It survives until this day, where it still offers the same possibilities.

When they found “everything as the Lord had told them”, it must have struck their senses. Probably, it struck them in such a way, that later, when Jesus said “I go and prepare a place for you”, or “I will come again and receive you unto myself”, or “I am with you always, even to the end of the age”, they were hearing promises from a credible, and dependable source.

Jesus made many promises. Many were made to us. Will He let us down? Can we be secure in His promises? Do we live in expectation of the fulfillment of those promises?

One day, in heaven, and every day until then, we will find everything as the Lord has told us. Jesus is a promise keeper.

In the beginning was the Word

2007-03-10T21:00:00.000-08:00

During some recent study and research, I began looking more intently at one of my favorite passages from the gospel of John.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. 9 There was true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1-14, NASB)

There are several elements, or phrases, that I want to focus on in this article.

First, let’s look at verse 1. John establishes the fact of an eternal being that was uniquely different than God, yet was God. Alfred Marshall’s interlinear translation of this passage, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.” Ralph Earle’s work, Word Meanings in the New Testament, from which much of the content below is obtained, begins John’s gospel with a focus on the Greek word “logos”. He states that the word “logos” is found 330 times in the New Testament, and is translated 25 different ways, in the KJV, including 218 times as “word”, with a small w, and 50 times as “saying”.

But, in Ephesus, 600 years before John penned his gospel from there, Heraclitus used the term “logos” for “the rational principle, power, or being which speaks to men both from without and from within”. Plato used it for the “divine force creating the world”, and Aristotle used it for “insight”. Earle says, “in general, the Greeks thought of “logos” as reason, or thought, whereas the Jewish emphasis was on “logos” as word.” Philo, a Jew who lived in Alexandria at the time of Jesus, “sought to combine” the ideas of thought and speech in “logos”. He used the term over 1300 times in his writings. But with Philo, as Earle states, “the Logos is often personified but never truly personalized”.

John, through divine inspiration, goes beyond Philo, and those who came before him. John presents Jesus as the eternal Logos, “the true concept of God and also the Word, expressing that concept fully in His incarnation in verse 14”. Of all the New Testament writers, only John, and only on three occasions, applies “logos” to Jesus (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1; and Revelation 19:13)

Notice the imperfect tense “en” in verses 1 and 2. This is the Greek word for “was”, but it implies continuous existence. In fact, “in the beginning” implies eternal existence. Also, note the word “pros”, our word “with”, which notes “close proximity”. The Logos was “face to face” with God, eternally and continuously.

At the end of verse 1, our versions read, “and the Word was God”. The Greek actually states “God was the Word”. Either rendering is correct, boldly acknowledging the deity of the Word, identified in verse 14 as Jesus.

I would draw your attention to verse 5, to the phrase “The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” The Greek word is “katalambano”, for which two meanings are prominent in the New Testament. Basically, it means “to take hold of”, but is used in the mental sense, “comprehend”, or in the physical sense “seize hold of”. The KJV translates katalambano as “comprehend”, and the NIV translates it “understood” but margin notes state “the darkness has not overcome”.

The context (verses 9 through 11) requires, to me, the mental aspect of the word. Jesus is the Light and the world is darkness. And the darkness doesn’t grasp, or understand, the Light.

Prior, in verses 1 and 2, we looked at “was” (en) and its continuous, eternal existence. Now look, in verses 3 and 6, at “came into being”, ginomai in the Greek. Ginomai is translated, in verses 3 and 6 in the KJV, as “was” also. Yet, this time, “was” is different. In verses 1 and 2, the Logos eternally and continuously existed and exists. “All things that were made”, the creation, came into being. This is the reason for the differences in the KJV and NASB translations. Then, most interestingly, in verse 14, in reference to Jesus, “the Word became flesh”. Again, this is not “en”, but “ginomai”. The Logos always existed, but He became flesh at His incarnation.

Finally, in verse 14, the word for “dwelt” is similar in the Greek, “skenoo”, to our words “tabernacled” or “tented”. The NIV captures the thought of tenting, with its translation, “lived for a while among us”. The Logos became flesh and temporarily lived among us. He lived with us for a short while, and brought Light to darkness. Those of us who receive Him, He has given to us the right to become children of God. He has given us the ability to see our way in darkness.

Jesus said, in John 8:12, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”

Jesus also said he came to give sight to the blind (Matthew 11:5). Do you think he was speaking of physical sight or blindness?

Stand Firm

2007-03-02T13:59:00.002-08:00

I don't know if anyone comes here anymore considering none of us has posted in...well, it's been awhile. Because of that fact, this post is mainly for Scott, but if you read this, take a second to leave me a comment. In the Roman army, one of the main tactics used was a formation called a phalanx. In this formation, there would be a block of men 10x10 (100 men) that would all hold their shield in front of them, with the outside border all facing to the outside, so as to make a walking tank. A term they were taught (that is, those in the phalanx) was "stand firm". They were taught that if one of the front men fell, they must move into their place and stand firm. You'll notice often in Paul's writings that he will use many military terms. Well, this is one of them. He says in Philippians 1:27, "...standing firm in one spirit..." Paul makes reference to the Roman phalanx because the church at Philippi was predominantly Roman war veterans. He makes sure they know, and that we know, that a Christians battle is one where those on whom you rely may fall, but you must always stand firm.

The Righteous and the Good

2006-12-13T23:50:00.000-08:00

Romans 5:7, “For one will scarcely die for a righteous person though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die” Although these are beautiful words, I’m not sure if we always completely grasp their meaning. To us, as non-Jews, these two words “righteous” and “good” seem almost as synonyms. What did the apostle mean by making an obvious distinction between the two? A better question: what did the Jews at Rome understand verse 7 to mean? A few thoughts…

The Jewish people made a distinction between “righteous men” and “good men”. A section from the Talmud reads, “…there is a righteous man that is good, and there is a righteous man that is not good…” Obviously Paul was playing off of this idea of the difference between the two seemingly similar genres of persons. He is also obviously trying to teach us a greater lesson than we may grasp about the love of Christ-one that I believe would be beneficial to us all. Another section from the Talmud reads: “three things are said concerning the paring of the nails: ‘a righteous man’ buries them, ‘a good man’ burns them, ‘a wicked man’ casts them away.” What does this quote mean? A righteous man did just what the law obliged him to do: bury the nails. He followed the law to the letter and no more. Sound familiar? These are the Pharisees. Paul says that scarcely would one die for these people! He may even be alluding to his former life when he was more zealous than his fathers were (Gal. 1:14). The good man, however, went a step further: he burned the nails. This is a very generous man! He gives to the poor out of his own pocket! He helps out with the temple of his own expense! There are some, Paul says, that would die for this man to live. But, we must ask ourselves, who dies for those who cast the nails away? Who would die for the hated of the world, the outcasts? No one. Paul doesn’t even mention them as possible candidates in this verse! We need to realize the beautiful gradation that exists in Romans 5:7! Some will die for those who are law keepers AND generous before they die for one who merely keeps the law, and no one will die for those who break the law. Enter Jesus and consequently verse 8: “…but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” We, brothers and sisters, are the wicked people who cast the nails away. We are the ones who know the law and still mess it up. Yet, even in our sins, Christ died for us. Not because we are good people and not even because we are righteous people, but- why Paul? Because, verse 5 tells us, He loves us. May we, as children of God, never think more highly of ourselves than we ought, and may we never forget the sacrifice that was made on Calvary for our sins.

An Offering of Thanks

2006-11-24T17:08:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, families and friends gathered in homes all over the country to among other things, eat, watch football, and hopefully, to offer thanks for the many blessings we receive from God.

In weeks prior to this national celebration of thanksgiving, we have heard numerous comments and lessons, and read many articles, on being thankful. We have been prompted to count our blessings, to name them one by one. We have been encouraged to acknowledge that all blessings come from God, and to express our gratitude for those blessings.

My point, this morning, is to reflect on the things that we counted, and the things for which we are grateful. I would suspect it would be easy, and time consuming, to list, and give thanks for, all the ways God has blessed our lives. In searching for things that God has done to improve my life, I would not have to look far. My parents, both of whom, my faith tells me, have gone to a better place. My wife, who helps me in so many ways, is a great blessing. My children, my friends, my ancestors, both spiritually and physically, my extended physical family, and all those in my spiritual family that encourage and sustain me from day to day, have improved my life in ways that I cannot fully grasp. I am blessed, and my reasons to be grateful are many. But there is more.

James writes, in Chapter 1, that we are to "consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be complete, not lacking anything."

In this reading, I understand that without trials, I am not complete. I am lacking. God knows that I am lacking, and has blessed me with trials to complete me, and to improve me. Am I thankful for that? Do I consider trials as blessings?

Paul says it this way; "...we rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us". (Romans 5:3-5)

In my accounting of all the things that God has provided for the improvement of my life, I must include suffering. I must be thankful that God loves me enough to help complete me, to ensure that I lack in nothing.

I believe this is a perspective worth considering and cultivating in all our lives.

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ." (Ephesians 1:3)

Philos or Hetairos?

2006-11-20T14:09:00.000-08:00

What is friendship? Trust, honesty, fellowship, enjoyment? Yes, indeed those and many more characteristics can describe what friendship is. Christ Himself gives a characteristic of friendship in John 15:14, but is this the same kind of friend that Christ calls Judas in Matthew 26: 50?

In the Greek language there are two words that render “friend” in the English language: “philos” and “hetairos”. Both of these words are translated “friend” in the NASB, but both have a different meaning. “Philos” means a true friend. This is the kind of friend that Jesus calls his disciples (excluding Judas) in John 15: 15, and also this is the “friend” that is with the bridegroom at His wedding (John 3: 29). Therefore, this “friend” is one that we would understand as being a true friend. However, “hetairos” conveys more of a companion than a true friend. This word is only used three times in the Greek New Testament and all three occur in the book of Matthew. What’s interesting is that this is the word used when the King addresses a guest not dressed in wedding clothes and then condemns him to outer darkness (Matthew 22: 12). Also, in the other passages in Matthew (20: 13 and 26: 50), it is never indicating a close relationship that we would consider to be a friendship. “Hetairos” is what Jesus calls Judas in Matthew 26: 50, but in Luke 12: 4 Christ address His disciples as friends (philoi). That would include Judas wouldn’t it? What makes me wonder is this: was “hetairos” the word used by Jesus to prick Judas’ heart? Was it this word that made him change his mind and try to rectify what he had done? How would you feel if for three years you traveled with Jesus and built a relationship with Him so that He called you friend (philos), and then one day He calls you “hetairos”? Of course we can say that Judas may have also changed his mind by seeing Jesus in those chains and being pushed around, but I sometimes wonder how I would I feel if I was regarded as a friend one day, and then the next day I wasn’t. Are you Jesus’ “philos” or “hetairos”?

A God Who Is Worthy of Our Worship

2006-11-16T22:46:00.000-08:00

Bart Campolo recently wrote an article under the title, “The Limits of God’s Grace,” which appeared in Youth Specialties’, The Journal of Student Ministries. Please read the following excerpt from his article:

“Some might say I would be wise to swallow my misgivings about such stuff [like God's sovereignty, wrath, hell, etc.], remain orthodox, and thereby secure my place with God in eternity. But that is precisely my point: If those things are true, then God might as well send me to Hell. For better or worse, I simply am not interested in any God but a completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving One who is powerful enough to utterly triumph over evil. Such a God may not exist, but I will die seeking such a God, and I will pledge my allegiance to no other possibility because, quite frankly, anything less is not worthy of my worship. Please, don’t get me wrong. I am well aware that I don’t get to decide who God is. What I do get to decide, however, is to whom I pledge my allegiance. I am a free agent, after all, and I have standards for my God, the first of which is this: I will not worship any God who is not at least as compassionate as I am.”

My initial thought is how remarkable that any publication that claims to present “Christian” literature would publish such a blasphemous piece of writing. It is even more unconscionable when I think about the fact that thousands of youth leaders around the country read this publication each week. It is disheartening to know that many youth leaders in churches of Christ make this a part of their monthly diet.

In the above quote, we get a glimpse into why so many Christians walk away from God and His Church. Through the centuries, mankind has tried to create a God to his liking. Sigmund Freud said that man created God because he was afraid. The Word of God says that God created man in His image, after His likeness (Genesis 1:26). Whenever we try to recreate God, as the author of the above quote has attempted to do, we will always turn away from the God of the Bible.

When he says he will pledge his allegiance to no other God than the one who is like him, he is in reality saying he pledges his allegiance only to himself. This is no new thought. Humanism has been around since the creation of man. There have always been narcissistic naval-gazers who are only interested in what they want.

For one to say, “I have standards for my God, the first of which is this: I will not worship any God who is not at least as compassionate as I am,” shows a gross misunderstanding of the God we serve. Our most well known passage of scripture affirms the all consuming compassion of God for man. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) When you add these words from Romans 5:8, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” what you have is the greatest show of compassion ever known to man. This God is most certainly worthy of our worship. When we understand the true meaning of compassion, and we come to realize all that God has done for us, we will want to worship Him. Our worship to this God is characterized by joy, reverence, love, and great gratitude.

By the way, there is one other small detail that Mr. Campolo has wrong. He is wrong when he says he will not worship any God who is not as least as compassionate as he is. He needs to reconsider his misunderstanding of the God of comfort (2 Corinthians 1:3), because someday he, like all of us will bow before the God of the entire universe (Romans 14:11).

The Lord Provides

2006-11-01T15:01:00.000-08:00

God watches out for those who follow Him. Proof of this is found all throughout the Bible, but some very interesting proof is found in John 6 when Jesus feeds the five thousand. Jesus and His apostles gather the crowds together for whom Jesus has compassion, and they want to feed them but find out that all they have is five loaves of bread and two fish. Now remember: this is unleavened bread (more like a pancake), which makes it even harder to feed these five thousand men plus their wives and children! Jesus tests Philip at this point, asking him in verse 5, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” Of course Jesus knew what was going to happen. He knew from the beginning of eternity! I believe He tests us in the same way today: “You’ve lost your job. Where are you going to get money with which to feed your family?” “You’ve lost a loved one. How are you going to cope with this despondent time?” “You’ve come into contact with cancer. How are you ever going to get better?” Jesus knows the answer to these questions! He just wants us to come to Him for help. I remember Him once saying, “Come unto me all who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest.” Jesus can help us with any problem and He wants us to come to Him. So He feeds this large group and then what? There’s still food left over! Twelve baskets! The interesting thing about this fact is that the word here for basket, is not the basket that we generally thinking of. When I think of basket, I think of a pretty large wicker thing with handles. The word for basket here is more of a pouch. It was used by travelers (like the apostles) to hold food for their journey. Is it possible that Jesus made sure there was exactly the right amount of baskets left for his apostles? We need to be just like Abraham and have faith that the Lord will provide for His people.

A Worship Perspective

2006-10-17T21:15:00.000-07:00

A few articles back, I noted the benefit I receive when I consciously sit back and listen to what others have to say, and share it, than when I steadfastly seek to write about the things that I want to say. Such is the case today. Some very dear friends shared a quotation with me. Their son shared it with them, and his minister, who was quoting J.J.M. Roberts, shared it with him. Roberts’ quotation is found in “Worship and the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of John T. Willis”, and specifically in a section entitled, “Contemporary Worship in Light of Isaiah’s Ancient Critique”. That’s a long-winded way of saying the quotation, contained in this article, is certainly not original with me.

Christendom, today, is in the midst of worship wars. Worship in the sense of our Lord’s Day assemblies. As congregations re-think and re-shape their worship “presentation”, in the hopes of alluring the “un-churched” into their assemblies, others resist any attempt to modify long standing practices. To compete in a world of short attention spans, and multi-media sensory attraction and overload, some church leaders are tempted to modernize their worship assemblies to draw crowds. Others believe such is compromise with secularism, or worse. Those that would attempt to be more contemporary would argue that they are not changing for the sake of change, but changing for the sake of relevancy. Whatever the spin from those who advocate change, it sounds an alarm of tampering, with scripture and truth, to those who resist. Thus, the battle lines, of the worship wars, are formed, and, sadly, many congregations are robbed of the peace and unity that is required for acceptable worship.

