tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31981253945508014512024-03-08T02:29:46.625-08:00Prove All Things - 1 Thess.5:21The grace of God teaches us (Titus 2:11f) among other things to "test all things" and prove what is acceptable to the Lord. We must come into His grace and abide in His grace by abiding in the word of his grace.Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-59255373985232236502013-08-12T05:46:00.000-07:002013-08-12T05:46:17.327-07:00An Exegesis of Romans 14
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">An Exegesis of Romans 14<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">1.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Receive one who is weak in the faith, but
not to disputes over doubtful things. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[Receiving one who is weak in the faith is welcoming one who
has not yet grown strong enough in his new-found liberty in Christ to feel free
to eat all things. His Jewish upbringing, for example, had trained his
conscience to avoid certain meats. For example, even after 8-10 years of being
a Christian, Peter did not understand that the old-law diet restrictions had
been changed. He could not “kill and eat” as the Lord instructed him in Acts 10
because his conscience had not yet understood that God had cleansed those unclean
animals and now he was at liberty to kill and eat animals that his conscience
had been trained to think of as unclean for a Jew all of his life. His
conscience was “weak in the faith”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Each time a Jew was converted to Christ there was an
adjustment period for his conscience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Until he can grow accustomed to the new liberties, it was not time to
force him to violate his conscience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We
are to receive him, but not get into disputes with him over things about which
his conscience needs time to adjust to the new liberties. The stronger
Christians are not to force his conscience. We are free to gently teach him the
truth and encourage him to expand his conscience into full liberty, but do not
belittle and antagonize him into doing a thing he does not have to do to please
God and that before and without his conscience being fully assured and ready to
participate in eating a particular formerly unclean food item. The Amplified
Bible speaks this way:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">14:1 AS FOR the man
who is a weak believer, welcome him [into your fellowship], but not to
criticize his opinions or pass judgment on his scruples or perplex him with
discussions. </i>AMP<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Paul is not speaking of being weak in believing the gospel,
but weak in believing in the extent to which he can adjust his conscience to
the liberty in Christ. This section is about how to apply love to brethren who
struggle with the adjustment of his conscience to the liberty in Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We welcome into our fellowship the newborn
babes that do not know what the conscience can allow and should allow. We do
not welcome the weak brother with a view to antagonizing them and discouraging
them before their conscience has time to grow into the liberty in Christ. The
conscience has got to be handled carefully and gently and patiently brought along
as a babe is not expected to be able to do what mature people are able to do.
Paul will now discuss the particular issues he has in mind.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">2 For one believes he
may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who
eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him
who eats; for God has received him.</i> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[There is a right position and a wrong position here, but
there is not a position here that immediately involves one in SIN. The one who
believes he may eat all things is actually correct. But, the person who has a
problem eating certain foods is not trying to bind that view on others and
therefore is not trying to restrict another’s conscience or teach others the
doctrines and commandments of men. The more knowledgeable brother (the one with
the correct view that we may eat all things) does not need to “despise” a
brother for being ignorant on this point and for having a conscience issue on
what he feels he can eat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He may have
served God and trained his conscience under the old system where certain meats
were restricted. His conscience had been trained to please God this way and now
those restrictions no longer apply. Even if a newborn babe in Christ can
intellectually absorb that for others in Christ, it does not mean his
conscience is emotionally ready to switch into that gear and go that way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">So, if we know the principle of love and we know this is not
an issue of sin, we should know that despising this brother or sister is really
the last thing they need from us right now. They are not to be judging the
eater, because the eater is not sinning by eating. Thus, the non-eater is not
to judge the eater as doing wrong. This also means that the non-eater is not
binding his conscience on another or trying to teach the doctrines of men and
bind them upon others. Thus, both sides of this issue are not engaging a sin
issue whether they eat all things or if they hold a conscience that does not
allow one to eat all things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Freedom to
eat all things does not necessitate that we eat all things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If a conscience is not ready to give itself
the freedom, but does not impose his conscience on others, there should be no
problem in allowing each to live with their differences within freedom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If he was “baptized into Christ”(Rom.6:3-5),
the master (Jesus) has been able to make him stand right with God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which brings us to Paul’s next point.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">4 Who are you to judge
another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be
made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[Our brethren are not our servants or slaves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They do not have to please us in every way.
They do not have to immediately bow to our consciences just because it is our
conscience and we know the truth on the matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Each brother has to bring his conscience into conformity with what he
has learned and is assured is God’s will. God made Peter to stand even when his
conscience did not feel that he could eat the things God let down in a
sheet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He thought some of those animals
were “unclean”(Acts 10). His knowledge was wrong and therefore his conscience
was wrong, but God was “able to make him stand”. Was Peter in such error as to
be out of fellowship with God? No!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When
he learned better, he could bring his conscience into a fuller level of
liberty, but until then, each must be allowed to grow and expand their
knowledge and the liberty of their conscience in time. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">We cannot judge every servant of another man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We would have to know exactly what that
servant’s master thinks of that servant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>When we learn what our master expects of us, we adjust our conscience
and behavior accordingly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We simply do
not know what we do not know and will have to rely upon the master to correct
us and to believe that he will do so when He deems that time to be right. Peter
was corrected on the matter of meats by his own master.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the Lord had no problem with Peter for 8
years remaining ignorant about this issue, a matter involving no sin against
his master, then another servant had no business judging Peter and declaring
him to not be right with God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To his own
master he stood. A newborn babe is made to stand right with God and he cannot
go against his present understanding of what God is pleased for him to do and
refrain from doing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His conscience must
be developed as he learns from the Master.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">5 One person esteems
one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully
convinced in his own mind. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[Here is a principle of spiritual development. We cannot
move into an activity that we are not first “fully convinced” is right. We must
not be reckless. We must be careful. There is a right and wrong about this
issue, but there is not necessarily a SIN involved in the wrong position.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Esteeming a day, like the Jews who kept the
Sabbath Day holy (the seventh day, our Saturday) may not now be the right
position, but it may not involve the newly converted Jew in SIN either. Before
the newly converted Jew throws it to the wind, he needs to first be “fully
convinced” that he can safely do that before his God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each conscience is to be carefully trained
and that means we should patiently allow each person’s conscience to be
adjusted according to the rate of growth in their understanding, knowledge, and
conviction.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">6 He who observes the
day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord
he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks;
and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[This is not said where ignorance is used to judge others.
If a newborn babe tries to bind the Sabbath on others, the others need to speak
up and defend their liberty in Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If the newborn babe is trying to bind dietary laws from Leviticus on the
Christians, they must speak up and not allow such to be bound. But, where an
individual is not binding on others but is simply not sure they can give
themselves the liberty that others are engaging, then the charitable thing to
do is to allow them the room to develop their own personal conscience since God
is the one they are seeking to honor and God has allowed them to stand without
perfect knowledge.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">But, let us notice the difference between Paul encouraging
patience and love in the case of individual conscience and the very different
case in Galatians where he is “afraid” for those Galatians who “observe days”(Gal.4:10f).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The difference in the approach in the two
cases is that of personal conscience versus the binding of the law upon others
for their right standing before God. To brethren who have not tried to teach
the false doctrine that we must observe days in order to be right with God, but
who merely have a hard time moving their conscience into the full liberty of
Christ, Paul urges that we receive them and treat them with love and care for
their consciences. But, when brethren begin teaching others the error that God
requires the observance of days and of clean and unclean meats, then this is a
time to be greatly concerned. It perverts the gospel and endangers the souls of
all. We cannot coddle such people. It is no longer an individual conscience
matter. It is now a perversion of what is to be taught to others in training
THEIR consciences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The wrong standard
cannot be passed along to others.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">7 For none of us lives
to himself, and no one dies to himself.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[None of us Christians are living to ourselves. We are
living to God, and for the good of others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We also have to live with the consequences of making those around us
miserable. We live and die to God and for the purpose of getting our own
conscience in order. That will involve us in the work of loving our neighbor as
ourselves. This means that we cannot force our will and conscience upon others.
We can tenderly and patiently teach them as they allow us, but we cannot force
a growth rate upon them that their conscience is not ready to handle. We live
and die among people, and we must be sure we love them and are handling their
conscience needs as we would like to be handled. Remember the golden rule of “do
unto others as you would have them do unto you”.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if
we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord
of both the dead and the living. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[We Christians “live to the Lord” and we “die to the Lord”.
