 |
Weekly
|
Birthday/Anniversary List
Congregational Updates
College Student News
Prayer List
Service Schedule
There
Is Always Time For Compassion
Good morning. We are concentrating on the quality of compassion. Let’s continue to remember that compassion makes a difference. Please bring your attention briefly to the record of Matthew 14:12-14. This is the beginning of the account where Jesus feeds the five thousand. But, we want to notice the event that brought about this opportunity for the Lord. His disciples had just taken the body of the beheaded John and buried him. They came and reported the death to Jesus. Keep in mind that Jesus and John were cousins. Keep in mind that John had prepared the way for the salvation Jesus brought into the world. Keep in mind that John never wavered from his task, his faith or the truth. And, keep in mind that John died for preaching the truth.
No wonder the text says that when Jesus heard of it, he departed to a desert place. This man who loved the wicked world so much that he would die for us, must have indeed loved John. He would have had much to contemplate and grieve about upon his death. The man of prayer would have wanted to talk with his Father about the recent events. His grieving was interrupted, but not by the great crowds who came out to be healed and helped by him. He might have simply ignored them for the day and remained in quietness and prayer. How many times in our life when tragedy strikes our life do we put everything on hold for a day or two? Family, the bill collectors, friends, yard work and job can all wait while we are making funeral arrangements or sitting at the hospital with a son, daughter or spouse.
No, it was not people who interrupted Him. His grieving was
interrupted by his own compassion. The text says that Jesus went
forth from where he was secluded, saw the multitude and was
moved with compassion. He, who should have been receiving
compassion as He dealt with the death of John, was instead so
moved with compassion toward the people that he forgot his needs
and started healing the people. Many of you who are caregivers
by choice have experienced this same compassion and have moved
to help people in the same way. May we all learn from this
example that there is always time for compassion. Compassion
makes a difference.
Via Joshua Generation ebulletin 3, year 2.
Used by permission
THE
ARTICLES BELOW CONSTITUTE A SERIES ON BIBLICAL PROOFS
Prove All Things: Jesus Did Not Turn Water into Alcohol
(April 3, 2011)
The 6th in a series of Biblical Proofs
In the second chapter of
the book of John, the apostle records the Lord’s “beginning of
miracles.” The place where the Lord begins his miracles is a
town called Cana of Galilee (John 2:12). On this occasion, Jesus
attends a wedding feast in which the host runs out of what is
termed “wine.” In response to this problem, Jesus tells the
servants to fill six waterpots with water (2:7) and to take some
to the governor of the feast (2:8). Upon tasting the “water that
was made wine” (2:9) the man says, “Every man at the beginning
doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then
that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now”
(2:10). Did Jesus turn water into alcohol? In this article,
appeal will be made once again to the Scriptures to “prove all
things.”
The Bible’s use of the
term “wine” indicates Jesus did not make alcohol. Sometimes
folks read the word “wine” in the Bible and they automatically
assume that their understanding of the term “wine” is the same
understanding as those of the first century. However, one of the
fundamental principles of Bible Study, which should be
remembered, is that one must understand what the Bible meant
when it was written in order to understand what it means
today. Did men and women living in ancient times always mean
“alcohol” when they used the word “wine”? The answer is no. In
fact, “wine” was a generic term that could refer to the juice of
the grape at any stage (unfermented, partially fermented, or
completely fermented). God himself called the juice of the grape
“wine” while the juice was still in the cluster of the grape
(i.e., not yet extracted from the grape—Isa. 65:8). Furthermore,
the place where men would tread on the grapes to extract the
juice from them was called the “winepress” (Num. 18:27, 30;
Deut. 15:14, etc.). Obviously, the freshly pressed grape juice was not alcoholic.
Other times in the scriptures the context clearly indicates the
“wine” under consideration is alcoholic, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and
whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise” (Prov. 20:1). Thus,
another important principle to remember is that the context in
which a word is used usually determines the meaning of the word.
For example, if someone were to ask for the definition of the
term “jump,” one might hastily assume, it means “to bounce up
and down.” That is certainly one definition, but it’s not the
only definition of the term. By “jump” someone might mean his or
her car battery needs a “jump” because the battery is dead. Is
the car battery going to bounce up and down? By “jump” someone
might refer to a person who fled the state after being bailed
out of jail (i.e. they “jumped” bail). Is that person going to
bounce up and down all the way across the border? Maybe so, but
that is not the meaning of the term in that context.