Those who resist the contemporary change will argue that God is the focus of worship, and resist any deviation from long standing practices, even though those practices are probably the result of changes in earlier generations. And, certainly, that doesn’t encompass all the changes being suggested, tried, and incorporated in today’s Lord’s Day assemblies.

On the other hand, those who advocate contemporary change claim that God is the focus of worship, and we should all be interested in making our worship more meaningful, even if change is required to do so.

So, both sides claim to want to please God, and both sides claim the other side is self-absorbed, and self-serving. Both parties would claim to not “get anything” out of a worship style practiced by the other camp. To one, the other is nothing more than entertainment and a production. To another, the other is dead, and ritualistic. Both arguments are based on the “activity” being the driver of meaningful worship. Both are wrong in their placement of the act(s) being the stimulant of true worship. My reading of Roberts’ statement crystallized the true stimulant to true worship.

Roberts stated, “Any practice, if it lasts long enough, can be cloaked in a theological justification, but there is a profound difference between a theology that shapes a congruent pattern of worship and a theology that simply adapts itself to patterns of worship forced on it willy-nilly by quite un-theological forces and concerns.”

“In Isaiah’s day, the human crowds were still present for worship; it was God who had opted out. The problem for religious leaders then was not how to get the people to come back to attending worship; it was how to get God to attend. It might be wise even in the present to look at worship from that perspective.”

“Perhaps we are spending far too much energy trying to figure out how to adapt worship so as to interest and attract a disinterested public. Perhaps we might better spend our time trying to please a potentially disinterested and increasingly irritated God.”

That is powerful! It not only rebukes those who would secularize worship, but those who would endure the time as robots. The point of Roberts’ statement, as I see it, is that God must be in attendance for true worship to occur. When He has “opted out”, it matters little whether we have maintained our past practices or introduced a new brand of worship. Regardless of one’s enthusiasm for the contemporary presentation, true worship does not exist when God is not in attendance. And, regardless of the practice of the time honored worship style, true worship is non-existent when God “opts out”.

I view Roberts’ statement as a strong rebuke to those who would intentionally secularize our assemblies to allure the un-churched, but I also view his statement as a warning to those who think that “staying the course” in activity is an indicator of God’s attendance.

The level of meaning in your worship, and my worship, is not contingent upon the human activity. That kind of thinking is shallow, and self-deceiving. Meaning, in worship, derives solely from the approval and attendance of God. And I suspect, if He is not approving, He is not attending. So, whether the human crowds are present, or not, God must be present. And if He is, we will know it, and our worship will be meaningful, to God and to us, as it is intended.

Another View of Miracles and 1Cor. 13

2006-10-08T19:16:00.000-07:00

Let’s open our minds and Bibles. I know that miracles have ceased, and in this article will do my best to prove it logically. I will first CORRECTLY define a miracle. A miracle is anything that God does that man cannot do AND is instantaneous. Many people will be healed in our time, and doctors (who, by the way, don’t know everything) will not know why. The point still remains that the person will heal slowly and gradually, and may still have serious problems for the rest of there, potentially short, life. I will use 1Cor. 13 for my simple, yet effective argument on why miracles have ceased. Some people speak of the “perfect” in 1Cor. 13 being heaven and they seem to know for a FACT that it is not the complete canonized scriptures. Well, it is. Most people who want to hold on to miracles will say that the “perfect” is Jesus or heaven, so that the miracles they want to happen will stay with them. There is more than one problem with this, but there is only one that I will, and need, to use. If, hypothetically speaking, the word “perfect” was referring to heaven, then it’s pronoun (perfect) would, by the koine Greek rules, have to agree with whatever word to which it was making reference. In other words, if the word “perfect” was speaking of heaven it would have to be in the masculine gender, because heaven is always masculine. That’s not what it used though. For these people to be correct in their argument, then the word perfect would have to be “ho teleios” (masculine form) rather than what it does say: “to teleion” (neuter). There’s that. Then they say, “Well, if it (perfect) is the Bible then that means that Paul never had complete knowledge!” What’s so hard to believe about that? Jesus didn’t even know everything (Mr. 13:32)! In a sense though, we know “everything” as far as what we need. Peter said this in 2Pt. 1:3 when he said “all things”. So, when the Bible was complete, miracles had already ceased (one, because it IS implied that the apostles had to lay their hands on someone for them to receive the ability to do miracles, and then those people couldn’t pass the power on. Read Acts 8 sometime), and if they hadn’t ceased then, then they did when the Bible was finished because the things written in it are all that we need to believe. Notice that I never once said in this perfectly logical article that God has ceased to work. He still works in our lives, but in this day and age, He does not do it through the miraculous.

Another Giant Has Fallen

2006-10-06T14:14:00.000-07:00

My heart is heavy today. We received word last night that brother Johnny Ramsey has passed away. Brother Ramsey was an outstanding preacher of the Word of God and a wonderful man. I vividly remember the first time it was my privilege to hear him preach. He preached God’s Word with passion, with a heart of love for those who listened, and with an unsurpassed knowledge of the Bible. The first sermon I heard him preach was an overview of the entire New Testament. He covered every book in the New Testament in one sermon! He gave interesting facts, such as how many chapters each book contained, information about the first recipients of each book, the theme of each book, key words, & key verses in each book. He must have quoted more than one hundred scriptures in that sermon. As a young preacher, I was spellbound when he preached. It was obvious that he had committed the Word of God to his heart and mind. Brother Ramsey had learned the Bible, he loved the Bible, and he lived the Bible.

Every time I had the privilege of hearing him preach after that first time it was the always the same. Whether it was that outstanding sermon on the book of Revelation, or the marvelous series on Jeremiah, the lessons he preached were always packed with scripture. And, as I said, it was not just his preaching. Through the years, I have been blessed with numerous occasions to spend time with this great man of God. He was always very kind to me as a younger preacher. He encouraged me to stay in the Word, he patiently answered my questions, he talked with me about the work of the church, and he was very kind to me every time we were together.

As I grow older and see more of the great preachers in our brotherhood pass away, there is sadness in my heart. I am happy for them that they are going to their reward (Revelation 14:13), but I am sad because of the void they leave in the church. We are in desperate need of others who will be committed to learning, loving, and living the Bible the way that these men have. We all need to be better students of the Word. If we are going to make an impact in this world, we must know the Word of God. It is vital for the future of the Church, that not only leaders in the church know the Word of God, it is extremely important that every Christian be filled with biblical knowledge.

We thank God for men like Johnny Ramsey. We pray that many other Christians will commit their lives to the study of the Word, just as brother Ramsey had done (2 Timothy 2:15). Our prayers will certainly be with sister Ramsey and her family during this difficult time. May God bless each of them with His love, comfort, and the knowledge that brother Ramsey lived the kind of life worthy of the crown of righteousness (2 Timothy 4:8).

Have Miracles Ceased?

2006-10-06T12:43:00.000-07:00

Recently, I received a call asking for some Bible study assistance. The person on the other end of the connection asked,

“Where does the Bible say that miracles have ceased?”

I responded with, “I assume you’re talking about 1 Corinthians 13?”

“No, that’s not it.”

“Well”, I told her, “if you don’t use 1 Corinthians 13, you’re out of options.”

“That can’t be, she said, “I know I have heard many preachers and Bible class teachers say that scripture states that ‘miracles have ceased’, and cite a scripture reference for it, but I just can’t seem to find it”.

And she won’t. Neither will you or I. It ain’t there. And it is my belief, as I told her, that 1 Corinthians 13 doesn’t say it either. She had already looked at that passage, and agreed with me. I can find no NT writings that say miracles will cease upon the deaths of the apostles; or upon the deaths of those on whom they laid hands. It isn’t there. Some will argue the implication is there, but the statements are not.

1 Corinthians 13 makes reference to the inferior nature of miraculous gifts, as compared to the gift of love. Paul supports that view by saying that prophecies, tongues, and knowledge will all pass away, but not love. So, in context, scripture does teach that miracles will cease. Most people, when asking the question of the hour, are referencing scripture that teaches that miracles do not exist today, and want to support the claim with the girding of 1 Corinthians 13.

I think it necessary, at this point, to say that I know of no miracles that have been worked, through men, discounting prayer and the providence of God. Do I believe that God is working through men today to heal the lame, restore sight to the blind, raise the dead, discern someone’s innermost thoughts, etc.? No, I do not.

That is somewhat different than saying God cannot, or that scripture teaches that He will not, or has ceased doing things, for His children, that His children cannot do for themselves. And this is where this discussion often gets complicated.

To me, a Bible miracle was God (Acts 2:22) demonstrating His existence, power and authority, through a human, and doing something that humans could not do without God. Of course, there were times when God intervened without human accompaniment. But, Bible miracles, in cases involving humans, were usually immediate, usually complete, fairly obvious to all, and beyond the realm of trickery and slight of hand. At least those that were written about generally fall into that description. How is that different than God answering my prayer to heal my loved one? If God answers that prayer as I have prayed, it certainly supports His existence; it is certainly a demonstration of His power; it is certainly a demonstration of His authority over the creation, and the laws of nature He established; and if medical science has done “all they know to do”, then God, by healing my loved one, has done something that a human could not do for himself?

If that is not so, why do we pray? Of course, God can intervene on behalf of someone who does not pray. My interest here is with those who do pray for God’s intervention, and yet may believe that He has ceased intervening.

If you associate God’s answers to prayers as His “providence” (which means God provided), and don’t like the word “miracle”, so be it. Just don’t say that God doesn’t do things in the lives of some that they cannot do for themselves.

To the point, though, of this article, we must look at the wording in 1 Corinthians 13. What does it say? Verse 10 says “… but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.” The sticking point on this verse is the phrase “when the perfect comes”. Paul has already stated that “we know in part and we prophesy in part” (at the time of his writing), referring to the “partial”. But what is “the perfect”? Some have argued it is the complete revelation of God’s Word, the complete compilation of the canonized scriptures.

Is that really what Paul was referring to?

If so, then upon the coming of the perfect, we would all know completely, and prophesy completely, as Paul states in verse 12. If the reference of the “perfect” is to the canonized scriptures, then Paul never knew completely or prophesied completely, even though he had a direct learning experience from the Lord.

Secondly, and most compelling, is that “the perfect”, in context, refers to our arriving in heaven. Completeness will be ours in heaven. We will not speak like a child, reason like a child, or think like a child (that is, immaturely or incompletely). But rather, we will speak, think, and reason maturely and completely. Paul adds, “then I will know fully as I have been fully known”.

In heaven, there will be no need for the gift of tongues, whether they be foreign languages or heavenly languages; there will be no need for the gift of prophesy; and there will be no need for the gift of knowledge. Only love will endure our transition to eternity. And that is why it is superior to all the gifts of the Spirit described in Paul’s writings, including faith and hope. And that is why, in my mind, the context requires the “perfect” to be interpreted as heaven.

So, fellowship lines don’t have to be drawn if you disagree, and those who do agree aren’t necessarily “pentecostal” for having this view. I believe my view is consistent with the context of the passage, 1 Corinthians, chapters 11 through 14.

The Lord’s Name in Vain

2006-10-02T22:07:00.001-07:00

I suspect that if one hundred, or one hundred thousand, people were interviewed, and asked what is meant by “taking the Lord’s name in vain”, the response, from more than ninety percent, would be incorrect, or incomplete. Based on personal experience, it would have to be that high.

What do you think it means? Without reading any further, I would suspect that most of you would include language that references God, or Jesus, in a trite or meaningless way. And, that should be included in any definition of “taking His name in vain”. When people utter the name of God in a curse, or as space filler, it would certainly meet anyone’s definition of “vain”.

I remember a time, several years ago, when I asked a co-worker, who said “GD and JHC” (or some derivation thereof) constantly if he would refrain from doing so, particularly in my presence. He asked me why, and I asked him if he realized he was taking the Lord’s name in vain. He was Catholic, and thus familiar with the concept, and his reply stunned me. He said, “I’m not taking His name in vain, I don’t mean ANYTHING by it”. So, I asked him to define “vain”, and he said, “malicious or harmful”. When told that “vain” meant “meaningless”, he disagreed and went for a dictionary. His intent to not mean “ANYTHING” by his use of God’s name is precisely a “vain” usage of something very meaningful.

I remember a small boy visiting my house, and referring to me as Mister and sir, all the while calling out God’s name as if he were ordering a sandwich. I suspect he learned both habits at home.

It is a serious matter to take the Lord’s name in vain. Yet, the misuse of our tongues, in our language, is secondary to something else.

I have heard ministers say, during wedding ceremonies, that the “groom to be” is paying his bride the ultimate compliment, by giving her his name. She is taking his name as an act of honor for her husband. She is leaving behind her old identity and taking on a new identity, or at least that’s God’s stated intent in Genesis 2. When we become members of the body of Christ, and submit to him as the head of the body, aren’t we doing the same?

When we put on Christ, aren’t we taking his name? When we describe ourselves as a Christian, whose name is it that we bear?

In Acts 15, James reinforces Peter’s current claim, and the claim of the prophets of old, that God had taken from among the Gentiles, “a people for His name”. Paul, the missionary to the Gentiles, rebukes his fellow Jews, in Romans 2; and quoting Isaiah, says “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you”. And Peter encourages his readers to keep their “behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God.” As you can see, vain behaviors are being addressed in these passages.

Our language is an integral part of our behavior. It is paramount in the making and breaking of reputations and influence. But it is only part of our behavior. Never interpret “taking the Lord’s name in vain” as just a tongue problem. It is a heart problem, and it is a behavior problem.

So Near, and yet, So Far

2006-09-27T22:12:00.001-07:00

This oft used phrase is “target locked” when it comes to purveying our spirituality against the standard by which are compared. The Lord, and those of us who are human, know that we can never attain the complete, or perfect, nature of God, this side of eternity. But, through the Spirit of God, His children are strengthened to pursue spiritual maturity and completion.

One such example of our being so near, but yet, so far away, would be the golden rule. Interestingly enough, compare the golden rule of conduct among men, with the Jewish rule of justice.

Historically, the axiom, “an eye for an eye”, as I understand it, was a description of retaliation that equated the crime to the punishment (Exodus 21:24). Such was a vast improvement in human relations over the vengeance in retaliation to which Cain was subjected. But, Jesus’ teachings, in Matthew 5:38, represent another improvement, and raises the bar toward complete and perfect spirituality. Does it?

Some have stated that “an eye for an eye” was a reactive, or retribution, statute. It certainly has evolved into such. But, at the heart of “an eye for an eye” is not reaction, but proaction. If a person knows the law allows equitable retaliation, it might serve as a deterrent to a harmful act. Whether stealing property, taking a life, causing injury, or harming in any way, knowing that the same can be inflicted to me, in retaliation, can serve to shape my behavior. So, you can see, the originator of the harmful cycle is just as governed as the initial victim who seeks retaliation under “an eye for an eye”.

In a sense, taken from the perspective of a man, he could pre-think his behavior, and come to the conclusion… if I don’t want my ox stolen, then I shouldn’t steal another man’s ox. Agree? Sounds a lot like the golden rule. So near, but yet, so far!

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is the same, in many aspects, as the intent of “an eye for an eye”. However, “do unto others” provides a couple of clear and distinctive benefits to “an eye for an eye”.

First, it pre-empts any misapplication of “an eye for an eye”, and restricts, if not eliminates retaliation.

Second, and most importantly, “do unto others” is proactive, and goes to the heart of each individual. It eliminates the cycle of getting even. It promotes a spirit of well being among humans, and therefore, becomes more complete and more perfect, as the spiritual is compared to the carnal.

It is clear the Law showed God’s people how they could follow the letter of the law, and not ever connect with the spirit, or intent, of the Law. That’s why Jesus said He came to “fulfill” or complete the Law. Actually, He came to perfect His children, and conform them into the nature of the Father. So near, but yet, so far.