This means that we know that life and death is in the Lord’s hands, and we live
and die to please the Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If this is
truly what we are about, then how can we force people to act against their
conscience?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Lord holds authority
over all, and we are to try to teach what the Lord wants and wills for us, but
each Christian must live to the Lord to the level of knowledge he/she has
acquired and to the extent that their conscience has been properly trained. We
are the Lord’s. We belong to Him. Our actions toward one another should reflect
that consciousness.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">10 But why do you
judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall
all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>11 For it is written:<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">"As I live, says
the LORD,<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Every knee shall bow
to Me,<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">And every tongue shall
confess to God."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">12 So then each of us
shall give account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another
anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to
fall in our brother's way. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[Judging our brother is condemning him/her for not acting
according to our conscience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Showing
contempt for a brother shows a problem with our own maturity in Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are times to show righteous
indignation, but it is not because a person whom we know has been baptized into
Christ has not grown to our level of liberty in conscience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If a person is simply hesitant to do
something, such as eat a particular meat because his conscience does not feel
right about it, it is not a situation that calls for condemnation and
contempt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We will give account to God
for how we treat those with a weaker conscience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If a brother is confessing Jesus but does not
feel free to engage a particular liberty yet, we must be careful that we do not
put a stumbling block in the way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When a
person acts contrary to what they are convinced is right, they are not acting
by faith and they are doing damage to their conscience.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Giving account of ourselves will involve how we treated a
brother.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus said “inasmuch as you did
it to one of the least of these my brethren you did it to me”(Matt.25:33ff).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A brother that is doing his best to
understand and do the will of God is precious in the eyes of God. In a matter
of liberty where it is not required that all conform to the common things
performed together in the assembly, there is room to let the individual
conscience develop at the pace that each can handle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In some things there is no hurry and there is
no need to press a brother into an action in which his conscience is not yet ready.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A person must first be fully convinced in his
own mind that it is right with God before he acts. Paul will now state the
truth of the issue at hand.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">14, I know and am
convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him
who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[Paul is making the point that his knowing and being
convinced that he can eat all things and that there is nothing unclean of
itself does not necessarily translate into a brother knowing and being
convinced of the same. When a person “tests all things” and come to knowledge
and conviction, then they can adjust their conscience accordingly. Until then,
there has to be respect for a man struggling to do the right thing but needing
some space to retrain his conscience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The food that Paul feels free to eat is still food that a brother feels
is unclean.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What does Paul think God
wants him to do toward this brother?]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">15 Yet if your brother
is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not
destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[The “grieving” here is not so much because you feel that
you have the liberty to eat this particular food, but that you knew he was
having a problem with this issue and yet you decided to serve it to him anyway.
You cannot destroy with food unless you served it to them against their
conscience. You cannot destroy a brother by eating your food away from him. It
is only possible to destroy a brother with your food if you serve it to him and
expect him to eat it against his conscience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Vincent’s NT Word Studies says of this word, “grieved”:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a "hurt" to conscience,
which, while not necessarily fatal, may lead to violation or hardening of
conscience, and finally to fall. Compare 1 Cor. 8:9-12.-Unquote!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">We do not hurt his conscience by our own private eating. We
hurt his conscience when we bring pressure for him to go against his own
conscience. We do that by serving food to him that he feels is unclean. Now, he
is in the dilemma of feeling he must either insult his host by not eating what
is served, or go ahead and eat what he feels is unclean. We did not give him
another option, and our good (showing hospitality) can now be spoken of as
evil.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">16 Therefore do not
let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and
drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who
serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[The kingdom of God is about “serving Christ” the King of
all kings, and His kingdom is “not of this world”(John 18:26). It has a primary
mission of promoting righteousness, peace, and joy “in the Holy Spirit”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When food becomes more important than those
things, we have quit serving Christ and have begun again to serve our own
desires and appetites.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When you pressure
a man to do what he is not convinced himself is right, your good in the kingdom
can be spoken of as evil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You have
forgotten that the kingdom of God is about doing the right thing, peace among
ourselves and within ourselves, and it is about joy in Christ, not making a
brother or sister miserable. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let us keep
in mind that eating all things is not a matter of righteousness, though it is a
correct position to hold.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let us also
keep in mind that a brother may be wrong about whether a certain food is
unclean, but he is not sinning by refraining from eating such, and he is right
to protect his conscience until he can educate it and then adjust it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">By judging, ridiculing, and despising a weaker conscience
and trying to belittle them and pressure them into conformity with our own
practice, we are not promoting righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy
Spirit. Remember, we are not being forced against our own conscience to be
compassionate and understanding toward the weaker conscience. We are not compromising
the truth of the gospel by allowing a soul to grow into the knowledge of the
new freedoms in Christ. We are not allowing a false teacher to force the
traditions of men upon the church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We
are merely allowing a conscience room to grow and be at peace while doing so.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">19 Therefore let us
pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify
another. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[Since the kingdom of God is about righteousness, and this
issue is not a matter of moral right or wrong, and since the kingdom of God is
about peace within ourselves and among ourselves, then here is a good way to
handle a difference between us. We want peace and edification between us.
Pursue the things that make for peace. One of the things we can do is to be
careful not to force a brother to violate his conscience. Give him room to
grow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As edification and learning takes
root, he may in time learn that he can indeed consider that there are no foods
that God characterizes as unclean in the kingdom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, as long as he thinks he should refrain
from some foods, then don’t tempt him to harm his own conscience.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">20 Do not destroy the
work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil
for the man who eats with offense. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[The man with a weaker conscience is still “the work of God”.
He is “created in Christ Jesus for good works”. He has much potential. We all
grow and develop our consciences. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let
others grow their consciences in matters that you know are liberties, not moral
or congregational essentials. When a man eats “with offense”, he is eating
while his conscience hurts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We cause a
man to stumble when we pressure a man to violate his conscious conviction
before he has had time to study, come to new conviction and thus retrain his
conscience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not be the reason a man “eats
with offense” for such may send him to disillusionment and then to a
destruction of his faith in Jesus and His people. For the sake of optional
food, would we take such a careless approach to someone that God has “created
in Christ Jesus for good works”?]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">21 It is good neither
to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is
offended or is made weak.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[Your brother can stumble, be offended, or be made weak and
be destroyed, thus he can fall from grace. If we pressure a brother to go
against his conscience, we can do damage of an eternal nature. It would be far
better to abstain from the meat or wine or anything that can influence another
in the wrong way. Perhaps they think you are not taking sin seriously and so
neither should they. We can refrain from some liberties if it will encourage
people to take sin seriously.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">22 Do you have faith?
Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in
what he approves. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[If we have faith that no meats are unclean, that is good to
have to yourself. But, when you are involving others and bearing an influence
upon others, be careful that you are not condemning yourself by being careless
about how you are affecting people around you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is not all about your rights. It is also about your influence on
others.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">23 But he who doubts
is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is
not from faith is sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>NKJV<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[If a person has doubts about whether it is right before God
to eat certain meats, he is acting sinfully if he eats. There is an important
principle here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we cannot prove
something is right to our own conscience by the word of God we cannot act until
we remove the doubt and have confidence that it is right. Silence is not
permission. Silence creates doubt. If we cannot be sure that something is
right, we cannot do it by faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faith
comes by hearing the word of God (Rom.10:17).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>God’s word is the corrector of the conscience. Until our conscience has
removed the doubt by the assurance of God’s word, then we cannot act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whatever is not of faith is sin.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Now a word about the misuse of this text and context. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Be careful of brethren who try to conveniently
throw every issue into a Romans 14 matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Every issue was not handled the same way as instructed here. For example
the same issues are handled differently in Galatians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Every issue is not the same as a liberty. The
man who had his father’s wife at Corinth (1 Cor.5) was not to be coddled as you
patiently wait for his conscience to learn better.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some things are actually sinful, not
liberties. They must be handled with urgency. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Some issues are divisive and a brother needs to be marked
and avoided (Rom.16:17). So, even in Romans we can see that all issues are not
to be handled the same way. We must be careful to weigh each issue on the
merits of the issue and whether sin is clearly involved, or if it is a matter
of individual liberty and conscience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">There may be some principles that we can use to deal with
issues like the covering of 1 Corinthians 11, but we must exercise great
caution and care before we use Romans 14 as a cure-all for all divisions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are times when we must take a stand on
the merits of the issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One thing that we
must keep in mind is that Romans 14 is about liberties that are not matters of
sin. Neither side of the issue is sinning in practice though attitudes can
become sinful and careless. Colossians 2 also warns about allowing someone to
bind the doctrines of men upon the church. We cannot allow ourselves to become