Some suggest that since the “governor” or “master” (NKJV) of the
feast said, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good
wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is
worse” (2:10), that the guests of the feast were intoxicated by
that time. However, that assumes that “well drunk” is the state
of being intoxicated. If “well drunk” (KJV, NKJV) or “drunk
freely” (ASV) means that the guests were intoxicated, then that
means they would have already been drinking alcohol before Jesus
made the water into “wine.” If Jesus made water into alcohol,
that means he was going to make an already intoxicated group of
people even more intoxicated. In fact, the “waterpots” could
hold about twenty to thirty gallons apiece (2:6 NKJV) so that
means Jesus would be making anywhere from 120 to 130 gallons of
alcohol since there were six waterpots. “Well drunk,” or “drunk
freely,” as Jeffcoat notes, “is to be understood in the generic
sense of being repleated, satiated, or saturated, and not in the
restricted and emphatic sense of intoxication” (53). Concerning
the Greek Word, he writes, “Lexicographers are agreed that the
root methe, or
methu, signifies excessive drinking without reference to the kind of
liquid used” (ibid). Thus, one could be described as having
“well drunk” if drinking water just as drinking any other
beverage.
Jesus’ sinlessness indicates he did not make alcohol. The Bible plainly says that when the sinless Son of God came down from
heaven to earth, he remained sinless throughout his earthly
life. The Hebrews writer says of Jesus, “For we have not an high
priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our
infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). Peter says, “For even hereunto
were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us
an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin,
neither was guile found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:21-22).
Another thing that the Bible is clear about is that providing
beverage alcohol, as well as drinking it, is a sin. In the days
of Habakkuk, one of the things that God’s people had become
guilty of is described in Habakkuk 2:15, “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him,
and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on
their nakedness!” Not only is the drunkenness condemned but also
the providing of the alcohol to make one drunk. This writer
remembers a person objecting to the usage of this verse, on one
occasion, because of the phrase, “that thou mayest look on their
nakedness.” The person suggested that it was not talking about
just getting someone drunk, but getting them drunk and making
them naked. However, it is strange reasoning indeed to suggest
that it is okay to give someone an intoxicating beverage and
make them drunk as long as they do not “look on their
nakedness.” If one part of the process is condemned then all of
it is condemned. Furthermore, the term “nakedness” can simply
mean being “exposed” (Schultz 656). The person is probably
“exposed” figuratively in the sense of being exposed to mocking,
ridicule, and shame from being intoxicated (cf. RSV “to gaze on
their shame”). Jesus would have been guilty of violating
Habakkuk 2:15 if he made water into alcohol and that would have
made him guilty of sin.
Also, 1 Peter 4:1-3 has an important bearing on what happened in
Cana if Jesus made water into alcohol. Peter writes, “Forasmuch
then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves
likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the
flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live
the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to
the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to
have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in
lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries.” Among the things
that Peter names as sin is “excess of wine” and “banquetings.”
If Jesus made 120 to 180 gallons of intoxicating wine then that
would certainly qualify as “excess of wine.” Furthermore, the
term “banquetings” means, “drinking parties” (Bauer 696; cf.
NKJV). If Jesus made alcohol at Cana then that would certainly
fall under the category of a “drinking party.” Once again, those
who say Jesus made water into alcohol are accusing the sinless
Son of God of sin.
Spencer Strickland
Works Cited
Jeffcoat, William Dawson. The Bible and “Social” Drinking.
Huntsville, AL: Pub. Designs, 2006.
Prove All Things: The Age of Miracles has Ceased (Part 2)(March 27,
2011)
The 5th in a series of Biblical Proofs
In
the last article, the cessation of miracles was discussed from
the standpoint of the purpose of miracles and the fact that the
Old Testament predicted the beginning of the end of miracles in
connection with the death of Christ. In this article, attention
will be given to the New Testament’s prediction of the cessation
of miracles in order to “prove all things.”
Miracles have ceased because the New Testament predicted
they would cease. Two
passages that attest to the ceasing of miracles in the New
Testament are 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 and Ephesians 4:8-14.
Chapters 12-14 of 1 Corinthians are important to take together
because in each of them Paul speaks about something concerning
miraculous gifts. Chapter twelve speaks about the various kinds
and distribution of miraculous gifts (see especially 12:4-11),
chapter thirteen speaks of the end of miraculous gifts, and
chapter fourteen speaks of the proper use of miraculous gifts.
Paul said, “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies,
they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be
knowledge, it shall vanish away” (1 Cor. 13:8). These
three gifts are among the miraculous gifts mentioned in 1
Corinthians 12:8-10. Paul says that prophecies would
fail, tongues would
cease, and miraculous
knowledge would vanish
away. He then writes, “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which
is in part shall be done away” (1 Cor. 13:9-10).