As a man thinks in his heart, so he is.

2006-09-24T22:35:00.000-07:00

When we began publishing The Areopagus Script, we said that from time to time we would recommend some good resources. A new book, “Seeking True Unity”, will be available in just a few days. It deals with the anniversary of 1906 and the split between churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ/Christian Church. There is currently a movement to bring unity between these two groups. We wish for unity but only a Biblical one. This 64-page book with five lessons deals with this issue. We hope you will consider it for a special five-week class for your adults and teens.

Seven preachers (Mike Baker, Mike Greene, Wayne Hatcher, Steve Higginbotham, Dale Jenkins, Jeff A. Jenkins, & Phil Sanders) have been working on this project for months.

Every church, every elder, every class, and every group should consider the message presented in this book. It reveals the will of God and the path to true, Biblical unity.

The church was torn to shreds from 1860-1900 over the issue of instrumental music. You'll recall that the federal government's census bureau recognized the division between churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ/Christian Church in that year. This book deals with the problems associated with that division and the current threats to Biblical unity today.

We believe that going back to the Bible and refusing to give in to the innovation and presumption of our day is the only course for the unity for which Jesus prayed in John 17. It is man-made religion that divides, and we believe the only way to find unity is to divest ourselves of any and all man-made religion.

This book sells for $4 each. Shipping and handling will be added to mailed orders. KY tax will be added to those ordering from KY.

You can order this book in the following ways:

1. Fill out the order form below and email to orders@seektrueunity.org .
2. Fill out the order form and mail to Seek True Unity, P. O. Box 503, Glasgow, KY 42125-0503.
3. Contact any of the seven men involved in this project. You can order it through us by calling (972) 977-9871.
4. Contact your local church literature supplier and request this book.

Seeking True Unity
Book Ordering Form

Name:

Shipping Address:

Quantity of books ordered:

Payment: Bill me at this address:

or Payment included.

The Best Translation

2006-09-05T22:47:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, whether writing for a blog, a periodical, a magazine or any venue that expects regular input, I find myself always thinking about what to say. There are things that I really want to write about, whether the articles ever get published or not. There are things that need to be written, whether anyone ever reads it or not. This creates a process where I become absorbed with what I “need”, or “want”, to say.

Sometimes I need to just listen, and hear what others have to say, and on occasion share what I’ve heard with others.

Such is the case with this article. This thought didn’t originate with me. I heard my father-in-law, Jim Cox, mention this point, almost as an aside, in a sermon this past Lord’s day. I think it is certainly worth sharing.

Over the last few years, I have become very interested in the Greek New Testament, and all the trappings that go with the question of how we got our English Bible.

I have been asked on numerous occasions my opinion on the “best” translation. I have researched, to some extent, many of the current versions and paraphrased versions, the old English Bibles that pre-date the King James Version, the Vulgate, the Septuagint, the two Greek texts that English versions are based on, and the five manuscripts that generated the two Greek texts. I have come to the conclusion that no single translation is the “best”. All have strengths and flaws, and all have their biases.

It is no coincidence that my recent passion has exposed me to the brilliance of Hugo McCord on the topic of Biblical language.

My answer to the question of “best” translation, prior to Sunday, would have been a combination of several versions, particularly the NKJV, NASB, RSV and NIV. Additionally, I use McCord’s Translation of the Everlasting Gospel. If I find agreement among three of these, I assume accurate translation. When questions arise, I go back to the Greek and stumble through, as best I can, before I ask others for opinions and search commentaries. That, I believed, was the best translation.

But, Sunday night, the question was put to me, and all in attendance…..

Wouldn’t the best translation of the Bible be the translation we make from page to life? From hearer to doer? Isn’t that the only translation to which many of our friends and neighbors will ever be exposed?

The “best” translation of the Bible? When the Bible is translated into the life of one of its readers. When the revelation of Jesus, the incarnate Word of God, is revealed in our daily lives. When others see Jesus in us.

Wear New Glasses

2006-08-13T22:11:00.000-07:00

I just got some new glasses. I detest new glasses when they are first worn, because of the nausea. It’s a stronger prescription so it is taking some getting used to. Some of us, including myself, need to feel like we are using a different set of eyes while reading God’s word. It is very easy for those of us who were raised in the church to have preconceived notions about what the scriptures will say when we open them. This is not how it should be! We see that Thessalonica had this problem when we read Acts 17:11 and 1Thessalonians 5:21. We ought rather to “take Jesus as He is” (Mark 4:36). When we sit down to read from God’s word, we should allow IT to shape our convictions and beliefs, rather than mold the Bible to what we want. This “new” way of reading may be difficult at first. It takes more time and study. It is much easier to make the Bible say what you want it to rather than to dig deep into it and see what it really says. When we read the Bible the way that we should, it may also be nauseating, in a sense. It seems to me that many do not want to study the word or “get into the whole religious thing” because they are afraid of what they will find. They fear that they will find what they are doing is wrong and that there is a consequence. It is much more comforting and easy to not read the Bible and do what you would like, or to only read Psalms all of your life and make yourself feel good. God commands that we obey HIM and the only way to do that is to know what He wants. We must never obey ourselves. The Bible is not subjective (John 17:17) and we must not treat it as such. I pray that we will all be opening our Bibles and reading what God has to say to us.

The Church

2006-08-06T20:29:00.000-07:00

In creating an English language version of the New Testament, from the Greek, I am comfortable with the practice of translation. When agapaw is translated “charity” in the KJV, and followed by “love” in newer versions, I am comfortable, even though original intent, to some degree, may be lost. It is an accurate translation. I am somewhat comfortable with the practice of transliteration, whereby a Greek word is rendered letter for letter, rather than through translation. The most familiar example of this practice is baptisma, or baptism, as rendered by the King James translators. Even though the application of this transliteration has been skewed over time, the practice of transliteration is not inherently ineffective. But, oh how we all wish the King James translators would have written “immersed” rather than baptized.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the practice of substitution. Although, as with transliteration, it is not inherently inaccurate, the possibility of opinion, and agenda, become a probability. Such is the case with some “high profile” words in the New Testament. Baptism, although a transliteration, is also a substitution word, because of the implication of sprinkling or pouring as an acceptable alternative to immersion. The word “repent” is not an accurate translation of the Greek, and it will be dealt with in a future article.

Brother Hugo McCord’s New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel contains an Appendix in the back of the book, explaining many of these thoughts. I am especially drawn to his work, because Dr. McCord can effectively convey his brilliance and apply it to my simplicity. I don’t agree with all of Dr. McCord’s published views on theology, but I am not qualified to contest his expertise on language translation. Some of the thoughts presented in this article are influenced by our beloved brother, Hugo McCord.

“And Jesus said, ‘And thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…”

The word “church” never appears in the Greek text of the New Testament. According to McCord, the word “church” refers historically “to a physical building, a meetinghouse, which the Lord’s people in the first century did not build, and for which there is no New Testament word”. Church is English, from kirk (Dunkirk was named for a meetinghouse located at Dun or Dunn). Tyndale, in the first English translation of the Greek text in 1525, used “congregation”, because he knew that “church” was an inaccurate translation. King James I, who was head of the Church of England, and who had, using McCord’s words, a “vested interest in the word church”, ordered the fifty-four translators to change “congregation” to “church” in 1611, and the rest is history. For what it’s worth, Alexander Campbell, like Tyndale, used “congregation” to describe the body of Christ, knowing that “church” was inaccurate.

The Greek word is ekklesia, which simply means, “called out” or gathered. There are a couple of citations in Acts 19 (verses 32 and 41) where ekklesia is used to describe a mob. In verse 39, ekklesia refers to a group of law-abiding citizens. In the thirty-six other citations of ekklesia, all references are to the Lord’s people. In one of these thirty-six citations, Acts 7:38, Stephen’s word, captured by Luke, is ekklesia, and is used to describe the Hebrew nation that wandered in the wilderness of Sinai after leaving Egypt.

So, we see, that ekklesia refers to a gathering of people. Whether lawful, riotous, Hebrew or universal, it refers to a gathered group of people. In the references to the Lord’s people, who are gathered, one might assume an additional term, “the elect”, to coincide with gathered. So, instead of church, in the 35 references to the Lord’s people, we have a “gathering of the elect” to describe those who are “called out”.

So, what’s the big deal? Wouldn’t you think that most people understand this? Wouldn’t you think that most people are taught, and understand, that the church is not a building, but people? The church is an institution, but it is not a physical institution, defined by architecture and building materials. The church is people. The home is an institution, very different from a house, which is defined by architecture, landscaping and building materials. The church and the home are God ordained institutions, or entities, comprised of people.

“Husbands love your wives as Christ loved” an organization? Technically correct, but woefully short on conveying the meaning! Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved his people! Husbands love your families as Christ loves His family! Christ is the head of His body, His people, not an organization, as King James thought. Husbands are to be the head of their family as Christ is the head of His!

People who are head of an organization manage that organization. Yes, they lead, but they lead by managing. Jesus led, and expects men to lead, by ministering and managing. Even within the church, shepherds have management responsibility, but they also have ministering responsibilities. An eldership that manages to the exclusion of ministering, is a recipe for disaster. A husband or father that manages his family without ministering is as well.

The Lord adds people to other people, not people to an organization. It’s not as if we’ve joined the Rotary Club. We have joined the elect of God; joined the people who are saved; joined the people who are called out from the world!

“And Jesus said, ‘And thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…”

It would have been a bit more difficult to memorize and quote if this passage from Matthew 16 had said, “… upon this rock I will build my people, elect and gathered from the world”. But, it would not have given the slightest inclination for us to think of a physical building or an organization. Christ did not come to build a church. He came to build His people, and He will build His people by building their faith in Him.

Bible Contradictions

2006-08-03T21:49:00.000-07:00

We are in a spiritual war. It is obvious. To win the battle, we must not only put on the armor of God spoken of in Ephesians, but we must know our enemies weapons. The most used one is trying to pass off man-made creeds as God given. Galatians 1:9,10 refutes that. Another is claiming that the Bible isn’t true at all. Science, archaeology, and Biblical prophecies all refute this claim. Still another is ignorance. Through the great commission and 2Tim. 2:15 we can fix this. If you’ll notice, in every instance I am using the Bible to fend off these fallacies. But there is a weapon the devil has, and uses quite frequently, that uses the Bible itself to try and defeat our faith. This weapon is the claim that the Bible contradicts itself. There is nothing further from the truth. When and if you are confronted with this situation, stand boldly. Stand strong. The Bible is perfect. 2Tim. 3:16 says, “God breathed”. Now that being said, to stand boldly we must always have an answer for the hope that is within us. I’d like to look at a few of the main contradictions that the world says the Bible makes, and how they are not contradictions at all.

First, we must understand what a contradiction in fact is. In logic, the Law of Contradiction is stated as follows: “Nothing can both be and not be”. Aristotle put it this way: “That the same thing should at the same time both be and not be for the same person and in the same respect is impossible.” For instance: a door can be both opened and shut, but it cannot be opened and shut at the same time. An important truth that must be hammered home repeatedly is this: a mere difference does not make a contradiction! For instance, let us analyze the following two statements: Robert is rich. Robert is poor. Do these statements contradict one another? The answer is – not necessarily! First, two different people named Robert could be under consideration. Second, two different time frames might be in view; Robert could have been rich but, due to financial disaster, he became poor. Third, the terms “rich” and “poor” might have been used in different senses; Robert could be spiritually rich but economically poor. The point is this: it never is proper to assume a contradiction exists until every possible means of making it not a contradiction have been used. Now, let this principle be applied to the Bible.
Some contradictions are very easy to prove, while others take a little more thought and common sense. Example of a very easy one: I heard of one guy who claimed he found a contradiction. He said it was impossible for the Hebrew priests to carry the ark across the Jordan River when Moses had filled it with so many animals. This man was obviously confused about the two different types of arks. So you see, when someone says, “Well I don’t believe the Bible because it contradicts itself!” don’t be afraid to ask, “Where?”.

One of the most used “contradictions” is that God both loves and hates. This is not a contradiction because He loves some things and hates others. John 3:16 He loves sinners. But He hates every false way (Psalm 119:104).

Another frequently used claim is that the gospel writers contradict themselves. The case of the healing of the blind men of Jericho is one of these. First, while both Mark and Luke mention the healing of one blind man, Matthew records the healing of two blind men. Second, Matthew and Mark indicate that the blind men were healed as Jesus was leaving Jericho, whereas Luke says that a blind man was healed as the Lord “drew nigh” to the city. How, then, shall these narratives be reconciled?
In the first place, the fact that two of the accounts mention only one man, while the other mentions two, need not concern us. Had Mark and Luke stated that Christ healed only one man, with Matthew affirming that more than one were healed, that would be a contradiction but that is not the case. If one says, “I have a son,” he does not contradict himself by stating further, “I have a son and a daughter.”
But how may the second problem be solved?

It is possible that three blind men were healed in the vicinity of Jericho on this occasion, and that the incident mentioned by Luke, when Jesus approached the city, might have been a different miracle than that recorded by Matthew and Mark. This may not be the most likely explanation, but it cannot be disproved.

1. Some argue that “drew near” also can mean “to be near”. This view implies that Luke simply locates the miracle near Jericho.
2. Perhaps the best viewpoint is the fact that at the time of Christ there actually were two Jerichos. First, there was the Jericho of Old Testament history that was located at the sight of Elijah’s spring. In the first century, however, that city lay almost in ruins. About two miles south of that site was the new Jericho, built by Herod the Great. The Lord – traveling from the north toward Jerusalem – first would pass through the old Jericho, then some two miles to the south, would go through the new Jericho. The miracles under consideration, therefore may have been performed between two towns. Accordingly, the references in Matthew and Mark to leaving Jericho would allude to the old city, whereas Luke’s observation to drawing near to Jericho would refer to the newer community

The last one I’d like to look at is how the disciples supposedly contradict one another in what was written above the Lord’s head when He was crucified. Matthew says that the sign reads: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mark says that the sign reads: THE KING OF THE JEWS. Luke says: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. And John says: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Now certainly this is a contradiction! No! A few thoughts: first of all, they all say: King of the Jews. So when Mark gives the bare minimum, is he lying? He states it says King of the Jews and it does! Now if he were to write, “it only says King of the Jews” then we would have a problem. Second, Luke says that the inscription was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. There are three different languages. Is it possible that some of the words could be “lost in translation” as they say? To give you an example, I went to one of those translation websites where you can translate a phrase from English to just about any language and then back to English. Well I typed in the phrase: How are you doing the fine morning? I translated it to Greek and the back to English and got, “How you make this thin morning?” You see what I mean? Mark could have read one of the transcriptions while Luke and John read completely different ones!

We must realize that when we evangelize, some are not going to listen. It is nearly impossible to get some people to see what is right in front of them. So when this arises, we must do exactly what Jesus told us to do: move on. We are only commanded to plant the seed. But do not let this discourage you or make you doubt in any way! God wrote the Bible and God is perfect!

Power at Our Disposal

2006-08-01T20:58:00.000-07:00

We have all witnessed unprecedented power at various times in our lives. Have you not sat through a violent thunderstorm and marveled at the power in the wind, the rain, and the lightning? You may have been taking shelter from a tornado, only to emerge from safety after the storm passes and shudder at the power of destruction in those storms. You have seen the power of nature in the devastation along the Gulf Coast of the United States, the annihilation from the tsunami’s in Indonesia, or the earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that occur from time to time. You’ve seen the power of an idea in the birth and development of this great nation, and in its struggle for civil rights among its citizens. You recognize the power of one sermon to change a life, and to change eternity for a soul. You can grasp that one verse of an invitation song would be powerful enough to empty hell.