tolerant of anything and everything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Personal conscience is to be handled with care and love. Let us
determine to study each issue out with care and love and without compromise of
the truth. – <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></i></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-5593354793668583142013-06-10T06:15:00.001-07:002013-06-10T06:15:24.146-07:00Are Business Meetings Scriptural?Are Business Meetings Scriptural?<br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />Answer: They are as scriptural as song-books, church buildings, Bible<br /><a href="http://www.stitcherymall.com/pipermail/biblemat/2004-December/000766.html#" id="_GPLITA_0" in_hdr="" in_rurl="http://i.trkjmp.com/click?v=VVM6MjkzNTE6MTEyNTpjbGFzc2VzOjA5NzQ2MDJkYjJhMmVmOWFlNGY2ZmFjYTczMmZmNmVmOnotMTA2My0xNDI2ODI6d3d3LnN0aXRjaGVyeW1hbGwuY29tOjUyNzA4OjVlNTY5ZTdmYTEyNjg2MTQ2OGY2YjE0NjI3NWUzNzVj" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="Click to Continue > by Browse to Save">classes</a> for all ages. Are those things scriptural? Yes! But, you will not<br />find specific examples of any of these in the Bible. A recent Bible class<br />question discussed whether there is any “example” of a church having men’s<br />business meetings. The implication was that it was questionable if there<br />was no biblical “example” of it. However, I believe the reasoning is<br />flawed. Here are my thoughts on why I believe a men’s business meeting is a<br />scriptural expediency.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> First, let me say that an “example” is not all the necessary<br />criteria to determine whether a thing is scripturally authorized. The<br />premise that an “example” must show such a thing is faulty logic. There is<br />no example of communion trays, song books, black boards,<br />church-owned-property, or banks to hold and keep the church treasury. There<br />are no “examples” of churches dividing into classes. However, all of these<br />things are scriptural expediencies. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> Secondly, the relevent questions have to be asked in order to<br />arrive at the proper answer to our question. 1) Is it scriptural for<br />churches to have matters of business to attend to? 2) If not, then no one<br />(including elders and deacons) should meet at any time to discuss any<br />matters of business belonging to the church. 3) If it is scriptural for<br />churches to have matters of business to attend to, then expedient<br />arrangements should be made to attend to those matters (with or without<br />elders and deacons). Business can include discussion of maintenance and<br />upkeep concerns of facilities, class needs, materials, teaching arrangement<br />needs, considerations for growth efforts, information exchanges on budget,<br />and fallen members. These are business concerns of the church, and they<br />must be expediently addressed with or without elders and deacons.<br />Therefore, a men’s business meeting is a scriptural expediency for handling<br />the business needs of the church.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> Thirdly, a local church is fully authorized to make any kind of<br />expedient arrangements for any temporal needs. For example, the church in<br />Judea had a need to administer to the needy Grecian widows (Acts 6). They<br />were instructed to choose seven men to see after this need. Thus, when the<br />situation calls for special arrangements, the church can make special<br />arrangements for special situational needs. The church at Corinth was<br />rebuked for not making arrangements to “judge” a case between two brethren<br />instead of letting the disagreement go before the courts of unbelievers (1<br />Cor.6). There should have been at least one righteous man they could have<br />arranged to judge the case inside the church. Thus, the church can arrange<br />for holding its’ own court with men in leading judgment roles (1 Cor.6;<br />11:3; 14:33f). If you were to ask for a specific “example” of a church<br />arranging its own court, we could not give an “example”. But, if you ask if<br />it is “scripturally EXPEDIENT” for churches to hold their own courts when<br />needed, we would find such authority in 1 Cor.6. A men’s business meeting<br />does not take the place of anything. It does not abuse anything. It simply<br />arranges to carry out expedient ways to tending to the necessary business<br />that churches have with or without elders. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> The men’s business meeting is simply representative heads of<br />households (1 Cor.11:3) meeting to discuss and decide expedient matters that<br />need to be handled. It does not replace the need for elders, nor the role<br />and work of elders. But, if it is expedient for churches WITH elders to<br />meet to discuss the business of the church, then it is certainly expedient<br />for churches WITHOUT elders to make arrangements to see to the business of<br />the church. There is no specific authority for elders and deacons to hold a<br />“business meeting”. There are no “examples” of it. Likewise, there is no<br />specific authority for churches to arrange for classes. But, there is<br />general authority, and there is general authority for heads of households to<br />meet to discuss the business of the church.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />Terry W. Benton<br /><br /><a href="http://www.biblematters.com/mailman/listinfo/biblemat"></a>Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-80789123138032245572013-04-23T19:02:00.002-07:002013-04-23T19:02:37.340-07:00Mistaken Perception<span><span><span>Mistaken Perception</span></span></span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span><span>When Jesus used righteous indignation to clean out the temple and presented anger at what the Jews had made of His “Father’s house” (John 2), <span> </span>some people think He should have never gotten angry and especially shouldn’t have <span> </span>expressed such anger in public, and that John should not have used a public media to circulate this behavior in public. But, that is a perception that is quite mistaken.<span> </span>There are appropriate times to deal firmly and with anger even in public.<span> </span>“Be angry and sin not” (Eph.4:28) shows that not all anger is sinful of itself. Sometimes it is wrong NOT to get angry. </span></span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span><span>When Paul wrote his rebuking letter to the church at Corinth, and he had good reason to rebuke them and call them spiritual babes, there are some today who seem to think that such behavior in Christians is out of place and should not be aired publicly.<span> </span>He wrote because he loved their souls and hoped that they would take the rebuke in the right manner.<span> </span>Some perceive that it is never appropriate to write on publicly accessible media things that expose error that otherwise have a free reign in that media.<span> </span>Some think that such a letter as Paul wrote to Corinth and Galatia should be handled only in private.<span> </span>God guided Paul to write these letters and approved the passion of Paul’s rebuke.<span> </span>God also approved of Paul’s open rebuke of Peter.<span> </span>Perception that such should never be done publicly is not correct, else Paul should have only dealt privately with Peter and Barnabas and should not have written about it.<span> </span>See Galatians 2. Some would perceive that to be poor behavior and very “unloving”, while the truth is that Jesus and Paul’s actions were displays of real love.<span> </span></span></span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span><span>Sometimes perception is very mistaken.<span> </span>Looking at the externals of these events is not pleasant, and sometimes we get mistakenly angry at people who express anger for ANY reason including those who really have justifiable reason to rebuke firmly and publicly.<span> </span>All anger and all words of rebuke and correction are not wrong.<span> </span>There are times when it is right and calculated.<span> </span>As Paul wrote the rebuking words of the first letter to the Corinthians he was aware that they could be childish and choose to take it in the wrong way.<span> </span>God was not embarrassed about making this case public. Paul was not mean, and he was not being a bully, and he was very concerned with how some might chose to perceive of this letter. But, he was right.<span> </span>He was glad that they chose to take his words in the right way and with godly sorrow chose the way of correction and repentance. See 2 Corinthians 7.</span></span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span><span>We live in a time of a very misinformed culture and many very misinformed churches filled with people who are not truly yoked to Jesus and thereby learning from Him, else they would have their senses exercised to discern the place for the firmer side of love that possesses and expresses righteous indignation at sin and hardened hearts.<span> </span>There are times to be sensitive and gentle and compassionate, and there are proper times to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather EXPOSE them”(Eph.5:11). There are times to rebuke “before all”(Gal.2) and to “mark those who teach contrary to the doctrine” we learned from the inspired apostles (Rom.16:17). There are times when the sin is public that the rebuke or exposure needs to have the same venues and avenues to be heard as the error gets.<span> </span>We need to choose those times carefully, and measure it with righteousness, fairness, and love. But, we do not need to become so sensitive that we allow error to have free reign in public media, and try to make modern public rebuke sinful or to posit that public correction of error is wrong.<span> </span>That would be placing a standard on modern teaching that would, by necessary inference, <span> </span>make Jesus and Paul into sinners who pushed people around in sinful ways.<span> </span>That is simply a perception that is mistaken. </span></span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span><span>Instead of being so unapproving of those who correct public error in the same medium that the error is pushed publicly, I would like to see those who believe it is wrong to ever do this, to show that their way of not ever correcting wrong is better. I have never seen the superiority of the way of letting public error go unchallenged and uncorrected.<span> </span>There are many times when going private HAS been done by this writer, and still the teacher of error kept right on publicly teaching their error.<span> </span>When all private effort has been ignored and the teaching of error continues on public media, then it is only right to use the same medium to expose the error. It would be wrong not to. Any other perception is simply mistaken because it makes Jesus and Paul sinners. <span> </span>-<strong><em>Terry W. Benton</em></strong></span></span>Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-84784411406985156052013-04-16T19:24:00.006-07:002013-04-16T19:24:51.087-07:00What is included in faith?<span><span><span><span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span><span>When I ask certain change agents, who have swallowed the modern doctrine of salvation by faith alone, what is included in their “faith alone” things get strangely quiet.<span> </span>Since Muslims have “faith” will their faith save them?<span> </span>We get an answer then that it is a certain faith in a certain person, named Jesus.<span> </span>So, they qualify the faith that saves as “faith in Jesus” by pulling in other verses, and rightly so.<span> </span>So, now we need to explore this a little further. Since it matters about the content of faith, can we be saved by believing in a Jesus that the apostles did not present?<span> </span>Remember, <span> </span>Paul was afraid that some brethren had been taught “another Jesus” (2 Cor.11:3-4).<span> </span>What if people are unwittingly taught “another Jesus” and they believe in that Jesus?<span> </span>Will their faith in THAT Jesus be the means of their salvation?<span> </span>Now the issue of faith in Jesus must be explored a little further because faith in the wrong Jesus will not give us real salvation. It may deceive us into a false assurance. <span> </span>We cannot afford to be believing the wrong Jesus and entertain a false assurance.</span></span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<h3>
<span><span><span>What are the necessary ingredients of saving faith?</span></span></span></h3>
<h3>
<span> </span></h3>