Perschbacher defines the word for “perfect” as, “brought
to completion; fully accomplished, fully developed . . . fully
realized, thorough . . . complete, entire as opposed to what is
partial and limited, 1 Cor. 13:10” (404). Thus, Paul’s line of
argument is clear. “We know in part and we prophesy in part”
(13:9), but the “part shall be done away” (13:10). When will the
“part” be done away? When “that which is perfect is come.” Since
the prophecies and the miraculous knowledge revealed the word of
God to man, “that which is perfect” must refer to the complete
revealing of that word of God (i.e., the completion of the
writing of the New Testament). After all, it is only the
completed word of God that has the ability to make man “perfect”
(2 Tim. 3:16-17).
prophecy, tongue speaking, and inspired knowledge. If that is
the “part,”, then the
“perfect,” the “complete,” must be more of the same, only
complete revelation. If the
“part” is revelation, the complete must be complete revelation,
the Scriptures, today the
Bible. (Moffitt 364)
The
final passage to consider from the New Testament when speaking
of the cessation of miracles is Ephesians 4:8-14. The passage
says:
Wherefore he saith, When he
ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts
unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also
descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that
descended is the same also that ascended up far above all
heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some,
apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some,
pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we 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 fulness of Christ: That we
henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried
about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and
cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.
There are several things to consider from this passage in order
to gain the proper understanding. First of all, what are the
“gifts” that were given to men? The gifts given to men are
indicated by when these gifts were given. They were given “when
he ascended up on high.” Christ told the apostles before his
death, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for
you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not
come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And
when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of
righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:7-8). The Comforter,
which is the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), would convict the world
of sin, righteousness and judgment and that was accomplished
only through revealing the truth to men (cf. John 16:13). The
Holy Spirit was sent only after Christ ascended up to heaven.
Christ told the apostles to wait in Jerusalem until they were
“endued with power from on high” (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4). After
he told them to wait, he ascended up into heaven (Luke 24:50-51;
Acts 1:9-10) just as Ephesians 4:8-10 says. Later, on the Day of
Pentecost, these gifts began to be given to men starting with
the apostles (Acts 2:1-3) and later upon those whom the apostles
laid their hands (Acts 8:18; 19:5-6). Those upon whom the
apostles laid their hands would be the “prophets,”
“evangelists,” etc., of Ephesians 4:11.
Second, there is an indication of when these gifts would cease.
Ephesians 4:13 says, “Till we 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 fulness of Christ.”
The phrase “the faith” is very important to consider because
when it contains the definite article (“the”) it usually refers
to the entire system of faith (i.e., the gospel) instead of
one’s own personal or subjective faith. For example the same
phrase is used by Paul in Galatians 1:23 where he stated, “But
they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past
now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.” Paul
was not referring to preaching his own personal faith, but
rather he preached the gospel which created one’s own personal
faith (Heb. 10:17). One more example is from Jude 3, “Beloved,
when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common
salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort
you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which
was once delivered unto the saints.” Bauer defines the
term “faith” when used with the definite article as, “That which
is believed, body of faith
or belief, doctrine . . . an
article of faith that was firm and unshakable . . . . So clearly
Jd 3” (664).” Thus, putting the pieces of the text together
indicates that the miraculous gifts given to men, after Jesus
ascended to heaven, were to continue “till we all come in
the unity of the faith” (i.e., the complete body of
doctrine, the gospel). The complete body of doctrine or “unity
of the faith” came when the New Testament was completely
revealed. That was done in the first century, and it is now the
twenty-first century. Furthermore, all of “the knowledge of the
Son of God” that will ever be learned in this life has been
revealed. Therefore, the gifts or miracles have ceased because
all that is needed to make the “man of God . . . perfect,
thoroughly furnished unto all good works” has been completely
revealed (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Spencer Strickland
Works Cited
Perschbacher, Wesley J., ed. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon.
Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996.
Prove All Things: The Age of Miracles has Ceased
(Part 1) (March 20, 2011)
The 4th in a Series of Biblical Proofs
In today’s
society, the term “miracle” has become an overused word of which
few people really know the meaning. When someone is rescued from
death or recovers from a near fatal accident, sometimes people
call the occurrence a “miracle.” Many speak of the “miracle” of
birth, but miracles, by definition, are
supernatural
occurrences while birth is one of most
natural occurrences in
life (much like death is a natural occurrence--Heb. 9:27).