Paul wrote in Romans 1 about the power of the “good message” of Jesus Christ. He says it is the “power” unto salvation for everyone who believes, Jew and non-Jew. Can we grasp that kind of power? Or have we become so numb to the message that we cannot comprehend the power inherent in it? It is my belief that many do not, or cannot, recognize the power of change in their life, because they really didn’t have a conversion experience. Their life didn’t undergo any radical change. Perhaps they didn’t give up any former lifestyle to become a Christian, and therefore, perhaps they wouldn’t have an appreciation for the power of transformation. Using a storm analogy, contrast the experience of a man who endured a raging flood from a relatively high position, against the experience of a man who, along with his wife and children, were pulled from the raging water only seconds before being overcome.

We would never proclaim a gospel that omits the need for baptism, and rightfully so. In faithfully teaching the necessity of baptism, have we failed to proclaim a gospel founded on the need for repentance? There is power in the blood of Jesus, and power in the waters of baptism that brings us into contact with His blood. But there is power in the lure of sin, and power in the ability to overcome sin through the power that comes from above.

There is also divine power in the strength we receive from the Spirit of God. According to Romans 8:11, there is the power of life. Paul makes an argument that because “the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in us”, that same Spirit “will give life to our mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in us”. Did you get that? The same power that raised Jesus from the dead is available to give immortality to our mortal bodies!

Who can say that the Spirit of God dwells in a Christian and yet, does nothing?

In addition, the same Spirit Paul writes about in Romans 8, is an agent of inner strength to the Christian. The words of this same Spirit, through Paul, are clear:

“I pray… that God would grant you … to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man…” (Ephesians 3:14-16). Further, Paul talks about the scope of this power that we, as Christians, have, in verse 20.

“Now, to Him, who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us…”.

FAR MORE ABUNDANTLY BEYOND ALL THAT WE ASK OR THINK? In other words, I cannot imagine the power that is at my disposal.

The power of God, through His indwelling Spirit, is a privilege reserved for God’s children. Let’s not live beneath our privilege.

The Crucial Issue of Authority

2006-07-31T21:39:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-27T22:18:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-25T22:03:00.000-07:00

“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

2006-07-24T22:19:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-09T22:56:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-07-02T22:13:00.000-07:00

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…

Give Thanks in Everything

2006-06-28T21:43:00.000-07:00

What a wonderful privilege it was for me to be at DFW today to welcome home one of our men who has been serving our nation in Iraq. There were about thirty in our group who were present to greet Scott. When he walked through the door from customs, his wife and little girl ran to greet him. After a long embrace with his wife and daughter, he took the time to greet each one of us who were there to welcome him home.

Other than the sheer joy of seeing this man reunited with his family two other things made a tremendous impact on me. While this man in uniform was hugging his wife, then his daughter someone in the crowd started applauding. Then, a thunderous applause erupted throughout the entire baggage area. Everyone stopped what he or she was doing, turned toward this scene, and applauded. The second impressive moment as I stood back to watch was when total strangers started approaching him to shake his hand and express their gratitude. I overheard one man say with tears in his eyes, “thank you for what you have done for our country.” It was a moving experience.

There are some times when it is easy to express appreciation. Thankfulness just overflows because a heart is filled with gratitude. There are other times when it is much more difficult to express thanks. How does one give thanks in the face of a life-threatening illness, when they have lost a loved one, when a child has walked away from the Lord, when they have lost their job, when they are at odds with their mate or children, when life seems to caving in? It is during these times that Christians must find a way to be thankful.

The Apostle Paul said in Philippians 4:4-7, “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice! Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near. Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” The Bible is clear; we must give thanksgiving in all things. It is only then that we will know the peace of God that passes all understanding. It is only then that our hearts and minds can be guarded in Christ Jesus.

I know from my own experiences in life how difficult it is sometimes to find a way to be thankful. We cannot humanly understand why some events and circumstances make their way into our lives. However, through faith, we trust that our God will continue to work out all things for our good, if we love Him (Romans 8:28). We remember what Job learned as he was tested by the trials of life. Just because we do not understand, does not mean that our God doesn’t understand. In addition, just because we do not understand something now, it does not mean that we will never understand. May God help all of us to work diligently to give thanks in everything!

Christ Is All and In All

2006-06-26T21:34:00.000-07:00

Here is another excellent article from the writings of the late and beloved Hugo McCord

Paul’s words, "Christ is all and in all" (Colossians 3:11, KJV, ASV), represent a mighty reversal in outlook and conduct. "Formerly I was a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, ... the worst of [sinners] (1 Timothy 1:13, 16). "I persecuted [Christians] to death, binding and delivering to jail both men and women" (Acts 22:3-4).

Educated "at the feet of Gamaliel, having been instructed according to the strictness of [his] fathers’ law" (Acts 22:3), and "breathing threatening and murder against the Lord’s disciples" (Acts 9:1), he was on the way to being a famous rabbi. However, after seeing Jesus in the sky and experiencing "the bath of the new birth" (Titus 3:5), he had become a "new man" (Colossians 3:10), and he wrote about his new outlook:

But the things which were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ’s sake. More than that, I count all things to be a loss because of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. I have lost all things for him, and count them as dung, that I might gain Christ, and be found in him (Philippians 3:7-9).

Not only did Paul forfeit earthly advantages and respect from his fellow Jews, he also lost the love his kinfolks had for him. The grief at the loss of family affection stayed with Paul, after his conversion to Christ, the rest of his life. Baptized at the age of 33 (cf. W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, xvif.), 24 years later his deep sadness at his relatives dying out of Christ is seen in his words:

I have intense sorrow, and ceaseless pain in my heart. Indeed I could wish that I myself were condemned and banished from Christ, for the sake of my brothers, my fellow-countrymen according to the flesh (Romans 9:2-3).
Startling! A man so much in love with his kinfolks he was willing to go to hell if his going would save his loved ones in heaven! But God will not allow one person to be a substitute, a proxy, for someone else: "Whosoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book" (Exodus 32:33); "Each one of us will give an account of himself to God" (Romans 14:12).

But Paul’s newly found love for Christ meant more for him than his love for his relatives. Christ was still his "all," his "everything," the rest of his life. At age 68 he was taken from death row (from a three-quarter cellar with a tiny window opening toward a cemetery, called the "Mamertine Prison") two miles south of the Ostian Gate in Rome. His eyes were bound, and his head was laid on a block before it was severed with an ax (David Smith, Life and Letters of St. Paul, 641).

Traditionally, Paul’s head bounced three times, and at each spot a healing fountain burst forth. Traditionally, a Christian lady, Lucina, retrieved his headless body from the criminals’ "charnel" ("a place for dead bodies", Webster) house of corpses, and buried it in her own garden.

With this long background, the significance of Paul’s saying that "Christ is all" (KJV, ASV), "Christ is all that matters" (J. B. Phillips’ Version), "the Messiah is everything" (JEWISH NEW TESTAMENT), "Christ is everything" (Colossians 3:11, God’s Word Version), becomes even more revolutionary and meaningful.

We are thankful that others besides Paul have developed the same attachment to Jesus as he exemplified. Jesus in 96 A.D. had sent a letter to the Christians in Smyrna, saying,

Do not be afraid of the things you are about to suffer. Behold! The devil is going to imprison some of you, that you may be tested, and you will have distress for ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life (Revelation 2:10).

Especially in the second century Christians were in a crisis. Because Christianity is an exclusive religion, proselytizing converts from all religions, aspiring to universality, the Roman government pronounced it to be a religio illicita (Newman), an illegal religion. Death was the penalty for being a Christian.

In Smyrna a bishop of the congregation, Polycarp, was put on trial before the Roman consul. It was Saturday, February 23, 155 A.D. (Barclay). The consul gave Polycarp a choice: "Swear, and I will release you: reproach Christ". He could have saved his life by renouncing the name of Jesus. The Jews joined with the non-Jews in Smyrna demanding Polycarp’s death by throwing him in den of lions (Fausett). When the consul ordered the execution be at a fiery stake, the Jews brought logs for the fire. Polycarp, given a final chance to deny Jesus, even as the flames leaped around him, was heard to exclaim, "Eighty and six years I have served Him, and He has never done me wrong. How can I deny Him now?"

Many other Christians besides Paul and Polycarp have demonstrated that to them Christ is "everything." A touching example is an Indiana lady, who, though not threatened with death, showed that Christ was the chief force in her life, her first thought in every day. Dr. Nyal D. Royse writes:

My grandparents, A.J. and Mary Jane Royse resided three miles west of Covington on the old Danaville and Covington road. They had a large family. Grandmother was a Christian, but grandfather wished to have nothing to do with the church.

Each Sunday morning she would get the horses up, put on the harness, hitch them to the wagon and drive in to Covington for worship. On bitter cold day grandpap said to her, "Maw, you’re not going to take these children out in this cold weather, are you?" She replied, "Pap, we are going." She got the horses harnessed and hitched up and then went to the house to get the children ready. When she went out to go he had unharnessed the horses and turned them back out in the pasture. She sent the children to the house and went back out and got the horses and hitched them up and drove to worship. Granddad never pulled that trick again.

Another real cold day he asked her again not to go. He got the same answer. He told her that he was going to drive them in, not because he wanted to, but he was ashamed for the neighbors to see her driving to town in the cold and know that he was home, comfortable by the fire. He drove them to Covington but said that he would stay in the wagon. Before the service was over he almost froze and had to come in to get warm.

After that he drove them quite often and then all of the time, but he would always sit alone on the aback seat. One day he came walking down the aisle and was baptized. Grandmother died in 1922 and he died in 1933. For the eleven years he lived alone he was faithful to the end, thanks to a wife that took over the spiritual leadership of the family while he served Satan.

Dr. Nyal Royse, a professor emeritus of Harding University, was born in the log cabin where his grandparents lived. Thanks to Mary Jane Royse, five generations of Christians have blessed the world.

In another example, someone put in the heart of a young Irish lad the most important fact he could ever know, that "Christ is everything." On a cold and wet night in October of 1968, in a tent in Belfast, Northern Ireland, where the late and beloved Fred Walker was preaching, a young boy (perhaps nine or ten) spoke words that have touched the hearts of thousands of people.

Sitting next to the lad was Bill Tyner, who put his arm around the boy, and asked, "What does Jesus mean to you?" Surprised, he looked up at Bill with piercing eyes, and said, "Why he’s my everything--what does he mean to you?"

The words of the boy touched Bill’s heart, and inspired him to write an unforgettable song, "He is My Everything":

Some folks may ask me, some folks may say,
who is this Jesus, you talk about ev’ry day?
He is my Saviour. He set me free.
Now listen while I tell you what he means to me.

Chorus:

He is my ev’rything. He is my all.
His is my everything, both great and small.
He gave his life for me, made ev’ry thing new.
He is my everything. Now how about you?
He’s there each morning, to lead my way.
He is my comfort, each and ev’ry day.
In all I trust Him as I journey along,
And that’s the reason, I sing this song.

(Chorus)

Is He your Saviour, this very day?
Is He the person, you talk about day by day?
Yes, He will save you, He’ll set you free,
So obey His commandment, sing along with me.

(Chorus)

Jesus invites you, to come along.
Lift up your heart with Him, and sing this song.
His Word doth promise, if you’ll obey,
You can live with Jesus, each and ev’ry day.

(Chorus)

Where Do the Souls of the Righteous Go at Death?

2006-06-23T19:46:00.000-07:00

In my circle of friends, this topic has gotten a lot of play lately. We may never know the answer to this question this side of eternity. But, interestingly, strong opinions exist about what the Bible says on this matter. There are those, I would say the majority, who believe that the Hadean world is a temporary, intermediate existence, made up of a good place and a bad place. The souls of all men who die before the Second Coming of Christ will dwell in one place or the other, awaiting the final judgement. There are those who believe that souls go directly into heaven or hell, thus implying a continuous judgement, not limited by time. Catholicism takes further liberties with the majority view, in their doctrine of Purgatory, whereby souls of the lost can be prayed into “the bosom of Abraham” prior to judgement.

What does the Bible say about the destination of mans’ soul at death; particularly in the case of the righteous? Why the belief in an intermediate destination?

With the limitations of space, I choose to look at the strongest Biblical support for the majority view, and see if it makes sense.

First, the majority argues that Jesus’ statement to the penitent thief (known in many circles as “the thief on the cross”) in Luke 23:43, is adequate proof that a place exists, in the spiritual realm, for the forgiven, and prior to heaven itself. The focus is on Jesus’ statement to the thief that “today, you will be with me in paradise”. And since in John 20:17, we find the resurrected Jesus saying that He “has not yet ascended” to His Father, a conclusion is drawn that Jesus went somewhere immediately, but not to heaven. He went to a place he refers to as “paradise”. It is my belief that Jesus’ statement has more to do with contrast than destination. To me, Jesus is contrasting “today” with the thief’s perception of the timing of his reward, as in “when you come into your kingdom”. Jesus is also contrasting “paradise” with the agony, and torment, of the current situation for both He and the thief. In other words (actually my words), Jesus is saying, “I will remember your faith, not when I come into my kingdom, but today, and we will be in paradise together.” As for Jesus’ statement in John 20:17, it is my belief that He is simply stating that He has not yet ascended permanently to His Father.

Interestingly, some have stated that if Jesus had meant “heaven”, He would have said heaven. Admittedly, that is a concern. But, in reviewing the original text, and particularly the word “paradeisos”, we find something very peculiar. The word “paradeisos” is used only three times in the New Testament. “Paradeisos” is used by Jesus here, in Luke 23:43, by Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:4, and by John in Revelation 2:7. Paul’s use of “paradeisos”, in verse 4 of 2 Corinthians 12, is synonymous with the “third heaven” (tritos ouranos) in verse 2. John’s use of “paradeisos” describes the place where the tree of life grows. Isn’t that in heaven?

So, “paradeisos” is used three times, and two of the three are clearly references to heaven. Therefore, I would answer the question of why Jesus used “paradeisos” if he meant “ouranos” (heaven), by asking why that in two, of only three, uses of “paradeisos” in the New Testament did the context mean “heaven”?

Second, the majority often refers to the story of the rich man and Lazarus, who died, were buried and found themselves in “Hades”. The rich man found himself in “torment”, and Lazarus was comforted in the “bosom of Abraham”. I should begin this discussion by saying that I strongly believe this is an actual event, these are actual people, and this is not one of Jesus’ parables. I would even go as far as to speculate that those who heard Jesus tell this story knew the rich man and Lazarus. But, nothing in Luke 16 is lost if these two men went to judgement and to their eternal destinations, and not to an intermediate waiting place. The abode of the rich man is described as torment, heat, flame, longing for relief, awareness of his surroundings, awareness of the comfort that Lazarus was enjoying and aware of the fate of his earthly family if they did not repent. The abode of Lazarus is described as “the bosom of Abraham”, a word picture of comfort, reward, and acceptance, particularly to Jews. What in that story makes any of us think that either the rich man, or Lazarus, will leave those surroundings for judgement, only to return to a similar place for eternity? Surely, we don’t believe that someone could spend a “waiting” time in one place and eternity in a place that is different. The use of “Hades” in Luke 16:23 will be addressed in the final point of this discussion.

Thirdly, the majority would cite Revelation 20:13f as proof that “Hades” and “Hell” are not the same place, therefore, the rich man in “Hades” is not equivalent to the rich man in “Hell”. It is true that “Hades” and “Hell” are not the same words, or concepts. In the Authorized Version (KJV) of the Old Testament and New Testament, “Hades” is always translated as “hell”, “the grave”, “the pit”, and incorrectly. Most likely, “Hades” is the Greek counterpart to “Sheol”, the region of departed spirits. There are two views of the Greek origin of “Hades”, and I will share them with you, although I am not qualified to render an absolute conclusion as to which view represents the original intent.

One view of “Hades” is aeido, or not seen. The other is a derivation of hado, or all receiving. Both of these interpretations would support either view, whether majority or minority. Scholars are divided on which view is appropriate, and I certainly cannot discern the intent, if scholars cannot.