<span></span><span><span>So, now we explore a little further about the content of saving faith.<span> </span>It has to believe the right Jesus and have knowledge of the right Jesus.<span> </span>Does it have to be a faith in the Jesus who came in the flesh?<span> </span>Reading 1 John we find that some were teaching a Jesus who only appeared to be in the flesh but was not actually come in the flesh.<span> </span>What if we believed in a Jesus that we sincerely believe only appeared to be in the flesh but really wasn’t? Do we have enough of the right Jesus to save us? No, John said that a person believing such “is not of God”(1 John 4:2,3). So, we have to know enough about the right Jesus to be able to confess that He HAS come in the flesh. So, the right ingredients of faith has to be in place before one can have fellowship with God.</span></span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span><span>Now, there are other facts to believe regarding Jesus that are essential to believe before salvation occurs (1 Cor.15:1-6). So, let me pose a question right here.<span> </span>If belief requires knowledge, then it requires the work of hearing the evidence and considering it.<span> </span>Would the belief in Jesus include a knowledge of our sins and why we need Jesus?<span> </span>And, I think we can safely say that belief in Jesus would have to include conviction of our sins and of our need for what Jesus’ death was all about.<span> </span>So, it is safe to say that belief includes “conviction of sins” and “godly sorrow”.<span> </span>Would anyone say that you can be saved by faith before there is godly sorrow for sin?<span> </span>Now, godly sorrow is not a synonym for “faith”, is it?<span> </span>Yet, in all honesty, we cannot say a person has saving faith that does not have godly sorrow as a necessary ingredient of saving faith.</span></span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span><span>This leads me to another question about what all else might be necessary ingredients of saving faith.<span> </span>If a person has godly sorrow but has not yet repented, does his faith contain all the necessary ingredients to save him?<span> </span>We really need to know also if the Lord might require believing His requirement of repentance is essential to salvation. IS THAT POSSIBLE?<span> </span>Could it be possible that saving faith MUST have the essential ingredients of godly sorrow AND repentance?<span> </span>Can one really “believe” in Jesus who commanded repentance, and not repent? <span> </span>Or, does true faith require repentance before one is “accounted righteous”? <span> </span>Jesus said “except you repent, you will all likewise perish”(Luke 13:3).<span> </span>Can a person really “believe” in Jesus and be saved before they have decided to leave a life of sin and turn to God?<span> </span>Since repentance is a change of the mind and will, can a person possess saving “faith” before they change their mind and will about sin and God? If not, then repentance is an essential ingredient of the kind of faith that connects us to salvation.</span></span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span><span>Now, if a person can see that godly sorrow and repentance are indeed necessary ingredients to saving faith, then it should be easy to see why Peter told the sin-convicted Jews on Pentecost to “repent and be baptized…in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins”(Acts 2:37-38).<span> </span>Here, we can see that repentance is a necessary ingredient of “faith in Jesus Christ”.<span> </span>In other words, a person who believes in Jesus must possess these necessary ingredients of saving faith. </span></span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span><span><span> </span>Remember, faith in Jesus without believing specifically that he “came in the flesh” does not possess the necessary ingredients of the faith that saves.<span> </span>The faith that saves has to have the right ingredients. Faith without believing what Jesus said about repentance is not the faith that possesses the necessary ingredients of saving faith.<span> </span>But, now we see also that baptism is the point in faith where a person buries the old sinful man with Jesus (Rom.6:3-5) and has faith that God will operate to cut away sins (Col.2:12; Acts 2:38; 22:16). This is the point in faith where a person becomes “united together with Christ”(Rom.6:4-5). <span> </span>Do you believe this just as Paul did?<span> </span>Or, do you believe “another Jesus” (2 Cor.11:3-4) that does not teach this?</span></span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span><span><span> </span>So, it should be easy to see that scriptural baptism is “for remission of sins” and to “wash away sins” because in being “united together with Christ in baptism”(Rom.6:4-5) we then make the connection with His blood that becomes applied to our account at this moment in saving faith.<span> </span>Thus, repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus are also necessary and essential ingredients of “faith in Jesus”.<span> </span>This is why Paul said that “you are all children of God through faith in Jesus Christ. For (because) as many of you as were baptized INTO Christ have put on Christ”(Gal.3:26-27).<span> </span>This is the point of entering into relationship with God. This is the moment and the ingredient in faith where the connection to the blood is exchanged in the divine books.<span> </span>The question is whether you really believe Jesus in these matters.<span> </span>Can you truly believe in Jesus without the necessary ingredients that HE says is the moment of unity with Him? Did the Lord promise remission of sins without these necessary ingredients?<span> </span>Or, did some people who did not believe Jesus’ words make that promise in spite of what Jesus said? </span></span><br />
<span> </span><br />
<span><span>Remember, if “another Jesus” is teaching that one is saved before and without repentance, you cannot afford to believe that Jesus or that preacher.<span> </span>The right Jesus said, “He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved”(Mark 16:16).<span> </span>Do you believe what He said?<span> </span>If not, how can you claim to believe in Him?<span> </span>You cannot afford to get this wrong.<span> </span>Believe the scriptures. Let the scriptures correct your views and your faith. <span> </span>It DOES matter what the ingredients are in your faith. –<strong><em>Terry W. Benton</em></strong></span></span>Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-44327054284101382022013-02-15T12:38:00.003-08:002013-02-15T12:38:53.917-08:00The First Century Change Agents
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">The First Century Change Agents<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Departure from the faith is not something new.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Getting people on board the “non-traditional”
wagon is not something new.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Promising
liberty is not something new (2 Peter 2:18f).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It has always been going on. Among the churches of Galatia Paul was
shocked that they were “so soon” removed from Him who called you into the grace
of Christ to “another gospel”(Gal.1:6-10). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They were soon tired of the traditionalism
that kept them under threat of rejection or persecution. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was uncomfortable to live in Galatia where
Judaism had a large influence and talk like Jesus was the only way. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">These change agents were not mentally ignoring the truth
that Jesus was and is the Son of God, but they felt that we were making Jews
unnecessarily mad at us for teaching that the law of Moses was nailed to the
cross and that we are now to be exclusively under the authority of Jesus
alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They simply wanted to repackage
themselves as teaching what a large element of society thought the church of
Christ ought to teach if they want to fit in with the rest of society.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A more appealing way to win people over is to
make the gospel more appealing to those who want a teaching program that is
more accepting of the religious faith of others.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The early change agents were wanting to “make a good showing
in the flesh”(Gal.6:12). They were feeling the effects of social rejection and
wanted to make the gospel more palatable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is also the way change-agents operate in churches today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The gospel is inclusive of all who will obey
Jesus <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and exclusive of those who only
want to obey certain choice items.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of
the early change agents, there was fear of rejection and persecution that
socially comes when you believe that Jesus’ way is the ONLY way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consider the spirit of those wanting to “make
a good showing in the flesh”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">[<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">A fair show in the
flesh</b>.] The Jewish religion was general in the region of Galatia, and it
was respectable, as it appears that the principal inhabitants were either Jews
or proselytes. As it was then professed and practiced among the Jews, this
religion had nothing very grievous to the old man; an unrenewed nature might go
through all its observances with little pain or cross-bearing. On the other
hand, Christianity could not be very popular; it was too strict. A Jew made a
fair show there, according to his carnal system, and it was a temptation to a
weak Christian to swerve into Judaism, that he might be exempted from
persecution, and be creditable among his countrymen. This is what the apostle
intimates: "They constrain you to be circumcised, lest they should suffer
persecution for the cross of Christ."(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Barnes observes:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
they insisted on entire dependence on the merits of his blood, and renounced
all dependence on rites and ceremonies, they would suffer persecution. This
verse shows the true cause of the zeal which the Judaizing teachers evinced. It
was the fear of persecution. It was the want of independence and boldness in
maintaining the doctrine that people were to be saved only by the merits of the
Lord Jesus. By attempting to blend together the doctrines of Judaism and
Christianity; by maintaining that the observance of the Jewish rites was
necessary, and yet that Jesus was the Messiah, they endeavored to keep in with
both parties; and thus to escape the opposition of the Jews. It was an
unhallowed compromise. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was an attempt
to blend things together which could not be united. One must really displace
the other. If people depended on the rites of Moses, they had no need of
dependence on the Messiah; if they professed to depend on him, then to rely on
anything else was in fact to disown and reject him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Embracing the one system was in fact
renouncing the other. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such is the
argument of Paul; and such his solemn remonstrance against embracing any
doctrine which would obscure the glory of simple dependence on the cross of
Christ.(from Barnes' Notes).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The first century change agents simply wanted to find ways
to believe in Jesus without offending people, and it did not seem to occur to
them that they were offending the Lord by making His gospel insufficient for
all the truth that all men needed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Change agents then did not consider how offensive they were to the
apostles who stood their ground and engaged “much dispute” in the same matters
discussed in Acts 15. The change agents had so leavened the churches in this
teaching that it does not hurt to mix a little of the Law of Moses into the
gospel since people might be more inclined to accept us if we were not always
being so negative about their traditions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Change agents then and now have a lot of similarity. It may be different
traditions that they want to adopt, but it is usually for very similar reasons:
to be able to be accepted by the denominations around us. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A fair showing in the flesh does not help to
change the world, but always works to change the church so that she looks like
a close friend, and Jesus, well, He is such a nice fellow who accepts everyone
just as they are. Never mind that it is “another Jesus”, not the One the
apostles presented. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>–<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Terry
W. Benton<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-87590184213915706662013-02-09T10:58:00.002-08:002013-02-09T10:58:43.631-08:00These Things Became Our Examples
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">These Things Became Our Examples<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">So much talk about “examples are not binding” is really not
helping brethren understand the reason why examples are very important.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It did not matter to Paul about whether the
Old Testament contained “narrative” or “story” (who would ever dispute that?).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, as he read the stories embedded in the
Old Testament, he found things that “became our examples”(1 Cor.10:6).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The mistakes of Israel were examples NOT to
follow in the church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He said “they
happened to them as examples and they were written for our learning”(v.11).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Get this!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Christians are to learn from the examples embedded in the stories of the
Old Testament. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That would especially be
so in the New Testament as well. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From
examples we learn what is NOT acceptable to the Lord, and from other examples
we learn what IS acceptable to the Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">By the same token, if Paul “ordained” things in “all the
churches” (1 Cor.7:17), one of which was to learn from examples, then what we
see in the uniform practices of the early churches would be examples for us to
follow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paul urged the Corinthians “not
to think beyond what is written”(4:6). That means to get all your ideas and
information from this source and don’t even desire to listen to something if it
is beyond what is written. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">One thing that is written is “imitate”(follow the example
of) Paul (1 Cor.4:16), and let yourself be reminded of his “ways in Christ”(which
includes his approved examples)(v.17).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The reason we can follow the apostles “ways in Christ” is because they
had “the mind of Christ”(2:16). The wisdom of God was revealed to them by the
Spirit (2:10).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These men were led by the
Spirit and they were “ministers of the new covenant”(2 Cor.3).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Old Testament had been a ministration of
death, but the New Testament was a ministry of the Spirit and of life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we follow the examples of the apostles we
learn things that we can “prove are acceptable to the Lord”(Rom.12:1-3;
Eph.5:11; 1 Thess.5:21).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What Paul
taught in one church, he also taught “everywhere in every church”(1 Cor.4:17).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">When the church at Corinth got off track with the Lord’s
Supper and made it into a meal to feed their appetite, Paul reminded them of
the EXAMPLE of what Jesus did the night of His betrayal when He SHOWED what He
wanted done (1 Cor.11:23).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus showed
them what He wanted (example to follow), and He told them what He wanted (command).