When one wishes to understand miracles, the only place to
go to is the Bible since God is the one responsible for their
occurrences. Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that miracles
are not presently occurring. This article and the one to follow
will take a look at the reasons why miracles have ceased.
Miracles have ceased because their purposes have ceased.
Since there is so much confusion over the topic of miracles, it
would be best to first define the term. The word that is
normally used for “miracle” in the New Testament is the Greek
word semeion, and
Thayer defines the term as, “sign, mark, token . . . an unusual
occurrence, transcending the common course of nature” (qtd. in
Esword). In John 9, when Jesus heals a man born blind by
giving him sight, it causes great controversy. The Bible says at
one point, “Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is
not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said,
How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And
there was a division among them” (John 9:16). The action that
Jesus performed was not a common occurrence. In fact, in arguing
with the Pharisees, the man who received his sight told them,
“Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the
eyes of one that was born blind” (John 9:32). By contrast, no
one ever says, “Since the world began was it not heard that a
man escaped a fatal accident,” or “Since the world began was it
not heard that a baby was born.” These are common occurrences.
However, a blind man having his sight given to him by someone
making a paste out of clay and saliva and then telling him to go
wash in a pool is not a common occurrence (John 9:6-7).
The Bible plainly states that the purposes of miracles
were to reveal the word of God and to confirm it. Jesus
indicated one of the purposes of miracles when he addressed the
apostles shortly before his death.
He stated, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all
things, and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26). In John 16:13,
Jesus said, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of
himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and
he will shew you things to come.” To be able to recall all
things that a person has ever been taught would most certainly
fall under the category of a miracle since that is not a natural
occurrence. Furthermore, to be directly led by God in the
revealing of his complete will is also obviously a supernatural
occurrence. The apostles were guided into “all truth” and that
truth is the Word of God (John 17:17).
The second purpose of miracles is found in Mark 16:20 and Hebrews 2:3-4
where the purpose is to confirm the word. In Mark 16:20, the
Bible says of the apostles, “And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and
confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” The
apostles were sent out to preach the gospel, but in order for
those who heard them to know the message came from God, the
miracles accompanied the preaching to indicate the origin of the
message. Again, in Hebrews 2:3-4, the Bible says, “How shall we
escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first
began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us
by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness,
both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles,
and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?” It is
noted once again that the word was confirmed by miracles. The
word of God has been completely revealed, confirmed, and written
down for all generations. There is no need for miracles today
because there is no longer a need for further revelation or
confirming the word. The word of God is all-sufficient because
it is able to completely furnish man for every good work (2 Tim.
3:16-17). Therefore, since the
purposes of miracles have ceased it follows that the
miracles themselves
have ceased.
Miracles have ceased because the Old Testament predicted
they would cease.
It has been estimated that the Old Testament contains over three
hundred prophecies about the Christ. One of those prophecies
occurs in Zechariah 13. The text says, “In that day there shall
be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. And it
shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I
will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they
shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets
and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land” (Zech. 13:1-2).
“In that day” refers to the period of time when the Christ would
accomplish his redeeming work. The prophet made mention of the
age when the son would be pierced (Zech. 12:10) and a fountain
would be opened “for sin and uncleanness” (13:1). Therefore,
Zechariah, who wrote around 520 B.C., indicated that miracles
would begin to cease in connection with the death of Christ.
Notice what would begin to happen shortly after the death of
Christ, “I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to
pass out of the land.” “Prophets” were those who had been given
a message from God by direct revelation. Often, those messages
contained information concerning future events that the
individual could not know unless it came directly from God.
“Unclean spirits” refers to demon possession. There have been
times when people have been possessed by “unclean spirits” both
in the Old and New Testaments (cf. 1 Sam.16:14, 15, 23; 18:10; 1
Kings 19:20-23; Mark 5:1-20). However, demon possession does not
occur today nor has anyone been given a miraculous revelation
from God today. The prediction of the Old Testament came to pass
when the last prophets and apostles of the first century died.
Any who claimed to be a prophet after that time was worthy of
death since they were lying and tempting the Holy Spirit (Zech.
13:3; cf. Acts 5:1-11). Where does that leave so-called
“prophets” like Mohammed (the founder of Islam) and Joseph Smith
(the founder of the Mormons)?
Next time, attention will be given to what the New
Testament says concerning the end of the miraculous age.
Spencer Strickland
Work
Cited
Prove All
Things: Denominationalism is a Sin (March 13, 2011)
(The 3rd in a Series of Biblical Proofs)
One of the outstanding examples of men and women desiring
to “prove all things,” must surely be the example of the Bereans.