In my way of thinking, I would rest my beliefs on the first two arguments, with little weight given to either side of the third argument. As stated in the beginning, we may never know the reality of the unseen world, this side of it. But, it is fun, and I believe productive, to engage in study to find what the Bible actually says, and not what others would tell you it says. Even if the majority is telling us, we must discern Bible teachings for ourselves. I hope this prompts us to further study on this, and other topics.

The Friends We Ought to Be

2006-06-09T22:34:00.000-07:00

A few articles back, I wrote about the kind of friends we need to have. I based this on 1Cor. 15:33 and what we read of Paul’s closest companion, Barnabas. What about us? Are we to stand idly by and merely scrutinize all of our acquaintances to find those who suite us best? Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “The only way to have a friend is to be one.” A man greater than Emerson once said, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.” If we are to make truly lasting and Biblical friendships, it starts with our own, personal actions. We learned from the past article to seek out friends like Barnabas, but I believe we must be friends like Paul and Titus. These two great men of God had four specific qualities that made them epitomes for our lives.

First of all, we must be concerned about the physical safety of our friends. In 2Cor. 2:13, we read that Paul “had not rest in [his] spirit, because [he] did not find Titus [his] brother…” He was concerned about his physical well being. As Christians, we have a responsibility to visit those who are sick and in prison (Matthew 25:40). We have a responsibility to pray for brothers and sisters in Christ in their infirmities (James 5:15,16). To be true friends, we must have a genuine concern for the physical state of our friends.

Next, we must rejoice when those close to us rejoice. “Therefore we have been comforted in your comfort. And we rejoiced exceedingly more for the joy of Titus, because his spirit has been refreshed by you all.” (2Cor. 7:13). We read of Jesus weeping over the loss of a great friend (John 11:35), but we must not forget the joy He had with His disciples (John 15:11). Jesus’ life was filled with joy for others and we, as followers of Him and Paul, must do the same.

Third, we must be encouraging friends. Paul encourages Titus in 2Cor. 8:6, “So we urged Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also complete his grace in you as well.” We love receiving complements, but we must never cease to give them. Encouragement is needed in our world, and especially in the church. We need people who will encourage younger men to participate in public acts of worship. We need to be encouraging young girls to grow into being women of God. If we want to be true friends, we will encourage those around us.

Finally, if we are to be Biblical friends, we must be concerned about the spiritual well being of others. 2Cor. 12:18, “I urged Titus, and sent our brother with him. Did Titus take advantage of you? Did we not walk in the same spirit? Did we not walk in the same steps?” Paul’s “urging” in this verse is meant to help Titus in his ministry: a spiritual urging. He also sends someone to Titus to help him in his spiritual walk. The rhetorical questions also show Paul’s concern for the non-physical; he wanted to make sure they were “walking in the same spirit” and “walk[ing] in the same steps”. Ephesians 5:29 makes it clear how important the body is, but the soul of man is infinitely more important! “For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” Matthew 16:26.

Let us always be wary of those we keep in close company, but may God also help us not to ever be those whom He would not want around.

Renewing Our Minds

2006-06-07T23:36:00.000-07:00

“Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:1f, NASB)

Paul’s words here are paramount in our lives, or should be. He urges (McCord translates “begs”) us to not be conformed to this world, but transformed. His plea is that we are not shaped as the world would shape, but that we change our shape to that of something else. He writes in Romans 8:29 that we are to conform to the image of Christ.

Isn’t that the summation of the process of becoming Christ like? Isn’t that the summation of the process of our becoming a new creature? Isn’t that the summation of the process of our becoming born again, of water and Spirit?

As cited above, we are to be the image of Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:4 states clearly that Christ is the image of God. And Colossians 3:1-17 makes the circle of scripture complete in stating that we are to “lay aside the old self” and put on “the new self, who is being renewed to a true knowledge, according to the image of the One who created him…”

What does “conform” mean? To be shaped like something else. What does “transform” mean? To change one’s shape. So, we are not to be shaped like the world, or by the world, but we are to change our shape to become the image of Christ, the image of God. That’s easy to say, and easy to follow the rationale, but it is difficult to apply in our lives. It is a process that begins at repentance and is only complete in heaven. Our time on earth is the transforming period of our existence. It is a conversion process with a distinct beginning, which evolves over a lifetime.

As much as we grasp the need to not conform to the world, the world is a powerful and effective former. We are shaped by life experiences, by relationships, by events, and by attitudes. By their nature, not all of those shape us into the image of Christ. But some can. We can cultivate relationships with people that shape us in the image of Christ, and we can be shaped by the Word of God, from which nothing is hidden.

We can be encouraged, though we see our outward self decaying, our inner man is “renewed day by day”. (2 Corinthians 4:16) We can use the decay of our “outward self” as a reminder that our “old self” is decaying, and that we are being transformed into a new creature in the image of Christ. We are becoming less the “natural man” and more the “spiritual man” of 1 Corinthians 2.

Paul’s writings reflect his life experience. His shape changed. Not just on the road to Damascus, but throughout his life of service. The theme of renewal, new creature, inner man renewal, outer man decay, I believe, are all reflective of his expression, from experience, of his understanding of the changes that were taking place in him.

He sums this theme up in Titus 3. He speaks of the foolishness of sin that we all experience, and the glory of renewal that is ours in Christ Jesus.

“Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:1-7, NASB)

Shouldn’t we spend a little time every day, putting the old self away, cultivating the new creature, and conforming to the image of Christ? Are we new creatures, regenerated by water and Spirit? Does the Spirit renew our minds day by day?

Remember Paul’s reminder in 1 Corinthians 2:16 ---- “But, we have the mind of Christ.”

Law & Grace

2006-06-06T09:45:00.000-07:00

by Franklin Camp

Brother Franklin Camp was one of the great students of God’s Word from the previous generation. He knew the Old Testament as well as any man. It was my privilege to sit in his classes for several years while I was in high school, college, and in my early years of preaching the Word. He impressed upon his students the need for a deeper study of God’s Word. Our prayer is that this article, as well as all of the others posted here will encourage you to a deeper study.

A major problem in religion today is a misconception of law and grace. This has been a stumbling block from the time sin entered the world.

A failure to grasp the subject is fatal to the soul. Grace is the foundation of redemption. The one who errs here will miss heaven. (Eph. 2:8-10).

A cardinal fallacy is the doctrine that law excludes grace. This position creates paramount issues. If grace excludes law, it excludes obedience. Law is essential to obedience. One must have something to obey. One cannot obey nothing.

The religious world generally denies the necessity of obedience in becoming a Christian. Some equate obedience with works that do not save. But James 2:14-26 — along with other passages — cannot be harmonized with the doctrine of "faith alone."

Others know obedience is essential, yet struggle in trying to exclude law, but not obedience. If grace excludes all law, no door is open for obedience.

If law excludes grace, one of two things must follow: either there is no room for obedience, or if obedience is essential, one must explain what must be obeyed. One may say "commandments" must be obeyed, but this will not resolve the issue. A difference in "command" and "law" cannot be explained by those who reject law but want to retain commands. "Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord... Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all thy commandments." (Psa. 119:1, 6). Law and commandments are synonymous terms throughout the Bible.

Does grace exclude obedience to the commands of the gospel? The gospel has commands. (1 Cor. 14:37). God would not provide salvation by grace and give commands that conflict with grace.

Some say grace and commands harmonize. If grace and commands harmonize, grace and law also harmonize. The exclusion of law excludes commands. There is no way one can exclude law and include commands.

Denominational preachers try to avoid the problem by teaching obedience is not essential in becoming a Christian, but is necessary for the Christian. When pressed, they will deny that one's obedience has anything to do with salvation, but they refuse to teach their members obedience is not important. Thus, they find themselves in a strange situation—obedience is important, but not required.

Some say, "But a Christian will want to obey." Why obey something that has no relationship to going to heaven?

Let me raise some questions for those teaching that grace excludes law. Is grace no longer essential after becoming a Christian? When one is saved by grace, does he then live the Christian life by law without grace? Surely not. Does it not follow that one obeys after becoming a Christian and that obedience does not conflict with grace? When the Christian obeys, what is obeyed? If commands, it is law.

One not only becomes a Christian by faith, but the Christian lives by faith. (Gal. 2:11, 20). One cannot live the Christian life by faith alone—that is, faith minus obedience. Then why think one may become a Christian by faith minus obedience?

No one denies a Christian must be obedient. (Heb. 5:8-9). What does the Christian obey? Is it law? If not, what does he obey? If law, then law does not exclude grace. Christians are not sinlessly perfect. That kind of imperfection requires grace.

There is the second law of pardon for the Christian. I do not hesitate to refer to it as the law of pardon for a Christian. When a Christian sins, he must repent. (Acts 8:22). He must confess his sin and pray. (1 John 1:7-9; Acts 8:22).

Would one deny that a Christian must obey these commands? When one obeys them, is it submission to law? Does one's obedience cancel out grace?

When one is forgiven, it must be in one of two ways—merit or grace. Forgiveness by merit is an impossibility. Pardon is extended only through grace. When a Christian sins, repents, confesses it, and prays, he has submitted to law and receives pardon. Obedience is necessary, but it does not earn pardon.

If the second law of pardon does not conflict with grace, why would the first law of pardon—the one for the alien? Grace does not exclude law if correctly interpreted.

Singing With the Spirit and the Understanding

2006-06-01T22:13:00.000-07:00

Have we ever awakened during a song to realize what we are singing doesn’t make sense? Have we ever sung an entire song without discerning the message or the content of the lyrics? Hopefully, our answer to the second question is no, but what of the first question.

As the discussions continue around music in our congregational assembly, a few points come to mind. First, our congregational music is an important aspect of our public worship, or collective worship. Congregational music is limited to singing. Congregational singing is for praising God and strengthening, or building up, fellow Christians. Congregational signing is to be reciprocal. We are to sing to God and to one another. We are to speak to one another, and through our speaking, we are to teach and admonish one another. We are to make melody with our hearts unto the Lord. Congregational singing must not be void of emotion, or void of truth. We must sing with the spirit and sing with the understanding. The NASB translates “with the understanding” as “with the mind”. McCord translates the same phrase as singing “in my spirit” and “in my mind”. It is not enough to sing a cappella.

There are songs we sing, and have for years, that cause me to wonder. I wonder why, with all the controversy over some songs, that these have always passed muster, so to speak. I cannot sing “years I spent in vanity and pride, caring not my Lord was crucified; knowing not it was for me He died on Calvary”. I understand poetic license, and I understand the applicability of that verse to some that might be singing, but not me.

The thought process of the lyrics of “I Know Whom I Have Believed”, is outstanding. To a simpleton like me, it simply states that I may not understand everything, but I have faith in the One who does. However, I find it interesting that we can sing “I know not why God’s wondrous grace to me He hath made known, nor why, unworthy, Christ, in love, redeemed me for His own”. I believe John 3:16 says that God’s love is “why”. And doesn’t Romans 5 clearly address our helplessness, our state of enmity, and God’s marvelous amazing grace? Or in another verse of the same song, these words are written: “I know not how the Spirit moves, convincing men of sin; revealing Jesus through the Word, creating faith within”. I have known people who believed in the figurative indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and that He works only through the Word of God, sing that verse. Huh?

Recently, we sang “Rise Up Oh Men of God”, and in that song there is a verse that states, “the church for you doth wait. Her strength unequal to her task, rise up and make her great”. Excuse me! Am I missing something, or is that just wrong?

The point is not to make us all officers of the song police. But, maybe, there is a need to pay closer attention to the words we sing, the messages that we teach, and the entrenchment of song lyrics into the foundational basis of our faith.

We must sing with the spirit, or in our spirit, and we must sing with the understanding, or in our mind. No instruments, and no mindless, spiritless singing!

Money for Nothing

2006-06-01T07:01:00.000-07:00

The Christian Chronicle is sent to my house, even though I pay no subscription. I’m glad it does, when I read some of the articles in the paper. In the past, The Chronicle has described itself as a “newspaper not a viewspaper”. Helen Keller could see the Chronicle’s views on certain topics, and that would be fine, if admitted by the Chronicle.

In April, the readers were treated to a dialogue with Royce Money, president of Abilene Christian University, my alma mater. Shockingly, the primary topic of the dialogue was the unity initiative with the Christian Church. I think I had read some articles on this topic in prior editions, but I could be mistaken. One particular answer from President Money was highlighted in the layout of the full-page dialogue. The highlighted answer was as follows:

“I would fight vigorously if instrumental music were attempted to be introduced into my home congregation. I am firmly within the a cappella tradition. But I have a tolerance for those who make other choices, and I don’t see that it needs to constitute a complete severing of fellowship or alienation. I just don’t see the need for that.” --Royce Money, April 2006, Christian Chronicle, A Dialogue with Royce Money.

The question from the Chronicle staff: Does it matter to you if a church uses instruments in worship?

I’m certainly not one of the elite scholars of our time, nor am I a member of the church police playing “gotcha” with my brethren. But, that response statement, if printed correctly and accurately, is not what I would expect from a reasonable person, even if he is a college president! The question is a reasonable one to ask. The answer is lame. It appears as if Money, too, is trying to play on all teams.

Call me crazy, but people on both sides, who fought “vigorously” because instrumental music was introduced into their home congregation, created the division that Money and his associates are trying to heal! He attempts to reassure one group in the division that he is “firmly within the a cappella tradition”. I’m not reassured! If a cappella music is a “tradition”, then so is instrumental music. And if either, or both, are simply traditions, then Royce, as are all of us, is sinning by fighting “vigorously” over a tradition. What is his beef with those in a cappella congregations? That they don’t believe it is a tradition, or that they are fighting and divided over a tradition? According to his statement, he believes a cappella music is a tradition, but he would fight vigorously to keep the instrument out of his home congregation. He attempts to placate another group in the division, who (through their “enlightenment”) is more tolerant of those who use the instrument. He says he is one of the tolerant ones, but he would fight “vigorously” to keep the instrument out of his home congregation. Do you follow that? How tolerant do you think the instrument boys would think Royce really is? Probably about as tolerant as Royce thinks we are.

As far as I can tell, there are at least four groups associated with this division. One, those in the church of Christ who believe that a cappella singing is the only scriptural music authorized. Two, those in the church of Christ who believe instrumental music and a cappella music are preferences, and both should be tolerated by all. Third and fourth, are the same two classifications in the Christian Church. I know Money attends a congregation that has the words “church of Christ” on the building. So, he is a member of group one or group two, as defined above. He sounds like those of us in group one, who share his opposition to the introduction of the instrument in our home congregations. But, he has a little DNA from group two, because he thinks a cappella music is a tradition, and that he is tolerant of those who don’t hold his traditional views.

I’m confused. But, it sounds like he is too. And adding The Chronicle to the group, that makes three of us.

What must I do to be saved?

2006-05-27T22:53:00.000-07:00

by Gus Nichols (1892-1975)

Brother Gus Nichols was one of the great preachers of the 20th century. He preached for the Sixth Avenue church in Jasper for more than forty years. He was known for his knowledge of the Word. It was said that he spent five hours studying the Word every day. He was a kind and gentle man. I remember as a boy when he came to our home. I remember him wearing a Texas size hat and saying to me, “Preach the Word.” May God help all of us be students of God’s Word like Gus Nichols.

What is the greatest question ever propounded by mortal man? Some businessman might say it is the question of how to make a fortune. Those old and feeble might say it is the question of how to live to be one hundred years of age and remain in good health all that time. The sick might answer that the greatest question has to do with a cure for cancer, tuberculosis and diseases of the heart. However, the statesmen might contend that the greatest question is how to promote peace among nations and prevent all future wars. While these are all important questions they have to do with the fleeting things of time and this life only.

"What Must I Do To Be Saved?"

But it must be agreed by all those who believe the Bible that the world's greatest question is, "What must I do to be saved?" or "What shall I do, Lord?" or "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 22:10; 2:37; 9:6.) This question has to do with the soul of man and eternal destiny. The soul of one man in one side of the balances would outweigh the whole world in the other side! Jesus said, "What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matt. 16:26.) The soul is the skyscraper to stand through the eternal ages, while the body is no more than the scaffolding and ladders round about, and very temporary in nature. Once the soul is lost eternally, it will be too late to do anything about our great question.