“Do this in remembrance of Me”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From the
command and example Paul also drew some necessary inferences: 1)When you
partake of the Lord’s Supper you are “proclaiming His death till He comes”, and
2) when you do not take it with the focus on the body and blood, you do it in
an unworthy manner and therefore are guilty of the body and blood.(v.26,27). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">When did the early disciples come together and partake of
the Lord’s Supper?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We learn from the
examples in Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7, that they did it “on the first day of the week”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nobody questions but what that is “acceptable
to the Lord”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The same thing done in one
church with apostolic approval is what all churches did.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who follow that same example are no
doubt doing what is acceptable to the Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But, what of those who want to do it on Thursday?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They cannot “prove it is acceptable”. They
have no statement or example after the Lord “drank it new IN THE KINGDOM”
except the examples of doing it on the first day of the week.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, if you cannot “prove it is acceptable”
you have no business doing it. It should be that simple since even the uniform
practice of the early disciples “became our examples” and are written for our
learning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The apostles showed us things
that were acceptable to the Lord as well as told us. They even showed us how
they reasoned from examples and came to the necessary inference that Gentiles
do not have to be circumcised (Acts 15). That gave us an example of how to use
statements and examples and come to the “necessary conclusion” or judgment of
what the will of the Lord is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Using the
model of settling issues and questions by this process shows us how to go about
“proving what is acceptable to the Lord”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These things also became our examples in how to “test all things, hold
fast what is good”(1 Thess.5:21).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some
examples are incidental and do not form a uniform pattern.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, some examples clearly show us what we
can prove is right and cannot be wrong, and those examples ought not be
dismissed in favor of something you cannot prove. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The stories and narratives of scripture are to
show us examples of what we can safely follow and of things we should avoid. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>–<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Terry W. Benton</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-27791303869536739632013-02-07T07:53:00.004-08:002013-02-07T07:53:55.050-08:00Jeroboam's Mistakes
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Jeroboam’s Mistakes<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">There were many different factors that led up to the
division in Israel that left that nation split in two. We read of this split in
1 Kings 11-12.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were the usual
attempts to make the northern ten tribes to be convinced that they were right.
They were wrong, but they tried to justify their new divided state and what
they were now doing. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In the New Testament John mentioned that those that “went
out from us were not of us”. In other words, they had been in a mental and
spiritual drift away from us long before they decided to relocate their bodies
away from the faithful brethren.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
are brethren today like that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some have
left for liberal churches, and some have left to join denominations. Some are
still physically among us but their heart is not with the authority and
teaching of God’s word and with brethren who seek to maintain the authority of
scriptures and the commitment to “prove what is acceptable to the Lord”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They will be leaving soon but they want to
see if they can take whole groups with them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Please notice the parallels to be seen in the division in Israel and the
divisions among spiritual Israel today.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Jeroboam made the following mistakes:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">1.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Trying to appear legitimate by outward honor of
special historical places. 12:25<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">2.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Cutting off the house of David. V.26<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">3.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Cutting off exposure to truth. V.27<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">4.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Making his religion more appealing, liberated,
and convenient. V.28<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">5.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Ignored the “example” of David, the nature of “specific
authority”, and hated the idea of seeking authority first before acting. V.31,33;
13:33-34; 14:7-10<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">6.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Employed the doctrines and commandments of men. V.32<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">How
can the people be led to worship with a different place of worship, with a
priesthood that is not from Levi, and in the manner so different?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How does such a change become accepted?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can see that all it would take is to lead
the people to question the “old hermeneutic” and those who interpreted the
scriptures incorrectly all this time did so because of “traditionalism” and “legalism”.
The change agents can keep criticizing the old practices as “traditionalism”.
The old “traditionalism” of worshipping at Jerusalem was because the “legalists”
had been very arbitrary in WHICH examples they followed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because of “traditionalism” and the blindness
of the old hermeneutic and being so arbitrary in which examples to follow, they
had neglected these important places like Penuel and Shechem.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The
10 northern tribes can say, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">We will not
be legalists and traditionalists that think their traditionalism is the only
way. If others were more open-minded they would realize that we should have
never neglected places like Shechem, Penuel, and Bethel. Here are some examples
that they have not been keeping. They are so inconsistent with which examples
are binding</i>”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In view of the way
change agents today are operating, I can begin to see more clearly how such a
large segment in Israel could have gotten swept into the change and justified
it in their own minds.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Today
there are change agents that use Facebook and other social media to gather “friends”.
But, like the northern ten tribes, they then begin “cutting off” brethren who
might question their views on this media. These brethren grow their number of
friends, appealing to the weak and undiscerning, cut off dissenting <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>voices as “traditionalists”, “Pharisees”, and”
legalists”, gathering sympathy from the undiscerning, blocking friends who do
not agree with their views.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By cutting
of dissenting voices and keeping only those who approve or will say nothing
negative, and feeding prejudice against faithful brethren by such terms as “legalists”,
“Pharisees”, and “traditionalists”, the crowd they keep on their list are now
swallowing the Kool-Aid. Those are points two and three in Jeroboam’s program
of justifying his promoting and maintaining the division in Israel he was now
leading.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Look
at the six mistakes listed above again. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Point three is cutting off exposure to
truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To maintain a sense of
legitimacy, Jeroboam could not afford to let his people be exposed to the truth
taught by the old traditionalists in Judah. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, he cut off the opportunities for his
friends to see and hear discussions where his views could now be
challenged.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is easy to say the
Levites in Jerusalem were “traditionalists” using a faulty hermeneutic, but
that cannot hold up well is actual discussion where the change agents have to
prove their own hermeneutic is correct and where they are actually called on to
“prove what is acceptable to the Lord”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Prejudice does not work as well when someone can answer them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, the change agent must always back away
from actual discussion and debate with the old “traditionalists”. They could
never stand up in the kind of discussion and “much dispute” seen in Acts 15.