After Paul and Silas had preached the gospel in Thessalonica and
were forced to leave town by some unbelieving Jews (Acts
17:1-9), they came to the town of Berea (Acts 17:10). When Paul
and Silas began preaching in the synagogue, the text says of the
Bereans, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in
that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and
searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so”
(Acts 17:11). Today, it is just as necessary for people to
“search the scriptures” (cf. John 5:39) in order to “prove all
things” (1 Thess. 5:21). The design of this series of articles
has been to help the reader to do just that and so it is
continued with a look at denominationalism.
Denominationalism is a sin because it is division.
When looking up the terms “denominate” and “denomination” in a
dictionary, the definitions of these terms is quite revealing.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary online defines “denominate” as,
“to give a name to: designate.” The Cambridge Dictionary online
defines “denomination” as, “a
religious group which has slightly different beliefs from other
groups which share the same religion.” How
confusing! How can a “religious group” have “slightly different
beliefs” and still share “the same religion”? Biblically, it
cannot be done.
In writing the Corinthians, Paul said something that
speaks completely against the above definitions, “Now I beseech
you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions
among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together
in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor.
1:10). Paul’s inspired words leave no room for a man to “give a
name to” a church and call it Christianity. Paul’s inspired
words do not allow for “slightly different beliefs.” In fact,
the Corinthians were guilty of dividing up under various men
just as religious denominations are guilty of dividing up under
various men. Paul said of the Corinthians, “For it hath been
declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the
house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I
say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I
of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ”
(1 Cor. 1:11-12). The Corinthians had a bad case of “preacher-itis.”
In other words, some in Corinth were trying to align themselves
with their favorite preacher instead of being united under the
doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11). The difference in their
actions and the actions of denominations today is that they were
dividing in the same
church with same name, whereas today men go off and divide under
different names and different “churches.” If it was wrong for
men to be divided in the same church under different men in the first century, then
how much the more is it wrong to be divided in different
“churches” under different men today? When all is said and done,
“denominationalism” is a fancy word for “division” and thus it
is a sin.
Denominationalism is a sin because it defies Christ’s promise. In Matthew 16, after Peter made the confession
that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt.
16:16), Jesus said, “And I also say unto thee, that thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates
of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18 ASV). In
making the promise to build his church, Christ did not
say, “I will build my churches.” Christ did not say, “I
will build my denominations.” He simply said, “I will build my
church” (singular).
If one were to further examine the words of Jesus
from the original language, Jesus’ words become, one might say,
even clearer. In the original Greek, the text more literally has
Jesus saying, “I will build the church of me [mou
ten ekklesian]”. In saying, “I will build the church of me”
Jesus did not say, “I will build the church of the Baptists,” “I will build
the church of the Methodists,” “I will build the church of the
Pentecostals,” or even, “I will build the church of the
Christians.” None of these designations are scriptural. If the
name of a “church” does not appear in the scriptures, how can it
be scriptural? Paul, in writing to the church in Rome said, “All
the churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16:16 ASV). The church
in Rome was a congregation of the church of Christ and thus Paul
could say that all the other congregations of the church of
Christ were saluting them. Of course, it should be remembered
that just because a “church” has a biblical name it does not
mean it worships God biblically. For example, “church of God” is
a biblical name (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2), but, those who worship under
that name today, unfortunately, do not worship God in “spirit
and in truth” (John 4:24). Thus, denominationalism is a sin
because it defies Christ’s promise.
Denominationalism is a sin because it denies Christ’s prayer. As Jesus was nearing the point when he would
go to the cross to die for the sins of the world, one of the
things he prayed for was the unity of his church. After Jesus
prayed for the apostles in John 17:6-19 he then said, “Neither
pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on
me through their word; That they all may be one; as
thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that
they also may be one in us: that the world may believe
that thou hast sent me” (John 17:20-21). The standard of unity
that Jesus used in his prayer for the church was the unity that
existed between he and the Father. Did Jesus ever
say anything
differently than the Father? Did Jesus ever
do anything
differently than the Father would have him to do? Clearly he did
neither of those things (John 5:19; 8:38; 12:49-50). How is it
that people can call themselves “Christians” and yet those same
people say and do different things in worship? Is it not
abundantly clear that they cannot all be Christians? The only
ones that are Christians are those who have obeyed the gospel of
Christ (Rom. 10:16; 2 Thess. 1:7-8) and thus continue to abide
in the doctrine of Christ (John 8:31; 2 John 9-11).
Denominationalism is a sin because it completely dismisses and
denies the prayer of the Lord.