Question Analyzed

But let us analyze our question and show that it is exceedingly simple. First of all there are two parts to the question. "What must I do" refers to the sinner's part, and "to be saved" refers to God's part of the plan. In other words the sinner must believe and put his faith into obedience in order to be saved of God, and on God's terms. But let us further analyze the question. "What" - of all things possible to be done, just what must one do to be saved? "What must" - it is not what may one do. Jesus said, "It shall be told thee what thou must do." (Acts 9:6.) Again, it is "What must I" - it is not what must God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit do. All heaven has already moved and done its part, and it is our move next. It is "What must I do?" It is not how must I feel or what must I imagine, or what must be done to me, but "What must I do?" it is not what must I do to blot out my own sins apart from God but what must I do "to be saved?"

Jailer's Question Answered

When the jailer asked "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30), he knew little or nothing about Christ and had no faith in Him. However, the earthquake of the occasion and the miracle in evidence confirmed the fact that Paul and Silas were servants of God. In answer to his question they began at the very first and said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." This was a sort of blanket proposition meaning that he would have to obey Christ and trust in Him for salvation. They then preached Christ unto him so he could believe, for faith comes by hearing the word. (Acts 16:32; Romans 10:17.) He evidently believed and repented for he took them and tried to undo the harm done, and washed their stripes. He also was baptized the same hour of the night - at midnight. (Acts 16:25, 33.) He was then saved by Christ who had said in the commission, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." He rejoiced after his baptism. He did not "hit the saw dust trail" to have his sins prayed away at an altar. He also was saved by obedient faith and not by faith only. (Heb. 5:9.)

Answered On Pentecost

When many asked our great question on Pentecost saying, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37), unlike the jailer, they had just heard about Christ and been called upon to believe in Him as "Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:37.) They had been pricked in their hearts by the truth which they had heard pointing out their guilt in the murder of Christ. (Acts 2:37.) Since they were already believers, but had not put their faith into obedience, they were simply told what to do by faith in order to be saved. The apostle said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38.) They were to do this "for the remission of sins" for which Christ had shed his blood. (Matt. 26:28.) When the service was over, there were no seekers turned away with the explanation that they should keep on seeking in prayer until they should find. But the record says, "They then that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41.) The last verse says, "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:47.) In no case were any said to be saved who had not heard the gospel and obeyed it. Furthermore, the Lord added all of them to the same church, the church of Christ which he had said he would build. (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:47; Eph. 1:22, 23; 5:23; 2:16; 4:4.) They were simply Christians and wore no human religious name. (Acts 11:26; 1 Pet. 4:16; James 2:7.) They subscribed to no human creed and were members of no denominational church. They were united in the one body as Christ had prayed that they should be. (John 17:20, 21; Eph. 4:3.)

Good Friends

2006-05-23T23:12:00.000-07:00

We are commanded by Paul, and subsequently the Holy Spirit, to imitate him as he imitated Christ. This would include our perspective (Gal. 1:10), our attitude (Rom. 1:16), et cetera. Paul even goes as far to tell the church at Corinth that he wished they were like him in his marriage state (1Cor. 7:7)! I believe we would do well to also follow Paul in the way that we choose friends. Paul himself said, “bad company corrupts good morals” (1Cor. 15:33), and it seems he lived what he preached when we read of the kind of companions he had. In Galatians 2:1, Paul talks about taking a very close friend of his with him to Jerusalem: Barnabas.

Barnabas is a true example of the type of friends we, as Christians, should surround ourselves with. We read of at least six great attributes he possessed and probably were a large part of his friendship with Paul. He was a giving individual. Just before Ananias and Sapphira had there famous “giving ordeal”, we read of the generosity of Barnabas in Acts 4:36. It’s important that we find friends who are generous and namely to the church of God. We must keep in mind that we are not in a friendship to “get something out of it”. Paul was not a close friend to Barnabas because he wanted something from him, but Barnabas gave generously all the same.

He was also a very trusting friend. When Paul was converted, many were still frightened and skeptical of the man who had once killed their friends and family. Barnabas, on the other hand, trusted Paul’s word and helped others believe his story (Acts 9:27).

Third, Barnabas was an encouraging friend. His name (meaning Son of Encouragement) was given by the apostles after they witnessed this wonderful quality in him (Acts 11:22-23). Paul kept an encourager with him during his hard times (Acts 15 in Jerusalem). Our lives will be richer if we have someone near us to pick us up when others around us are tearing us down.

We also read of the Holy Spirit setting apart Barnabas for a special work (Acts 13:2). Although we will not find this specific quality in friends today, it is important for us to choose friends who are Godly people and friends whom the Holy Spirit would choose were He still working in the same way today.

We need friends who are about the Lord’s work. Barnabas was always teaching and preaching (Acts 12:25; 13:7; 13:43; 13:46; 15:12; 15:22; 15:35; 15:36; Gal. 2:1). The friends we choose may not be preachers, song leaders, or elders, but they need to be individuals who are striving to please God by evangelizing, inviting others to church, et cetera.

Finally, we need to choose friends who are resilient. We read of the Jews “stirring up devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city” and “raising up persecution against Paul and Barnabas”. In our lives, many will not believe the truth of God’s word. They may even have cruel and hateful things to say to us. We must always do what Paul and Barnabas did: “they shook off the dust from their feet against them…”. We must carry on spreading and planting the Good News in peoples’ hearts. It will always help us to have people like Barnabas around who stick with us during hard times. People who are giving, trusting, encouraging, Godly, about the Lord’s work, and resilient.

Confronting the Unseen

2006-05-22T23:40:00.000-07:00

Let’s look a little closer at the subject of perspective. With a spiritual perspective, we must have spiritual eyes. We must see the things that God sees, and see them as God sees them, at least to the best of our ability. In order to see things clearly, from a spiritual perspective, we must have spiritually keen eyesight. We must rid our sight of any obstacle that would cloud our spiritual vision, or distort it in any way, or blind us. Paul contrasts the spiritual man and the carnal man, with their advantages and limitations in 1 Corinthians 2. A spiritual man sees clearly with spiritual eyes.

The Hebrew writer defines “faith” as the “substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.” Paul describes the perspective of a spiritual man very clearly in 2 Corinthians 4. “We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal”.

So, what do we see? And how does what we see affect our lives. In theory, it’s simple. The word “confront” means to come face-to-face. And the things we confront, or should be confronting, should affect our lives. Let’s look at three possibilities.

The cross should be confronted. Our ability, or inability, to confront the cross daily will shape our lives. Do we regularly come face-to-face with the cross and it’s meaning? What about the personal implication of the cross? Have we become so numb to saying that Jesus died on the cross for our sins that we forget that He died on the cross because of our sins? BECAUSE of my sin? Do we regularly come face to face with the love required to do what He did? Do we regularly come face to face with the mercy and compassion that caused Him to endure such treatment? If we treat the cross as an historical event, it will mold our lives in certain ways. If the cross is personal, painful, joyous, and cleansing, it should certainly shape our lives in a different direction.

The empty tomb should be confronted. Can you imagine the change in fervor experienced by the twelve, from when they saw Jesus’ lifeless body being carried into a tomb to when He appeared to them again, full of LIFE? Unless we come face to face with an empty tomb, the cross is just a historical event. Coming face to face with an empty tomb brings meaning to our confronting the cross. Because of an empty tomb, His words, His actions, and His message have relevance in our lives. And they will shape our lives accordingly, if we regularly come face-to-face with the empty tomb.

Judgement should be confronted. The empty tomb gives validity to Jesus’ claim that He has gone to prepare a place for us, and He will come again. Judgment has the same certainty as death for us. Do we regularly come face to face with judgement? Wouldn’t a keen awareness of judgement sharpen our spiritual perspective and affect our lives?

Our ability to come face-to-face with the cross, with the empty tomb, and with judgement is vital to our spiritual health. These things must be more than facts that we intellectually grasp. Our perspective must shape our lives.

The Jesus of the Bible

2006-05-19T23:44:00.000-07:00

Great article Scott. Sometimes it scares me how we think so much alike. I started writing this article the day before you posted yours. I didn’t finish it because of my deadline on that manuscript for the October lectureship in Virginia. It is good to get that one behind me, now just two more manuscripts to finish that were due this week. Sorry Dale, Steve, and others, I promise to try to finish this coming week. Well, anyway, after reading Scott’s article, I wondered if this one should be posted. It has similar thoughts, but I changed the direction just a little bit so as not to be too redundant.

In a recent interview, Brian McLaren wondered, “Why the vision in Dan Brown’s book is more interesting, attractive, and intriguing to these people than the standard vision of Jesus they hear about in church?” One respondent answered this way to McLaren’s comments, “That's because they hate the Jesus of the Bible, Brian!" Wow, that sounds somewhat harsh and judgmental doesn’t it? Surely, that can’t be the reason.

There are those who would claim that they do not hate the Jesus of the Bible, but it appears by their lives that they do. Ian McKellen, one of the stars of the movie was recently asked if he believed that the disclaimer, “fiction” should be posted at the beginning of the movie, The DaVinci Code. He responded by saying, “I’ve often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer that says fiction.” Then he added, “I mean, come on, walking on water?”

The Bible is clear in the affirmation that many will hate Jesus. Isaiah prophesied that He would be despised and rejected by men (Isaiah 53:3). Jesus said in John 7:7, “the world…hates me, because I testify of it that its works are evil.” John 6:66 we learn that even many of His disciples were offended because of what He taught, and that they turned away from Him.

When it comes to what one believes about the Jesus of the Bible there can be no middle ground. We may straddle the fence in many areas of our life, but what we believe about Jesus is not one of them. Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me…” (Luke 11:23)

There are several ways that one might show hatred for the Jesus of the Bible. They may be so bold to write a book, like Brown, or proclaim it to the world in an interview or a movie, like McKellen. Some will say they love the Jesus of the Bible but will deny it with their lives. The Biblical term for these people is hypocrite; from the Greek word is hupokrites. The second definition in the lexicon is, “an actor, a stage player.” Jesus taught that those who claim to be religious, but fail to live like Him are hypocrites (Matthew 23:13-29).

It is also possible to hate the Jesus of the Bible by denying His Words. The world is filled with people who claim to love Jesus, but who refuse to obey His Word. Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). He also said that His Words will judge us in the last day (John 12:48). Unfortunately, this erroneous view of the Jesus of the Bible is becoming increasingly more prevalent among Christians. We are hearing more and more from Christians that the Bible is outdated and irrelevant. More Christians are saying that the Bible was written to the people of the first century, but it doesn’t apply to our lives today. They affirm that the teachings of the New Testament only had to be obeyed in the context of the culture in which they were written. It is impossible to love the Jesus of the Bible without loving His Words. It has been said many times that either Jesus is a liar, a lunatic, or He is Lord. I choose to side with the truth of God’s Word (John 17:17) over the “fiction” of the Da Vinci Code.

The Dan Brown Phenomenon?

2006-05-17T22:01:00.000-07:00

Mr. Brown has captured the imagination of many, and stoked the fires of contempt in others. His writings, whether original or not, are clearly marketable in today’s world, and Hollywood thinks they, along with Tom Hanks and unprecedented hype, are the substance of a blockbuster movie. I may see the movie, I may not. But, I will not be lured into believing the basic premise of Dan Brown’s writings.

One theologian, interviewed on ABC’s Nightline, commented on the public’s current willingness to accept any writing about Jesus rather than the New Testament writings, especially if the sources contradict. He stated that the current method of lending more credence to later writings is absent of logic and without precedence.

I don’t think this is a new phenomenon. The basic premise to grasp in Dan Brown’s material is that Jesus was fully human and not divine. We accept that Jesus was fully human, but we would disagree that he was not divine. In fact, we would state that he was fully human and divine.

It seems the Word of God addressed this in Matthew 16, when Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do men say that I am?” When they responded, Jesus asked the question of the ages.

“Who do YOU say that I am?”

The answer to this question, for me and for you, is THE answer to THE question that will determine the content of our lives and the experience of eternity. If Jesus was nothing more than a Jewish carpenter’s son, who blasphemed against God, and who received his justice on a cross, then our lives will necessarily take one course. If He was born of a virgin, and He arose from the tomb, then our lives should take an entirely different path. Paul’s words, in 1 Corinthians 15, support this thought. It’s all about perspective.

Matthew 16 is all about perspective. When Jesus asked the Pharisees who had asked him for a sign, “why is it that you can read the signs in the sky, but can’t read the signs of the time”, He was talking about perspective. When He warned His disciples of the “leaven of the Pharisees”, they thought he referred to bread, because their perspective was carnal, not spiritual. At the end of the chapter, He asks the rhetorical question, “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul; and what would a man give in exchange for his soul?”

It’s all about perspective. It’s nothing new. Dan Brown didn’t invent the question; he is just showing us how he has answered it. How do we answer the question? Do our lives reflect the answer we have given? Are the sermons of our lives consistent with the sermons of our lips? They will be, with the proper perspective.

Is it wrong to lose my patience?

2006-05-16T21:26:00.000-07:00

I work at a nursing home. That sentence is not complete, in my mind, if it is not followed immediately by, “so I’ve lost my patience before”. Some people begin as annoying children and then, later in life, grow up to be mature independent adults. There are others, I’ve learned, that never grow up, and those are the individuals that wear my patience thin. Naturally, since this is such a reoccurring event, I wondered: am I sinning when I lose my patience? Let’s see what the Bible says…

Many will go straight to Ephesians 4:26 and make note that it is Biblical to be angry. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God all have been angry (John 2:16, Hebrews 3:10, Exodus 4:14 respectively). So, the next question is does anger always denote a loss of patience? Jesus was most likely angry when His friends fell asleep while He prayed before His crucifixion. Some would say that He probably became impatient, but if He had, He would not have given them three warnings. It seems to me that one cannot speak of “patience” without speaking of actions. Here’s another example. Someone owes you five dollars and you NEED it by Thursday. When Thursday rolls around, they don’t pay you for one reason or another. You may be very angry with them, you may even speak of how you’ve “lost your patience for such a rogue”, but if you give that person another day to pay the debt, you have not lost your patience. Jesus may have been VERY angry at the sinners who transformed His Father’s house into a market, but He always gives people a chance to repent, much like we’ve done with our money-stealing, roguish acquaintance.

Finally, Colossians 3:12 says, “Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering…” We are taught that we must “put on Christ” (Romans 13:14, Galatians 3:27) and we would be quick to say that it would be a sin to “take Him off”. If we are also commanded to “put on longsuffering” in an imperative scripture, why would it be okay to “take patience off”, or to “lose it”?

We may say “I lost my patience” but we must not act upon that thought and in turn stop “bearing one another in love” (Ephesians 4:2). We are commanded to forgive “up to seventy times seven” (Matthew 18:22) which seems to be an indirect verse where Jesus condemns the loss of patience. I suppose it could be said, “be angry and do not sin; be impatient and do not cease to bear”.

Giving to God?

2006-05-15T21:25:00.000-07:00

One of the most important aspects of our Christian life, and sometimes the least understood, is our giving. Why is it so important? Television evangelists, and others have tainted the image of Christian giving, and so much so, that statistics point out that the average Christian, in the USA, gives less than 2% of his / her income to the Lord. There may be many reasons for this, and we’ll choose not to get in to that topic here, today.

For now, it should be enough to look only at “why” we give. Is it because it is commanded? Yes. Is it because it is needed? Yes. Is it to further the work of the local congregation? Yes. Is it to support outreach activities, locally and globally? Yes. Are any of those reasons adequate to cause Christians to give as they should? Apparently not.

My personal conviction is that giving is an indication of our trust in God. It is an indication of our dependence on God. And, an indication of our grateful acknowledgement that all things come from Him. Christians who don’t give as they should don’t have an economic problem, they have a heart problem. Their relationship with God is not all that it could be.