They know it too, and so their mode of operation must always be to cut off
those voices of truth that might expose them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The
modern change agents cut off any on their “friends” list who might expose the
weakness of their teachings, or those who might give their readers a different
impression of the change agent. Thus, they create a cult of personality and use
the old “promise liberty” routine that false teachers have long used in the
past (2 Pet.2) to “allure” people into the changes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The change agents promise liberty from
misguided, hypocritical “traditionalism”, and they have their “friends”
swallowing the bait and regurgitating it to each other as they now have little
or no voices on their list who might reel them in and provide a needed
scriptural rebuke and effort at correction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Look
at the list of mistakes Jeroboam made again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We have seen parallels in those first three items. There is an amazing
similarity between the mistakes of Jeroboam and the modern change agents. I
hope you can see what is happening now and how it is moving among brethren in
so many congregations. The bodies may still be together, but soon those who
have influenced them the most through social media will have convinced them to
change the local church or move out from those close-minded traditionalists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The devil has been at work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He is seeking to devour you and any church
that still believes in “proving what is acceptable to the Lord”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We will consider the last three items on the
list in our next post.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please, give it
careful attention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Terry W. Benton</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><br />
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-24499666168994436412013-01-28T09:33:00.005-08:002013-01-28T09:33:55.224-08:00
<br />
<h2 class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
What Makes A Church A Denomination?<o:p></o:p></h2>
<br />
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
Part 3<o:p></o:p></h3>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">One brother pushes for changing the sign from something
biblical (“church of Christ”) to something else (no more expedient than the other sign). He argues that to object to
changing the sign is a “denominational marker”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But, if the sign was scriptural and right to start with, if brethren see
no need to change the sign, why would he be divisive about it? He perceives
that it is important to change the sign because he perceives that the name on
the sign has become an obstacle to outsiders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>On the one hand he argues that those who do not change the sign are in a
denomination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If this is so, he needs to
be honest and tell everyone in a church of Christ to LEAVE the
denomination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Changing the sign does not
make a denomination become a scriptural church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If the Baptist Church changed the name to “the church at _______” has it
now ceased to be a denomination?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Masking
the exterior name on the sign becomes deception.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> We don't need to use deception to get people in. </span>It is still a denomination that teaches the
distinguishing doctrines that formed the Baptist denominations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">If our brother wants to charge “churches of
Christ” with being a denomination, he needs to address the doctrines or
teachings that distinguish modern churches of Christ from the first century
churches of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is hard to do
on an issue of expediency.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The early
churches of Christ did not have an expedient option of a building, and if they
had a building, it was not expedient to put a sign up to advertise the nature
of the group that met there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is
still the case in some places like China.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is more expedient to meet in secret and never put up a sign to advertise
your meeting and the nature of the group.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But, in a free society, we find it expedient to advertise the nature of
the group that meets in this building.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This may not always be the case, but so far it has been helpful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Church of Christ” is a good and expedient
description.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It does not denominate us
FROM Christ and His church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It does not
denominate us from the nature of the early churches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are not only advertising what we are, but
what the early churches were.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the
time comes when it is expedient to meet in secret again because of similar
circumstances of persecution, then we will still be churches of Christ, but
will opt to not have a sign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The sign
does not make us any less the undenominational church belonging to Christ. Changing
the sign does not make us change from being a denomination to now being
non-denominational.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">We need a better definition than our brother gave in Part 2
of this series.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A better definition of
what constitutes a denomination is as stated in the following quote:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">As far as I know, there is no denomination using the name "Church
of Christ." A typical definition for a denomination is: "A group of
religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized
under a single administrative and legal hierarchy." While churches of
Christ are united under a common faith, that which is found exclusively in the
Bible, and many, but not all, use a common name based upon Romans 16:16, there
is no single administrative and legal hierarchy here on earth. The only head
recognized by Christians is Christ Jesus (Matthew 28:18).</i></b> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2007/04-13c.htm"><span style="color: blue;">http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2007/04-13c.htm</span></a><o:p></o:p></i></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Now, this is what makes a denomination. A church is not a
denomination just because someone imagines that it is, nor that someone with an
ax to grind SAYS it is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not a
denomination because it shares common faith with other like churches (that
would make the early churches a denomination). It is a denomination if it
divides itself from the original order in how it describes itself AND in the
doctrines and practices that separate it from the original order.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It can do this by organizing into a group
larger than the local church but smaller than the universal church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Southern Baptist association is an
example of an organization of churches into an order larger than a local church
but smaller than the universal church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Thus, a division that is away from the New Testament pattern. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A local church can
become a denomination by dividing away from a legitimate, scriptural local
church in order to press some unscriptural practice such as making the Lord’s
Supper into a common meal and making a distinguishing law that they must meet
in personal houses instead of in buildings purchased by the group.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A church is not denominational because they
happen to meet in a home with no sign out front, but by divisive,
distinguishing doctrines of men.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">All denominations are actually “sects”. The Oxford
Dictionary defines the word “sect’ as “Body of persons agreed upon religious
doctrines, usu. different from those of an established or orthodox Church from
which they have separated, and usu. having distinctive common worship,
non-conformist or other Church as described by opponents, party of faction in a
religious body, religious denomination. . . followers of a particular
philosophy or school of thought” The Greek equivalent to “denomination” is
“HAIRESIS”, it is translated in our English Bibles as either “sect” or
“heresy”. It means “An opinion, then, a party” (Bullenger’s Lexicon) W.E. Vine
defines “HAIRESES” a division developed or brought about by an issue” The word
appears among the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21 and has a marginal definition
of “parties”. Today there are thousands of parties (or denominations) which
were begun by men at various times in history. </span><a href="http://www.churchofchrist.com.au/Tracts/Denom.htm"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;">http://www.churchofchrist.com.au/Tracts/Denom.htm</span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">It is SINFUL and fleshly to start and continue to support a
heresy or sect or division.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If one is in
a denomination, they must destroy it or get out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no scriptural authority to be in one
and to support one. The only way to avoid being in one is to obey the will of
God. That will mean proving what is acceptable to the Lord (Rom.12:2-3; Eph.5:11; 1 Thess.5:21).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the organization is acceptable to the Lord
and you can prove it, then it is to that extent the will of God and
undenominational.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it is local only in
order and organization and the local order is within the will of God, then it
is not a denomination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the assembly
is conducted within the will of God, then it is not a denomination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the teaching advanced and supported is
provable by handling aright the word of truth, then it is not a
denomination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If what the local group
calls itself is within the will of God, then it is not a denomination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">When all of the above is proven by the will of God, then the
local church should object to someone trying to characterize them as a
denomination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When preachers start doing
this, it is time to test what he says and object when he is wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I know that I have never been part of a “church
of Christ denomination”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t intend
to start being a part of one. But, neither am I going to sit quietly and say
nothing when some preacher wants to make the charge that unless we are willing
to change a scriptural designation on the sign that it MAKES a church a
denomination, I will object to this unfounded charge. There are several
preachers pressing for such a change of sign, but that can be making a divisive
issue where it does not need to be pressed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Divisive brethren need to be marked and avoided (Rom.16:16-17).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly.
Let Jesus have “all authority” and be “preeminent” and do all in His name.
Prove what is acceptable to the Lord and then act accordingly. You will not be
in a denomination, but you will be working with brethren of like precious
faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is part of truly living for
Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> If you are in a local church of Christ that makes doing the will of God their mission and priority, and the groups is acting by the authority of scriptures, then don't let someone get away with calling you a denomination just because you don't see a need to change the sign and they want to be divisive about it. Put the responsibility on them to prove that it is necessary to do the will of God to do what they say we must do. </span>–<strong><em>Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></em></strong></span></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-7364397715464292192013-01-26T05:54:00.004-08:002013-01-26T05:54:41.287-08:00What Makes A Church a Denomination? Part 2
<br />
<h2 class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
What Makes A Church a Denomination?<o:p></o:p></h2>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>Part 2<o:p></o:p></strong></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Quote: <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Evangelical theological dictionary
defines "denomination" as: "anything distinguished by a name …
such as Baptists and Methodists.” Second, “Associations of congregations that
have a common heritage.” There is no doubt that there exists a "church of
Christ" denomination that belies the claims of those within it to local
autonomy. And, the unwillingness to consider changing a sign outside a building
is an indication of a sectarian attachment - not an attachment to Christ but to
a denomination. </i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(Jeff Young)-</i>Unquote!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">TB: If the above definition really gives the
scripturally-based definition of a “denomination”, then the early church was a denomination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They were “distinguished by a name”, “Christian”,
and there was a “common heritage” of associated congregations (Rom.16:16).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They were associated together with their
common heritage of hearing and obeying the gospel of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is something very lacking in the above
definition when it makes the early churches of Christ a denomination by
definition while only really wanting to make modern “churches of Christ” out to
be a denomination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Was there “local
autonomy” in the early churches?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We
could easily argue that they shared a common heritage that made them tend to
share common practices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does sharing a
common heritage make a denomination?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
think that is not really a good argument to make.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it makes the early churches of Christ a
denomination then it is probably not a good, sound argument to make. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Since I am unwilling to change the sign outside because I
really think “church of Christ” is one of the best ways of describing the Lord’s
church, the above writer says I MUST be willing to change the sign or I will be
in a denomination or possess a “sectarian attachment” to the name on the
sign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, think about it. Isn’t it
sectarian to be so set on changing a sign to something else that only
sectionalizes brethren into smaller sections?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What will a different description on the sign accomplish?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will it prevent people from thinking you are
a denomination?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It never has. It never
will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we pointed out in part 1, the
sign does nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A person with only
denominational concepts will still have denominational concepts. Teaching the
TRUTH and believing the truth is the only way to get concepts corrected.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">A person or group of people may have an “unwillingness to
change the sign” because they think the sign is an adequate description of what
they are, a church belonging to Christ, not a denomination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Think about this carefully. The above
argument says that unless you are willing to change the sign from “church of
Christ” to something else, you have a “sectarian attachment” to a “denomination”
instead of to Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hold on a
minute!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How often will we need to change
the sign to make sure we don’t have a denominational attachment?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is there a schedule of sign changing that
will avoid this?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I doubt very seriously
that changing the sign is crucial at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In fact, could it not also be the case that one can have a factious and
denominational spirit that says in essence that “the nature of this
denomination will be our devotion to changing the name on our sign”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This will be our common denominator with
others who are also willing to change their signs often.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I knew of a case where the preacher was so set on changing
the sign that he divided the brethren. His accusation was that they were too
denominational in wanting to retain the name on the sign and their accusation
was that he was too denominational in wanting to change a legitimate sign. Who
was really denominational in this case?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>To me, the preacher was trying to create a denomination that would be
known for sign-changing as the key issue of his new denomination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was not devotion to Christ that demanded a
change on the sign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was a divisive
spirit that would ultimately make sign-changing the key doctrine of those he
would associate with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Those brethren who would not make that THE issue would be
mentally assigned to a different denomination while they think only they have
captured “undenominational” status.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Brethren and outsiders would take note that this new denomination will
make changing descriptive signs THE distinguishing feature to this new
denomination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it is really so that a
church becomes a denomination if they keep “church of Christ” on their sign,
then it is still a denomination if they change the sign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Changing the sign is not out of devotion to
Christ. Christ has no interest whatsoever in brethren pushing for a change on
the sign out front from “church of Christ” to “the church at ________” .<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is out of devotion to their denominational
marker of making sign-changing their distinguishing doctrine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If they are a denomination if they describe
themselves as a “church of Christ”, then they are a denomination if they call
themselves “the assembly of Christ”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The definition our brother offered above is very inadequate
and applies just as well to his own local church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a “distinguishing name” involved and
his church is still associated with a common heritage of churches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If he succeeds in changing the church till no
other church feels a common heritage with his church, he has created a new
denomination that is starting a new heritage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You see the definition our brother gave of a denomination still fits his
church and church heritage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He has not
escaped the parts of the definition he offered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That is because his definition is wholly inadequate. He gave a partial
definition that indicts his own church that changed the sign out front, and his
partial definition indicts every local church you read about in the Bible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I cannot look at the early churches of Christ (Rom.16:16) as
a denomination, nor can I believe that describing local churches today as “churches
of Christ” is any more a denominational indicator than it was in the first
century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, we need to quit bashing
brethren and calling them a denomination if they are only imagined to be a
denomination. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imagining the local church
I attend as being a denomination or part of a denomination does not make it so.