Spencer Strickland
Works
Cited
Prove All Things: Baptism is Essential for Salvation
(March 6, 2011)
(The 2nd in a series of Biblical Proofs)
In this series of articles, emphasis has been given to the
Bible’s command to “prove all things” (1 Thess. 5:21). The most
fundamental area in which one must prove all things is most
certainly in the area of one’s salvation. Many people have
taught and continue to teach a “plan of salvation” completely
foreign to the Scriptures. In so doing, they suggest that water
baptism is not essential for salvation when the Bible plainly
says otherwise. Consider the following questions in relationship
to this issue:
If baptism is not essential for salvation, then how can one be saved
from sin? Sometimes a person may run into an acquaintance or
someone he or she might work with and have them declare, “I got
saved yesterday.” After asking the person of the particulars of
this “getting saved” what usually follows is some account of the
person praying a prayer to invite Jesus into one’s heart as a
personal savior. A legitimate question for someone who advocates
this idea is: Where in all of the Bible did anyone EVER do that
in order to be saved? Upon examination of the Scriptures it is
clear that no one ever “prayed their way” into salvation.
When Peter stood up with the other
apostles on the Day of Pentecost and preached the gospel to the
lost, upon hearing of their lost condition the Bible says of
those folks, “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in
their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the
apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37).
According to the doctrine espoused by many denominations,
Peter’s response should have been:
Say this
little prayer . . . O God, I acknowledge that I have sinned
against You. I am sorry for my sins. I am willing to turn from
my sins. I openly receive and acknowledge Jesus Christ as my
Savior. I confess Him as Lord. From this moment on I want to
live for Him and serve Him. In Jesus’ name. Amen. (Graham 169)
If
praying the above words is what one is to do to be saved from
sin, then the occasion described in Acts 2:37 was most certainly
the time to say it. Was this Peter’s response? Not at all. Peter
said, “Repent and be baptized. . . .” Why? “For the remission of
sins” (Acts 2:38). Remission or forgiveness of sins is based
upon the conditions that an individual repents and is baptized.
Some have suggested that Peter is actually saying that they were
to repent and be baptized because they had the remission of sins. However, this
argument easily collapses under scrutiny. The phrase, “for the
remission of sins” also appears in Matthew 26:28, where Jesus in
instituting the Lord’s Supper stated, “For this is my blood of
the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins.” Notice that Jesus was going to shed his blood “for the
remission of sins” just as the Jews in Acts 2:38 were told to
repent and be baptized “for the remission of sins.” Did Jesus
shed his blood at Calvary because men already
had the remission of
sins? The answer is a resounding no (1 Cor. 15:3). Thus, Jesus
shed his blood for the remission of sins
and those who would be
saved must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. The
phrases “for the remission of sins” in Matthew 26:28 and Acts
2:38 are practically identical in the Greek New Testament.
If baptism is
not essential for salvation, why was there such an urgency to be
baptized?
When one considers the ten instances of conversion recorded in
the book of Acts, it is interesting to see how that baptism was
immediate. In other words, men and women did not delay being
baptized, but rather they were baptized as soon as they
understood the message of salvation. Consider what happened on
the Day of Pentecost after the Jews understood what they were to
do, “And with many other words did he testify and exhort,
saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they
that gladly received his word were baptized: and the
same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls”
(Acts 2:40-41). When Peter told those folks, “Save yourselves
from this untoward generation” they did not put off being
baptized. The text says the
same day there were
added unto them three thousand souls.
If one
considers the conversion of the Philippian jailor in Acts 16,
one finds another instance of the urgency to be baptized. When
the jailor asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be
saved?” (Acts 16:30), Paul and Silas’ response was, “Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house”
(Acts 16:31). Since the Philippian jailor was a Gentile
and did not have the background knowledge
of the Old Testament as the Jews of Acts 2, he first had to
believe in the God of the Bible and thus believe on his son
Jesus Christ. Paul described the process in Romans 10:13-14,
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not
believed? and how shall
they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how
shall they hear without a preacher?” The Philippian jailor had
not “heard of the Christ” at least in the sense that he had not
heard the saving Gospel message. That is why after Paul and
Silas told him to believe that they taught him
what to believe, “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and
to all that were in his house” (Acts 16:32). Upon hearing the
message, the jailor repented and was baptized as indicated by
the next verse, “And he took them the
same hour of the night,
and washed their stripes [showing repentance (cf. v. 23)]; and
was baptized, he and all his, straightway” (Acts 16:33). Notice
that the washing of the stripes of Paul and Silas by the jailor
and his baptism occurred “the same hour of the night.” Surely it
would have been more convenient to wait till the morning to be
baptized, and if baptism was not essential for salvation why was
there such an urgency? It is interesting to note what the text
says in the next verse, “And he brought them up into his house,
and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his
house, having believed in
God” (Acts 16:34 ASV). At the outset of this record, Paul
and Silas told the jailor that he had to believe in order to be
saved (Acts 16:31). However, the Bible does not say that the
jailor and his household had believed until
after they had
repented and were baptized. This instance shows that biblical
belief means obedience. One cannot truly say he or she believes
in God if they do not obey him (James 2:19-24). Therefore,
again, it is clear that baptism is essential for salvation as
demonstrated by the need to be baptized
immediately once one
hears and understands the saving Gospel message (Acts 22:16).