1 Corinthians 16:2 is a benchmark passage for giving. In this verse, Paul teaches that we are to save whatever we have to give, and give on the first day of every week. The KJV reads “as God hath prospered him”. The NIV reads, “according to his income”. McCord’s wording is “if he earns anything”. And the NASB reads, “as he may prosper”.

The first three renderings of this phrase imply God gets a portion of what we’ve already received. Those may be correct interpretations. That may be as God intended it. But, that’s an easy out in showing our trust and dependency on God. It is one thing to give of what I’ve already received. It’s quite another to give of what I expect to receive. The NASB reading, “as he may prosper”, can go either way, but at least provides a possibility of giving based on expectations and trust, not assurance.

Clearly, Jesus’ words in Luke 6:38 leave but one interpretation. “Give and it will be given unto you”. And, “for by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return”, a clear distinction from reactionary giving. Jesus is teaching anticipatory giving. Giving, in trust and confidence, that God will take care of me.

Malachi reinforces the “measure” aspect with his statement in 3:10. “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, test me in this”, God urges His people. See “if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows”. God has not quit blessing His people, but sometimes it appears His people quit trusting Him.

Some have said on occasion, “don’t give until it hurts, give until it feels good”. Aren’t we glad God doesn’t just give ‘til it hurts?

The Mission of the Church

2006-05-13T21:04:00.000-07:00

This outstanding article was written by brother David Lipscomb in 1866. Brother Lipscomb was a great servant of God who strengthened the church throughout his life. Our prayer is that God will help us all to work diligently for Him and to have a better understanding of the mission of the Church.

Mission of the Church

The true object of the church of Christ has been greatly misunderstood by even the members themselves. Its design was never to bring about a state of indolent peace and ease with any given standard of morality. But its object was and is to induce the members of that church to submit themselves unreservedly to the law of God. Peace in the church of Christ is not only impracticable, but even undesirable unless it is attained by the whole church coming up to the perfect standard of God's law. Until this is attained, continual, earnest effort, investigation and discussion upon the part of the members of the church must be kept up until they all come "in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." The unity and harmony of the faith are to be attained but only through "the knowledge of the Son of God." A unity, then, of faith itself, is desirable only so far as it may be in complete harmony with the teachings of the Bible. The schisms and divisions of Christendom are certainly to be deprecated as the works of the evil one. Yet, a union of these sects in error, would certainly be a more fatal, and more to be dreaded calamity.

The great object of the church then, is to assist its own members and the outside world in learning the truth of God, the law of Christ, and their persuading and encouraging them to obey that law. Its true unity then can never be attained by compromising the truth, or winking at and tolerating error, but by a diligent and earnest and continual striving to learn the whole truth, and to teach it to others, by an increasing effort to bring the church up to the perfect standard of Christian truth and Christian practice. We should be much more fearful of tolerating error, which breeds sin, than of tolerating investigation. We should be more anxious to make the impression upon the world that we will use ever means in our reach, and make every effort possible, for the discovery of truth, than to make the impression that we are in perfect peace and undisturbed quiet. Such an impression will command the respect of every man that values truth higher than popularity, and will give a new, high, holy, incentive to activity and energy in the church of Christ.

-----David Lipscomb, Gospel Advocate, February 20, 1866, pp. 123,124.

Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing?

2006-05-12T21:27:00.000-07:00

Jesus warned his disciples to beware of false prophets, those who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. He spoke of sending his sheep out among the wolves. And Paul warned the Ephesian elders that savage wolves would come in among them and not spare the flock. The analogy is well worn, and useful in conveying the message intended. Wolves and sheep are not social acquaintances, nor are they comrades.

Scripture also warns of sheep disguising themselves as wolves. Sheep who, in their heart of hearts, want to be sheep, but want to fit in with the wolves. They want the benefits of being a sheep, with acceptance from the wolves.

Peter writes that we are “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people”. We are to be sheep in a world dominated by wolves. But, we are not to be allies of the wolves; we are not to befriend the wolves; we are to be sheep. John warns that we are not to “love the world”. James writes, “friendship with the world is hostility toward God”. Paul, to the church of Christ in Rome, wrote that a mind “set on the flesh is hostile toward God”. And Paul, again, asks the Corinthians, “what fellowship has light with darkness?”

In earlier generations, being Biblically peculiar was a desired trait among many. Is it true of many in our generation? Will it be true in future generations? What does the trend, if not corrected, indicate? Is there more of the church in the world, or more of the world in the church, compared to fifty or a hundred years ago?

The church cannot isolate itself from the world. The church needs to be in the world. As illustrated by some in my past, it’s like the relationship between a boat and water. It’s a good thing when the boat is in the water, but not so good when the water is in the boat. Having too much water in the boat is a disaster.

In Romans 12:1f, Paul calls Christians not to be “conformed to the world, but transformed by the renewing of our minds”. Is the world molding us with its ideas, its language, its dress, its morals, its perspective, or its view of man’s relationship with God? Or, are we molding the world?

Sometimes it seems like the wolves are winning.

The Right Kind of Men

2006-05-11T21:14:00.000-07:00

Every Christian man needs three types of men in his life. We all need a man like Paul to serve as a godly example. Paul was the quintessential leader who was always taking young servants of God under his wings to teach them the work of God (i.e. Timothy, Titus, etc.) Paul was not ashamed to encourage others to follow his example, because he was convinced he was following Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). He was well aware that there were many people who were watching intently everything he did (2 Timothy 3:10-11). I am convinced with all my heart, that one of the greatest blessings of my life has been the opportunity to be surrounded by great men of God who have faithfully preached the Word for many years. The example these men continue to set for me is invaluable in my service to the Lord.

Every Christian man needs a man like Barnabas in his life. We all need that contemporary who is willing to work beside us and who will go to bat for us in any circumstance (Acts 9:27). We need men who we trust to be brutally honest with us. That friend who will stand up and tell us the truth, even when it may not be what we want to hear (Acts 15:2). There have been times in my life when some of my dearest friends have told me what I needed to hear, which was not necessarily what I always wanted to hear.

Every Christian man needs someone like Timothy in his life. He needs someone into whom he is building and pouring his life. Timothy was Paul’s son in the faith (1 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 1:2; 2:1). Paul was constantly encouraging, challenging, and instructing him. It was Paul’s conviction that if the Gospel message was going to be passed along to future generations it would have to be through faithful servants who are impacted by seasoned men of God (2 Timothy 2:1-2). With each passing year, I become increasingly aware of the need to encourage and help younger men who want to be servants of God.

My prayer for you, regardless of your age, is that you have several of each of these types of men in your life. We will all do better by surrounding ourselves with others who love God and who are committed to serving Him.

The Importance of the Body

2006-05-10T21:17:00.000-07:00

I recently had a discussion with a friend that I’ve had with many a person: why is suicide wrong? Easy. 1Cor. 6:19. Before I could even finish quoting that well known verse, my friend (obviously prepared) interrupted and said, “That verse makes reference ONLY to sexual immorality!” Oh…um…let me go study.

“Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?”

This verse, in context, seems to refer only to hurting your body through sexual immorality (in a, pretty much, spiritual way). Aaaaaaagh! He was right! Well, I guess we should all go out and smoke and dip and mutilate our bodies and pierce everything we can because 1Cor. 6:19 only refers to sexual immorality, right? A few thoughts before you stray off the straight and narrow…

First of all, this argument that 1Cor. 6:19 is only referring to sexual immorality when it speaks of your body being the temple of God, and I am some how “taking it out of context” when I use it to say that obesity, suicide, drugs, et cetera is wrong, is absurd! Logically, it makes no sense. Here’s an illustration: A great friend of yours is going out of town for the weekend. He shows you his log cabin He has built for his family. In the log cabin is…well, his family (not too difficult so far). By putting you in charge of the house, he has in doing so, put you in charge of the safety of his family. Before he leaves, he STRESSES the fact that you should not, under any circumstances, put poisonous gas into the house. Does this give you license to chop up the wood the house is built out of as much as you’d like? Or set the house on fire? Of course not!!! So why when God has entrusted us with His Holy Spirit (be it literally or figurative…completely different article to be written…) and placed it in our bodies would we think that we can do whatever we want to our bodies as long as we flee sexual immorality? It doesn’t make sense!

Secondly, this argument fails against other scriptures. I’ve always pointed to this scripture alone to refute smoking, drinking, suicide, et cetera, but when this scripture was challenged, I decided that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Ephesians 5:28,29 couldn’t be clearer on how important it is to take care of our bodies. In the church we put so much importance on a man loving his wife like Christ loved the church, and we should! But the same amount of emphasis should be placed on the care of a person’s body! We are to nourish and cherish our bodies just as Christ nourishes and cherishes the church (Eph. 5:29)! That means we are to stay away from ANYTHING that could have a long-term negative effect on our bodies. I made this statement once and of course someone said to me, “So I guess you better not ever eat sugar again!” People, apples (that God made) have sugar in them. Just use common sense. If smoking is going to give me lung cancer, should I do it? No. If eating every donut in this donut shop is going to give me a heart attack on the spot, should I do it? Use your head.

In conclusion, I hope if you are reading this that you don’t think I am placing the importance of the body above the importance of the spirit, because I’m not. Paul said in 1Tim. 4:8 “For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.” It is apparent all throughout the scriptures that our primary goal is to be concerned with the spirit, but in doing that, may God help us to never neglect the bodies that house His special gift.

Trading Places

2006-05-09T21:36:00.000-07:00

Being somewhat of a history buff, I often catch myself wondering if I would like to trade places with the character I am reading about. In some cases, it would be pleasant and exciting. In other cases, it would be frightening. I often do that with Biblical characters. The thrill of being with the Lord, on almost any recorded occasion, would be hard to grasp, especially at the tomb of Lazarus, in John 11. Or seeing Jesus heal the man born blind (John 9), and the comedic circus that followed.

One character that I think I would like to trade places with is John Mark. I wouldn’t even have to trade places with him, if I could have just been with him. His life would have allowed me to brush shoulders with many great Christians, whose names are captured in the books of the New Testament.

Consider some of these references to Mark in the New Testament. First, although not mentioned by name in the Gospel bearing his name, Mark is almost universally credited with penning the second gospel of Jesus Christ. Interestingly, secular tradition points to Mark scribing Simon Peter’s account of the life of Christ, based on Mark’s having heard Peter speak of his time with our Lord, or writing as Peter dictated his story. When Peter miraculously escaped from prison in Jerusalem, in Acts 12, he immediately went to the home of Mark’s mother, where the Christians in Jerusalem had gathered for prayer. The connection between Mark and Peter is again stated at the end of 1 Peter 5, when Simon Peter refers to him as “my son”, and likely companion in Babylon (Rome). He appears to have been “exposed” as being with Jesus and His disciples in the garden, on the night of Jesus’ arrest, in Mark 14:51f. This reference also provides a basis for Mark’s authorship of the second Gospel account. Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey, at least as far as Perga in Pamphylia. When the prospects of a second missionary journey arose, Barnabas insisted on taking Mark along, much to Paul’s dislike. When the argument was settled, Paul and Barnabas separated, with Paul taking Silas, and Barnabas took Mark and left for Cyprus. That’s understandable, because Mark and Barnabas were cousins, Colossians 4:10. Ultimately, Paul put aside his past differences with Mark, as referenced in Paul’s statement, in Colossians 4:11, “these are the only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are from the circumcision”. Mark is included in “these”. And in Paul’s last will and testament, 2 Timothy, he asks Timothy to “pick up Mark and bring him with you, he is useful to me.” When Paul faced the end of his life, he asked for Timothy, his books, his coat, and John Mark, all “necessities” at that time for Paul.

Peter? The twelve? Jesus? Paul? Barnabas? Silas? Perhaps Luke? That’s quite a list of associates for one lifetime. Would you trade places with John Mark? Wouldn’t it be nice to have Paul describe us as “fellow workers for the kingdom of God”? Hopefully, he can. Or, how would we feel if Peter called us his “son”?

Don’t you wish Mark had a blog?

A Thorn in the Flesh

2006-05-08T22:09:00.000-07:00

Last night, our group did a study of II Corinthians 12:7, which is the part of Paul’s letter where he makes reference to some kind of “thorn in the flesh” that seems to torment him. The passage reads as follows: “And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.” As we were studying, I began to wonder what this “thorn” that Paul had could have been. Was it a spiritual burden or a physical burden? I believe the answer to this question can be found in the verses following.

One of the key points that Paul was making was that there is strength in the Lord. He found this strength from the Lord because of his weaknesses, and, in turn, boasted in the Lord about his them (this can be found in verse 9). The reason that I considered this question in the first place is that the translation I studied from, the New American Standard, says weakness instead of infirmity, which is found in the New King James. The word weakness seems to have more of a spiritual connotation, while infirmity most often refers to a physical problem. The Greek word for weakness or infirmity in verse 9 is "astheneia", which means feebleness of body or mind, not of the heart. The very reason Paul was boasting was to proclaim the power of the Lord. Why, then, would he boast about a spiritual weakness? Would Paul go as far as to boast about his sins? Romans 6:1 says, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” Paul, who made the statement, answered with the exclamation, “Certainly not!” It is my conviction that he would not continue to do something against the will of God in order to receive the strength that Christ offers.

In II Corinthians 11, Paul tells of all the hardships he has endured: prison, shipwrecks, stoning, beatings, constant danger, travel, sleeplessness, hunger, nakedness, and the constant worries of the church. These are all physical hardships, and it is obvious that Paul was always in a state of physical trouble. That is why I have come to the conclusion that the “thorn” that Paul refers to in II Corinthians 12 is some kind of physical infirmity instead of a spiritual struggle.

When we were studying this, I thought that for those who struggle with sin, i.e. everyone, (Romans 3:23), this verse could be very encouraging because the power of the Lord is made perfect in our weakness. Even though I believe this verse is referring to physical problems, the same comfort can still be taken from the verse, knowing that when Christians feel like they are too weak to face a problem or overcome a temptation, the Lord’s power will always be readily available to those who love and obey him. Verse 8 says that Paul prayed for the Lord to remove this thorn from his life, and I believe that the same should be true for Christians today.

lessons from mom

2006-05-07T21:08:00.000-07:00

Another busy Sunday has ended. After preaching for two morning worship services, teaching our Seeker’s class, attending a Fortieth Anniversary Celebration for one of our dear couples, a pre-marriage counseling session, a personal Bible study, and preaching for the evening worship service, I am ready to call it a day. Even when they are packed full from early morning until late at night, Sunday is my favorite day of the week. When the day ends, I am already thinking about next Sunday.

Next Sunday. I have begun the debate with myself about next Sunday morning’s sermon. Will I preach the lesson from the ongoing series on the book of James, or will I change my mind and preach a Mother’s Day sermon. Next Sunday will be the first Mother’s Day in my life (47 years for those who are interested) that I have not either seen my Mom or talked with her on the phone. It will be a difficult Mother’s Day for me, as I know it will be for many of you. We buried mom last Christmas Eve. There has not been a day that has gone by that I have not thought about her. Oh, how I miss her, and I wish I could see her on Mother’s Day. This Mother’s Day I will think about her in a special way. I will remember again the many lessons that she taught me throughout her life. Please allow me to share just three of them with you.

Mom taught me to love the Lord. She and Dad always believed that the Lord (and His Church) must be put first in our lives (Matthew 6:33). She never allowed anything to come between her and the Lord. She taught us this not only by saying it to us, but also by the way she lived. She believed that loving the Lord included loving His Church. It is so disheartening to hear “Christians” who say we should love the Lord, but who do not love the Lord’s church. If we love the Lord, we will love one another (John 13:34). Mom also taught us that if we love the Lord, we would live lives of obedience to Him. How can we say we love the Lord if we refuse to do what He wants us to do (John 14:15)?