There is inadequate definition and a lot of imagination at play here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t accept our brother’s definition or
his imagination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We need to understand
what the universal church was in the first century in order to know what it is
now, and we need to understand the local church in the first century in order
to know what is should be today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We also
need to know that the early churches did not form denominations and
denominations are not supported now. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Bible does not support divisions, seditions, and heresies (1 Cor.1:10;
Gal.5:19-20). We need to challenge people who do not teach the truth and
mischaracterize churches of Christ. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">(to be continued)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-2790593004662638502013-01-25T14:34:00.003-08:002013-01-25T14:34:59.231-08:00What Makes A Church A Denomination?
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">What Makes A Church A Denomination?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">(Part 1 of a series)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Quote: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">There
is no doubt that there is a denominational attachment with the phrase,
"church of Christ" or "churches of Christ" among many.-</i></b>Unquote!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">TB: I’m thinking about the Lord’s church found in the Bible
and want to use an expression that captures what it is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is “the church”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is “the assembly”, but it is not just any
assembly. It is a very unique assembly of people and they are related to Jesus
Christ. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Church of Christ” is certainly
good and biblical. Do some have “a denominational attachment with those phrases”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t have a “denominational attachment” to
the phrase “churches of Christ”, but I really like that phrase as a very
adequate and scriptural way of describing the Lord’s church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t see a need to drop the phrase just
because someone will accuse me of having a “denominational attachment” to that
phrase.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I could just as easily accuse
those who are choosing to drop the “church of Christ” phrase and just calling
it “the assembly” as having a “denominational attachment” with that
phrase.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does that make it so?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Quote: <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">…the use of the phrase and the attachment to
it as a denominational marker</i></b>. –Unquote!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">TB: Is the use of the phrase “church of Christ” a “denominational
marker”? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t think so. But, let’s
test this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Paul described a bunch of
churches “churches of Christ”(Rom.16:16), is that a denominational marker?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I really don’t think so, but let us suppose a
group of churches decided it was a “denominational marker” to refer to the Lord’s
church by the regular designation of “church of Christ”. Instead, they decided
to put “the assembly” or “the church” on the sign outside.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Has that now become a “denominational marker”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It could just as easily become a new “denominational
marker” as the “church of Christ” description phrase.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If not, why not?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Providing the description is biblical, the sign will never
keep people from thinking of a “denominational marker” no matter what you put
on the sign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paul was not able to escape
the charge of “sect-arianism” with or without a sign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The sign is not a “denominational indicator”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let us be honest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People reject churches of Christ because of
the TRUTH generally taught from those groups, or because they were turned off
by an experience with a “Christian”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Some “Christians” have not represented Jesus very well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To keep people from being prejudiced against “Christians”,
should we drop the name “Christian”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People
were prejudiced against “Christians” in the first century and later.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would it have then been expedient to quit
referring to themselves as “Christians” so that the prejudice could die down? Absolutely
not!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What we will do is try to encourage
Christians to try to represent Jesus better and quit giving the name “Christian”
a bad name by bad behavior.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Likewise, if you change the sign outside from “church of
Christ” to “the assembly”, what have you accomplished?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the members have not changed their
personal behavior, how will the new sign avoid the “denominational marker”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How will the sign keep the “Christians” from
bad behavior?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It won’t.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Teaching the truth about what you mean by ANY
description on the sign (if you opt for a sign at all) is the only way to
educate people about the Lord’s church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The fact that three churches decided to drop a reference on their sign
in favor of another description means they have now adopted a NEW “denominational
indicator” if the old sign was a “denominational indicator”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the discarded description was truly a “denominational
indicator”, then so is the new sign. I really don’t care what you put on the
sign, the sign is not by itself a “denominational indicator”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, I think the phrase “church of Christ” is
a very good description, don’t agree that the group inside is a “denomination”,
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>or that the words on the sign outside is
a “denominational indicator”. It really depends on other things, not the words
on the sign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Let’s suppose that a group decides to put “Christians meet
here” on the sign. Another church thinks that is a good idea and so they do the
same. Has this sign now become a “denominational indicator” of what this group
is? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the denomination that likes
to put “Christians meet here” on their sign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If we are honest we know that “church of Christ” on a sign is not a “denominational
indicator” any more than “the assembly” is a denominational indicator or “Christians
meet here” is a denominational indicator.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It depends on other things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
want people to know us for what we do and teach, not for what they think they
can assess from the sign out front.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Remember,
with no building and no sign the apostles were still thought to be in a “sect”.
They were not. But, the lack of a sign did not keep people from thinking that
he was in a new “sect” instead of the undenominated , non-sectarian body of
saved people belonging to God. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So,
changing the description on the sign is not the answer. Taking down the sign is
not the answer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Using a description on a
sign that describes what you are, a group that belongs to Christ, may help
brethren think of commonality, but it does nothing toward keeping
denominationally-minded people from pigeon-holing you as a denomination or
sect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Overcoming that idea is only
accomplished by teaching. Let us not be ashamed of a good description, nor shy
away from telling the whole TRUTH and nothing but the truth. The truth will set
men free from denominationalism and every other sin. –<strong><em>Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></em></strong></span></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-89773917509423516812013-01-23T13:55:00.001-08:002013-01-23T13:55:57.942-08:00What is the Spirit of the Law?
<br />
<h2 class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
What is the Spirit of the Law?<o:p></o:p></h2>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">From time to time I hear people say "We should follow
the spirit, not the letter of the law". This has a deceptive ring of
scripture to it. It is a misuse of 2 Cor.3.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>"The letter" is made to mean the strict wording of scripture,
and "the spirit" is made to mean "what you think they really
mean to you". They seem to think "the letter"(what the words
actually say) versus "the spirit"(how I feel inside) is what 2 Cor.3
is about. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, 2 Cor.3 is actually
contrasting "the letter"(the already written Old Testament) with
"the Spirit"(the New Testament, being at that time, revealed through
the Spirit to His apostles and prophets). Read the context carefully and <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the spirit of the New Testament will show that
this is the case. The letter they had was the Old Testament, and the Spirit was
now leading them under the authority and covenant of Jesus Christ. Thus, in context "the letter" is the Old Covenant from Sinai and "the Spirit" was the New Covenant now being revealed through the apostles and prophets (Heb.2:1-4; Eph.1:22; 3:3-5) by the Holy Spirit.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Going back to the misuse of 2 Cor.3, how does one determine what the spirit of a law is? It says “do
not commit adultery”, but what is the “spirit” of that command?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It uses letters to condemn homosexual
activity, but what is the actual “spirit” we should get instead of following
the letter of the law? Doesn't this reasoning, in essence, wind up telling
people to follow their own imaginations and desires above God's law? Each
person gets to bend the actual words and imagine a certain “spirit” that is
more important than the actual law demands. Thus, we can always over-rule
something by appeal to spirit over letter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Was the question of circumcision settled by an appeal to
"the spirit of the law"? (Acts 15). Could the Judaizing teachers have
justified this innovation by saying the spirit of God’s law is to not get so
technical about what the apostles had commanded or not commanded?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Instead of insisting on taking literal unleavened <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>bread (in observing the Lord's Supper) in
harmony with<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the
"letter of the law", can we just observe "the spirit of what
it's about"? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can we treat
everything<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>else in this
way? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Baptism? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Confession? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Assembling? Church organization?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Who determines what the spirit of the law
actually is?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How is this determined?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not by reasoning upon the evidence of
the words available in scriptures, but rather it becomes handy to claim a more
spiritual attitude while ignoring the responsibility spelled out in God’s
revealed word. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I hear them say “You are
just concerned about the letter of the law, while I am more concerned about the
spirit of the law”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is actually
another form of pride that tries to act superior when their errors are pointed
out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Beware of this misuse of 2
Corinthians 3. There is the matter of “proving what is acceptable to the Lord”(Rom.12:2-3;
Eph.5:11; 1 Thess.5:21).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How would you prove
something is acceptable to the Lord?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You
will have to start with stated principles, and commands, examples, and what you
can rightly infer from what the scriptures actually say.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You cannot pull it out of thin air and call
it “the spirit of the law”. -<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Terry W. Benton</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-3602872238325933902013-01-22T10:27:00.002-08:002013-01-22T10:27:09.812-08:00“Not Forbidden” is Our Authority Now?