If
baptism is not essential for salvation, why did Jesus and the
apostles say it was?
The aforementioned questions and answers have demonstrated that
baptism is essential for salvation given that one cannot have
the forgiveness of sins without baptism and that baptism is to
be done immediately upon understanding one is lost without
forgiveness of sins. However, what is perhaps the most puzzling
of all is how some folks will make the statement, “A person does
not have to be baptized in order to be saved” when Jesus and the
apostles said the very opposite. Jesus said, “He that believeth
and is baptized shall be
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark
16:16). The salvation of a person’s soul begins with belief and
ends with baptism just as was seen in the instance of the
Philippian jailor. In other words, there is a process that must
take place in order for a person to be saved. One must first
believe that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 8:37; 16:30); Confess
this belief (Romans 10:9-10); Repent of sins (Acts 2:38; 17:30)
and then be baptized (Acts 2:38; 16:33). Some call attention to
the last part of Mark 16:16 where Jesus said, “He that believeth
not shall be damned.” Some might say that this part of the verse
indicates one only
must believe in order to be saved. To argue this way only
contradicts the first part of the verse. The point is that in
order to be condemned there is
no process (“he that
believeth not shall be damned”). If a person does not believe
they have done nothing
in order to prepare themselves for eternity. However, in order
to be saved, one must undergo the process (“he that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved”).
Finally, the words of the apostles plainly state that baptism is
essential for salvation. Can it get any clearer than, “The like
figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer
of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ” (1 Peter 3:21)? Surely one must have help to
misunderstand what the apostle Peter is saying.
Spencer Strickland
Works
Cited
Graham,
Billy. How to be Born Again. Waco: Word, 1977.
Prove All Things: Instrumental Music in the Church’s Worship is a Sin (Feb. 27, 2011)
The first in a Series of Biblical Proofs
In the last article, the
Bible’s instruction to “prove all things” was considered (1
Thess. 5:21a). Also, it was concluded that if something cannot
be proven right from God’s Word, then it is not right. The
statement, “Instrumental music in the church’s worship is a
sin,” is a bold statement to make, but can it be proven correct?
If so, then those who would be faithful to God in order to
receive the crown of life (Rev. 2:10) must reject it without
reservation. Consider the following facts:
Instrumental music in
worship was commanded in the Old Testament. Some have
suggested that the idea of whether churches should use
instrumental music in worship is merely a matter of judgment and
opinion. In other words, it is neither right nor wrong. However,
God has an “opinion” on the matter and his directives indicate
otherwise. When the good king Hezekiah went about to restore
proper worship in Judah, after his wicked father king Ahaz had
destroyed the worship (2 Chronicles 28:24-25), he did so by
first repairing the temple (2 Chron. 29:3). He then directed the
priests to cleanse both themselves and temple of the Lord (2
Chron. 29:4-5). Once they did that (2 Chron. 29:12-19), sin
offerings on the behalf of all Israel could then be made (2
Chron. 29:20-24). The next verse is very important to consider,
“And he set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals,
with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of
David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet:
for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets” (2
Chron. 29:25). Again, folks in denominations often suggest that
instrumental music in the worship of the church can be used but
it does not have to be used. The same folks must go to the Old
Testament to argue for instrumental music in worship, but the
Old Testament does not allow one to “straddle the fence.” If one
is to argue for instrumental music in worship from the Old
Testament then it MUST be used because it was commanded by the
Lord. However, one must ask: Under what circumstances was
instrumental music commanded? It was commanded (1)
in the temple or the
“house of the Lord” (2 Chron. 29:25); (2)
with Levites playing
the instruments, “And he set the Levites in house of the
Lord with cymbals, with psaltries, and with harps” (2 Chron.