Mom taught us to love our loved ones. We didn’t always agree with one another in our family of six, but we always found ways to love one another. A Christian man must love his wife and his children (Ephesians 5:25, 29, 33; 6:4). There are far too many Christians who act with love toward those who are outside of their family, but they act in unloving ways toward those whom they should love the most. It is vitally important for us to show one another how much we love one another in our families, but we must also be willing to say those meaningful three words, I love you!

Mom taught us to love life. My mother suffered a great deal in her life. She did not feel well for most of the last twelve years of her life. In spite of that, she never lost her zeal for life. She was convinced that the Lord came to give her the abundant life (John 10:10). She brought joy to our family, to her friends, and to everyone who came to know her. Mom had an infectious laugh. I wish I could hear her tell one more of her long, drawn-out stories, then hear her laugh, whether anyone else did or not.

I am thankful for every lesson that Mom taught us. I will miss her next Sunday, but I will remember her for these lessons and so many more. If your Mom is still around, I hope you will let her know how much she means to you and how thankful you are for the good lessons of life she has taught you. Thanks for listening to my meanderings, now I better get busy on next week’s sermons!

Pray Without Ceasing

2006-05-05T21:12:00.000-07:00

About once a week the Areopagite plan to post an article written by some great man who has written in a way that reflects our intended purpose. Most of these articles were written by men who have gone on to their eternal reward. The first of these articles was written by brother Hugo McCord in september of 2001. Brother McCord was a man of great scholarship. He was known throughout the world as one of the leading Greek scholars of the last century. When I was a young preacher (JJ), and up until the time of his death, Brother McCord made a profound impact on my life. It was my privilege to have him as an instructor in a number of graduate level classes. Brother McCord had a special way of making textual studies interesting and challenging. I considered him a dear friend. For many years I spoke with him nearly every week about whatever subject I was studying at the time. He always took time to talk with me about the Word of God. He is a man who is dearly missed by all of us who loved him. Our prayer is that you will enjoy these special posts each week.

Pray Without Ceasing

With all my learning (?) at age 20, in a Bible class in Urbana, Illinois, in 1931, when sister Bert Gerrard asked the meaning of “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17), I said that the passage does not command that we pray all of the time, but that we must always be in the attitude of prayer. She replied, “In the baseball game at the church fellowship in the park, when you slid into second base, you were not in a prayerful attitude.” The lady had me. I needed to do more study on prayer.

Paul’s inspired word adialeiptos, translated “without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17, KJV), occurs in three other New Testament passages:

God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers (Romans 1:9, KJV).
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour or love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father (1 Thessalonians 1:3, KJV).

For this cause also we thank God without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 2:13, KJV).

The word adialeiptos is threefold: (1) the first a is called an “alpha privative” (CLASSIC GREEK DICTIONARY, p. 11), meaning the rest of the word is not true; (2) dia in context means “to”; (3) leiptos means “desert, abandon, forsake, leave behind” (CGD, p. 409). Hence 1 Thessalonians 5:7 means that prayer is not to be deserted, abandoned, forsaken, left behind, but is to be a permanent part of a Christian’s life, never to be deserted, abandoned, forsaken, left behind.

This practical meaning of “Pray without ceasing” is illustrated in David’s words: “Evening and morning and noon I will complain and moan, and he will hear my voice” (Psalm 55:17). Similarly it is true that prayer was a permanent part of Daniel’s life, praying without ceasing, as we read that the windows of his room in Babylon were open “toward Jerusalem” and that “he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God” (Daniel 6:10).

by Hugo McCord

Amazing Grace

2006-05-04T22:16:00.000-07:00

I was taught the grace of God growing up. I believe I was taught accurately the grace of God. But now, as it has become fashionable to teach, I am told that I was not taught the grace of God accurately. By using an analogy, let’s see if I understand grace correctly.

Bob was married to Jan and together, they had a couple of children. Nothing out of the ordinary. What was extraordinary about their situation was that Jan’s father was the world’s richest and most powerful man. He had unfathomable wealth. He owned more than 100 companies. In wealth and power, he had no equal. Bob had never participated in that power and wealth.

One day the wealthy and powerful man approached Bob, and proposed a business opportunity. He offered to make Bob the CEO of Banter, the largest company he owned. He was offering Bob a powerful, prestigious, and lucrative position in a powerful, prestigious, and lucrative company. He told Bob that the executive position, and the company itself, would be his if Bob could make some changes.

“Bob, I really like you. I want you to succeed, and I want to share my riches with you and your family. But, Bob, right now you’re not the kind of person I want to do business with. You’re priorities aren’t straight. You’re perspective is self centered. You are not a good father to my grandchildren, you are not faithful to my daughter and your struggles with gambling and drinking make you an undesirable business partner. But, if you can change your life, and become the husband and father that you should, if you can treat people with respect and compassion, and if you can focus a little more on others, you could become the next CEO of Banter.”

Two years later, at a press conference, called to announce the new CEO of Banter, the first question, and the most obvious, was asked of Bob. “How did you, a person of relative obscurity become the CEO of Banter?” Bob’s answer to that question would tell everyone all they needed to know about Bob and his understanding.

Would Bob tell them that he became CEO because he quit cheating on his wife? Because he began spending more quality time with his children? Because he had quit gambling? Because he had quit drinking? Because he had changed his life?

Would Bob tell them that he became CEO because of the power and generosity of his father-in-law? Wouldn’t it be true? Wouldn’t it all be true? If Bob were married to my daughter and made the same life changes, would he be CEO of Banter?

I think I understand God’s grace. And I think I understand what my response to God’s grace should be and must be.

God’s grace is amazing, and we must never lose sight of the truth of his generosity, the truth of our need to respond, and the privilege it is for God to call us His child.

our reward is greater

2006-05-03T21:54:00.000-07:00

The Beatitudes, possibly one of the most well known passages of scriptures, has been a source of great comfort for many Christians, and rightfully so. The words were spoken by the great Comforter Himself (Matthew 11:28)! However, I would ascertain that even more comfort and encouragement can be found in the syntax of these great verses. Let me attempt to explain myself…

All of the eight beatitudes commence with a quality one should try to attain (a command, if you will) and end with a reward if that quality/command is attained/obeyed. I believe that something very interesting can be found in the syllables of each command and subsequent reward. The reward is always greater than the command. Example: “Blessed are the poor in spirit…” (the command/quality) is eight syllables, while “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” is nine syllables. The reward is greater than the command. Another one: “Blessed are those who mourn…” is six syllables, while “for they shall be comforted” is seven syllables. The reward is greater than the command.

I realize that the original Greek may produce different results, but the lesson taken is still Biblical. I’m reminded of the parable Jesus told in Matthew 25, which displays this lesson perfectly. A master gives each of his servants a different number of talents. Two of them work hard to receive double of what they began with, while the other buries his in the ground. When the master returns, the lesson can be found in what he says to the two faithful servants: “…you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things.”

Jesus tells us in John 14:2-3 the incredible reward we will enjoy if we but only follow His commands: a mansion in heaven. Any time we feel like we are “restricted” in comparison to the world, let us remember the Beatitudes and the reward we have been promised. Hopefully then we will see that our “burdens” truly are “light”.

Spiritual or Carnal Messengers

2006-05-02T22:14:00.000-07:00

In Revelation 2-3, the Lord is giving a unique message to each of the seven churches of Asia. He says, “To the angel of the church of…” each time he addresses one of the seven churches. From studying these verses in these two chapters, the question is raised whether or not the Lord is speaking to one of His angels (spiritual) who watch over a certain church, or if the term angel is simply used to refer to a man (carnal) who will give His message.
The word “angel” is transliterated from the word “angelos” in the Greek, which means a messenger. (The word “angelos” comes from the word “angello”, which means to deliver a message.) It is obvious that the Lord willed that a message be sent to these seven churches, and someone had to deliver it. My question is this: Does the term “angel” used in Revelation mean the Heavenly being or a man who is giving the message?

Revelation 1:20 implies that there are seven angels who are guardians or representatives of the seven churches in Asia. The word “angelos” used in this verse is not only used in Revelation. It is used throughout the Bible, for example, in Hebrews 1, Mark 8, 1 Timothy 5, etc. Hebrews 1:14 refers to them as spirits, and later in chapter 2, the Hebrew writer says that Christ was made a little lower than the angels, which implies that angels have a superiority to men (Hebrews 2:7). So from these verses which all use the word “angelos”, we can infer that the messengers in Revelation 2 and 3 were spiritual beings.

If the Lord were to send this message through means of men, the word used would not have been “angelos”. In 2 Corinthians 8:23, Paul makes reference to representatives or messengers of the church there in Corinth. The word for messenger or representative used here is “apostolos”. This word is transliterated “apostle”, which simply means a messenger or one that is sent. Once again, if Christ were sending the message through men, the Greek translation would most likely read “apostolos” instead of “angelos”.

Now, since we have come to the conclusion that Christ’s message was sent through a Heavenly being, a different question is raised. Since there were representatives or guardians of the churches in those days, are their still angels today who represent or watch over Christians when we come together to worship? Hebrews 1:14 says that angels are “ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation.” Isn’t it a comforting thought that all Christians have someone to minister to them? The same can be found in Psalm 91, where David writes that God gives the angels charge over us to keep us in all of our ways. Many may disagree with what was said here, but despite disagreements, I believe we can all agree that the Father takes care of his children, and causes ALL things to work together for good. Whether this is through the means of angels, providence, His Spirit, or all of them, there is no doubt that the Lord provides for those who love Him.

the american paradox

2006-05-02T15:45:00.000-07:00

I was shown a copy of a syndicated column, written by Michael J. McManus, entitled American Paradox. The subtitle was even more intriguing, stating “Citizens Profess Religion but Fail to Live Accordingly”. The gist of the column is that America may be the most religious nation on earth, while being the least ethical. To bolster his claim, McManus cites statistics that reveal 70% of Americans attend a religious service at least once a month. For the paradox, he cites statistics on the continuing devaluation of the American home. He summarizes his point by stating that “God’s first institution (the home) has become America’s last institution”. Pollster George Barna’s research claims that 21% of “unbelievers”, and 25% of “church going people” are divorced. Mr. McManus then states his view on the cause of this calamity.

McManus says, “the church is partly responsible”. He has begun asking conference attendees how often they hear, or preach, sermons on cohabitation (living together outside of marriage). Seldom, if ever. McManus refers to preachers as “pastors”, and rebukes them for failing to preach against cohabitation or divorce. He asks, “whose responsibility is it, mayors or school superintendents?” No, he says, “it is the job of those who speak for God to articulate His Word”. McManus cites Genesis 2, about God’s establishment of the home, and man’s destruction of the home through divorce, cohabitation, and unwed pregnancies. “Thus, the silence of the clergy is abetting destructive behavior. The failure of the clergy to take a stand has made the church an unwitting accomplice to…”(insert the destructive behavior).

Is Michael McManus right? America may be the most religious, and most unethical, nation on the planet. The home may be viewed with little, or no regard. “Church goers” may be more likely to divorce than “unbelievers”. The church may be partly responsible. The clergy may be too silent on such issues. The church may be an unwitting accomplice to the destruction of the home. Probably all true.

My question to Michael McManus, to you, and to myself, is not about the truth in the statements that he has made to validate his case. I applaud his article. My question is to something that is omitted from McManus’ thoughts. What about my responsibility to study, to know, to understand, and to share God’s Word? Is that responsibility only the responsibility of those who are paid to fill the pulpits in our country? No, it is not.

Christians are to be diligent in their study (Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 2:15). We are to be lovers of God’s Word. We are to be Bible educated beyond what we absorb from the pulpit. Christendom is littered with monuments of well meaning people being led astray by false teachers (2 Timothy 4:3f; Acts 20:28-31a; Ephesians 4:14f).
Hosea writes in the 4th chapter, “For the Lord has a case against the inhabitants of the land, because there is no faithfulness or kindness, or knowledge of God in the land.” And in verse 6, God states, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge”.

I hope the church you attend can always assist you in your growth in the true knowledge of the Word of God. I hope it never becomes the sole source of your knowledge. Or mine. May God bless us, as we attempt to enrich the spiritual focus of our families, and ourselves.

To be truly religious

2006-04-30T20:59:00.000-07:00

Paul described the Athenians that vacated Mars Hill in Acts 17:22 as “religious”. The Greek word used here is “deisidaimonesteros” which is a compound adjective derived from “deilos”, meaning timid or fearful, and “daimon”, meaning a god or goddess. The King James Version translates this word to be “too superstitious” which may be a better translation considering the next verse: “…I even found an altar with this inscription TO THE UNKOWN GOD.” This idea of people attempting to worship a god they do not know is not new today, nor was it new in Paul’s day. A Cretan named Epimenides came to Athens before Paul to attempt to stop a plague. He offered sheep on altars to the "unknown god". Obviously, at least one of the altars survived to Paul's day and this concept of blind worship is rampant in our time as well. The Greek word for “unknown” in verse 23 is “Agnosto” from which we get our word: agnostic. So, according to the true definition of an agnostic, there are many more today than who claim to be such.

Many consider religion to be ubiquitous in our world; someone is a “truly religious” person as soon as they put an “I love God” bumper sticker on their car or listen to “religious” rock during their lunch break. These people are just like the Athenians in Paul’s day: they are trying to worship a God that they don’t even know. It seems to have become a popular trend to have the “I-don’t-know/want-to-read-the-Bible-so-I’ll-just-do-what-the-media/friends-tell-me-is-religious” kind of attitude. Jesus taught that an individual cannot get into heaven just by committing a “religious” act hoping that the right thing was done (Matthew 7:21). Jesus rebuked these same kind of “religious” people in Matthew 6, warning His followers not to be pretentious but to, “…not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing…” So, while we must let our light shine (Matt. 5:14) it must be for the right reasons (so that others will glorify God) or we are not truly religious.

Back to Mars Hill: if the Athenians were the wrong kind of “religious” by the Bible’s standards, what is it to be truly religious?

Opposite of “deisidaimonesteros” there is the Greek word “sebomai” which is also translated “religious” in The King James Version. This word is used in Acts 13:43 describing the new converts who followed Paul and Barnabas. This word, unlike deisidaimonesteros, is used to describe a person who feels awe before God. It is a sure and confident awe that is the complete antithesis of superstition and supposition. Like I said, Jesus does not want mindless religion, He taught obedience (John 14:15) and Paul writes that we must dig deeper than just “clocking-in” on Sundays and singing along to a song on the radio that has “Jesus” in it (1Thes. 5:21, 2Tim. 2:15). May God help us to never fall into the “deisidaimonesteros” trap, but always be determined to be truly “sebomai” through deep study, prayer, and obedience to our, hopefully, KNOWN GOD.

welcome to the areopagus script

2006-04-30T12:35:00.000-07:00

Why Another Blog?
1. It appears that everyone is into blogging these days!
2. More than 800 million people are accessing the Internet!!
3. It is the easiest, fastest and most effective way to get the Word to people around the world!!!
4. We have a deep love for the study of the Word of God!!!!

Why The Areopagus Script?

When Paul came to Athens, "he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present. And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, ‘What would this idle babbler wish to say?’ Others, ‘He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,’--because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, ‘May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming? ‘For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean.’ Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new. So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, ‘Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.” (Acts 17:17-22). It was in this context that Paul challenged the religious thinkers of his day to rise above the cacophonous calls of their culture, and to listen to truths about God.

Our purpose with this blog is to challenge God’s people everywhere to listen to truths that run contrary to our culture. Our prayer is to encourage deeper, more meaningful, more faithful, and more precise study of the Word of God. We are students of God’s Word and we hope you will join us as people who love to study. It is paramount that we quit receiving our cues from everyone around us and we get back to the Book of all books.

While we are open to study and discussion, we will not be involved in debating in this web site. Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to make comments about articles we post, but we will not always respond to comments.

The four bloggers who will be posting here do not agree on every subject and we are aware that not everyone who reads will agree with us. In the next few days, we will post our rules and guidelines. From time to time, we will suggest other blogs, web sites, and books that have been helpful to us. Thank you for logging on and welcome to the Areopagus Script.