29:25); and in connection
with animal sacrifices; “And Hezekiah commanded to offer the
burnt offering upon the altar. And when the burnt offering
began, the song of the Lord began also with the trumpets,
and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel” (2
Chron. 29:27). Thus, if denominations are going to argue for the
use of instrumental music in worship then where is their newly
erected temple? Where are their Levites to play those
instruments? Where are their animal sacrifices? Such is not
Christianity but Judaism!
Instrumental music was
never used in the New Testament church’s worship. It is
obvious from the aforementioned verses that instrumental music
in the church’s worship cannot be successfully established from
the Old Testament. The church is a spiritual house made up of
“living stones” (1 Peter 2:5). Every member of the church is a
priest, and does not need the Levitical priesthood to offer
animal sacrifices on the behalf of them (1 Peter 2:5, 9). Only
the sacrifice of Christ as our high priest (Heb. 3:1) was
sufficient to take away sins (Heb. 8:22-28; Heb. 10:4). Thus, if
one is to argue for one part of the Old Testament Law to justify
something (e.g. instrumental music in worship) one must argue
for all of the Law. What happens when one tries to justify
themselves by the Law?
“Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you
are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4).
Whenever one finds singing occurring in the New Testament
church, a mechanical instrument is never used. Jesus promised
Peter, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18), thus the church
had not been built in the Old Testament. The first time the
church is spoken of as being established on the earth is in Acts
2:47, “And the Lord added to the church daily those who were
being saved” (NKJV). There are twelve passages in the New
Testament that refer to singing but only five of them refer to
singing done in the church (Acts 16:25; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19;
Col. 3:16; James 5:13). The other passages are either prophecies
of Christ brought over from the Old Testament and have no
bearing on the church’s worship (Rom. 15:9; Heb. 2:12—notice
even here no instrument); refer to Jesus and his disciples
worshipping before the establishment of the church in Acts 2
(Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26—notice even here no mention of an
instrument); or occur in the highly symbolic book of Revelation
where the singing did not take place in the church but in heaven
(Rev. 5:8-9; 14:8-9; 15:2-3). Some contend that since the
passages in Revelation mention “harps” that although it occurs
in heaven the church should mimic that worship. However, are
these literal harps? Since “flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50) will those things created
by flesh and blood (i.e., harps) literally be in heaven? Hardly!
Since the Bible does not authorize the use of instrumental music
in the church’s worship it is a sin. To add to or take away from
God’s word always has and always will mean condemnation of one’s
soul (Deut. 4:6; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19). Instrumental music
in the church’s worship is an addition to God’s Word.
History demonstrates that
instrumental music was believed to be sinful in the church’s
worship. The first record that history gives of instruments
being used in any kind of “church” is at least 600 years after
Christ built his church and even then it is questionable.
Consider the following statement that comes directly from The
Catholic Encyclopedia:
In the early
centuries the objection of the Church to instrumental music
applied also to the organ, which is not surprising, if we
remember the association of the hydraulus with theatre and
circus. According to Platina ("De vitis Pontificum", Cologne,
1593), Pope Vitalian (657-72) introduced the organ into the
church service. This, however, is very doubtful. At all events,
a strong objection to the organ in church service remained
pretty general down to the twelfth century, which may be
accounted for partly by the imperfection of tone in organs of
that time. But from the twelfth century on, the organ became the
privileged church instrument, the majesty and unimpassioned
character of its tone making it a particularly suitable means
for adding solemnity to Divine worship. (Bewerunge)
If
instrumental music in the church’s worship was right, why did it
take so long for it to be accepted in
any “church”? Folks in denominations may be surprised to learn what
many prominent men in their denominations have said concerning
instruments in worship. John Wesley, who was the founder of the
Methodist Church, is quoted in Adam Clarke’s commentary in his
comments on Amos 6:5 as saying, “I have no objection to
instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither
Heard nor Seen” (E-Sword,). Charles Spurgeon, regarded by
some as one of the greatest of all Baptist preachers, said,
“What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the
whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartette,
the refined niceties of a choir, or the blowing off of wind from
inanimate bellows and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery
as praise by it” (272). Space does not afford the quotations of
others regarded as prominent religious leaders such as Martin
Luther (after whom the Lutheran church is named) and John Calvin
who also condemned instrumental music in worship.
Spencer Strickland
Works Cited:
Bewerunge.
H. “Organ.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York:
Robert Appleton, 1911. New Advent. 18 Jan. 2007.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11297a.htm>.
E-Sword. Vers. 7.7.7.
Oct. 2005 <http://www.e-sword.net>.