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">“Not Forbidden” is Our Authority Now?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Quote: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Everything must
begin with truth. Truth is the foundation of all things. Suppose we substitute
the converse, “not false”, which is a valid definition of “true.” If the thing
between them (or the question between us) is not false or not forbidden, then
continue to the next step. If it is false or untrue, then stop.</i>-Unquote !
(Max Ray)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /><span style="font-family: Calibri;">
TB: Everything must begin with truth, and truth is foundational.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Truth is complete as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>we
do not necessarily look for what is “not forbidden” but for what is “not
approved”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it is approved, then
continue to the next step. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it has not
been approved by any statement, command, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>or <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>example, then it is not part of the “all truth”
God wanted to reveal (John 16:13). Thus, even things that are not forbidden
must be proven to be approved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can
give my daughter a grocery list. If she starts picking up things on the basis
that I did not forbid that item, my bill will be larger than I was planning on
and I will not be pleased with her approach to my authority (expressed in the
list).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She knows that the list is for
the things that I approved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How should
she look at the authority of my will expressed in the grocery list?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Should she buy all that I did not
forbid?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or, does she buy only what she
knows I approved?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I believe our brother commits a fundamental error in his
view above.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He thinks that in order for
a thing to be “false” it has to be specifically forbidden. That allows him all
kind of room to bring into the church things that are not authorized, but not
forbidden. Such things as kitchens and gyms and instrumental music are not
specifically forbidden. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps you
could also bring in new offices or leaders for the church such as a presiding
bishop over a diocese of churches. After all, once you open the door by saying “not
forbidden” you have opened the door to anything and everything that is not
specifically forbidden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is how you
reason to the position of Pope and Cardinals. “Not forbidden” and therefore don’t
object unless it is specifically forbidden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is a serious flaw to this way of thinking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not a new approach. It has been around
a long time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Jefferson David Tant observed: These questions rose early in
the church, as Tertullian (ca. 150-222) wrote of those who claimed that “the
thing which is not forbidden is freely permitted.” Tertullian responded with,
“I should rather say that what has not been freely allowed is forbidden.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Reformation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were
differences in the approach to the Scriptures by the Reformists Martin Luther
(1483-1546) and Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531). In his early reformist years,
Luther wrote, “Whatever is without the word of God is, by that very fact,
against God.” He based this upon Deuteronomy 4:2: “You shall not add to the
word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the
commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.” In later years Luther
changed his view, stating, “What is not against Scripture is for Scripture, and
Scripture for it.” The Swiss Zwingli taught that practices “not enjoined or
taught in the New Testament should be unconditionally rejected.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Luther’s view won the day, and his looser interpretation
became the preferred practice as denominations developed and proliferated. If
Zwingli’s view had been preferred, then the history of the religious world
might be quite different. But Luther lived 15 years longer than Zwingli, and
thus had a longer period of influence. Zwingli suffered an untimely death after
a Protestant pastor was captured by a Catholic group, tried for heresy and
sentenced to be burned. The Protestant Zurich government declared war against
the Catholics, and in a subsequent battle, Zwingli was serving as a chaplain
when he was wounded and died. It was October 10, 1531. </span><a href="http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/BiblicalAuthorityAndTheSilenceOfTheScriptures.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;">http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/BiblicalAuthorityAndTheSilenceOfTheScriptures.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Think how this view has evolved the Roman Catholic Church
with icons and relics that are not specifically forbidden and new offices that
were not specifically forbidden. Think of infant baptism. Does scripture forbid
it? When you think about this approach to authority, was Cain’s offering
forbidden?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Was the fire used by Nadab
and Abihu forbidden?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The oxcart on which
David put the ark to bring it home from the Philistine territory was not
specifically forbidden. Yet, none of these approaches fit the standard of
authority enjoined by God’s word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
question we should be asking is: “Does the scriptures approve it?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The Word of God enjoins upon us the responsibility to “prove
what IS acceptable”(Rom.12:2; Eph.5:11; 1 Thess.5:21).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It does not enjoin upon us the responsibility
to “prove what IS NOT acceptable to the Lord”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is a huge difference between those two ideas. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Our brother has started down the same path that brought
about the apostasy that developed the Roman Catholic Church, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and that kind of thinking has endorsed every
major denomination of the Protestant Reformation movement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a step in the wrong direction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He talked about how the two women at Philippi
could come to unity of faith, but it was not for one of the sisters to yield to
a practice of the other sister unless she could show it was a practice that was
forbidden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A better example would have
been an appeal to the issue of circumcision in Acts 15.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If they had thought in terms of asking if it
is “forbidden”, then it was not forbidden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They asked another question instead:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Was it positively taught in the original teaching of the apostles?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If not, then it was not to be imposed on the
church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is automatically forbidden as
a matter to impose on others if the apostles did not teach it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Brethren need to take heed to the fruit of
this kind of teaching.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Prove what IS
acceptable to the Lord”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you can’t
prove it first, then refrain from it. That is what is “true”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The two women would work out their
differences by putting Jesus first and behaving themselves under that authority
and peace. That is what we must do too.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-23086320939496826692013-01-17T14:33:00.000-08:002013-01-17T14:33:15.942-08:00The Social Gospel
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">The Social Gospel<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Quote:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><em>Churches would do well to turn their fancy million dollar
mausoleums (church buildings) into workshops and/or kitchens to feed the hungry
and clothe the needy and shelter the homeless. Instead they are used usually no
more than 4 hours a week unless they are having a “gospel” meeting which would
up that occupancy rate to about 9 or 10 hours. How does this glorify God?</em> (Max
Ray)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Reply:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This mentality
is what you find among brethren do not like to be limited to the authority of
the Bible. They cannot find the early church making social arrangements to feed
the hungry in the Bible. The examples we do have was when a famine took place
or special circumstances called for seeing to the physical needs of the
“saints”, but the corporate (combined) work of the church was designed for
getting the gospel into the heart of the saints so that they could get the
saving message into the hearts and lives of others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In Acts 3 we have an opportunity for the Lord to show us
what the church should and should not be doing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is a begging lame man asking for alms. Peter, led by the Holy
Spirit, did not stop to tell the man that the church has just the right social
program for his physical needs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He did
not think about it being the work of the church to see to the physical needs of
the poor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, he showed that it was
an individual responsibility to do what he could.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He told him he had no silver or gold to give
him, but that he did have something he could give, and then he worked the
miracle that set this man in position to see to his own needs and to be another
reason for all to listen to the gospel this miracle was confirming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were limitations placed upon churches
not to be charged (1 Tim.5:16), yet our brother, quoted above, would charge the
church with endless charges for feeding the hungry and giving shelter to the
homeless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His view of authority simply
does not match the scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Limited
charges to the church for saints only in physical need and individuals seeing
to physical needs as they have opportunity and ability, versus the church on a
mission to feed, clothe, and shelter the homeless are two entirely different
views of authority and the mission of the church.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In 1983 brother Harold Fite wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Where are the Scriptures which authorize churches involving
themselves in recreational pursuits and setting themselves up as social
services agencies?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Brethren generally opposed the social gospel concept forty
years ago. There are those who opposed it then, but have completely embraced it
now without saying as much as "excuse me." Was N. B. Hardeman wrong
in 1942 when he said, "It is not the work of the church to furnish
entertainment for the members. I have never read anything in the Bible that
indicated to me that such was the part of the work of the church. I am wholly
ignorant of any scripture that even points in that direction." Was B.C.
Goodpasture in error in 1948, when he wrote in the Gospel Advocate, "For
the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and
recreation is to pervert its mission. It is to degrade its mission. Amusement
and recreation should stem from the home rather than the church." If
brethren were in error in opposing the social gospel then, all need to repent
and embrace it now. But if they taught the truth then, it remains truth today,
and those of the contrary part need to repent and turn to that truth.-Unquote!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In 1980 Mike Willis observed:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The manner in which social problems were affected in the New
Testament was through the preaching of the gospel. Helping social problems was
a by-product of Christianity, not its primary message. When the gospel sank
into a man's heart and he obeyed it, he became a better citizen in the
community, a better employee or employer, a better father, a better neighbor,
etc. However, these changes came because he became a disciple of Jesus Christ,
not because the work of the church was to become involved in labor/management
decisions, in building hospitals, or in politics. Rather, these changes which
occurred in the man came as a by-product of him becoming a Christian.-Unquote!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The Example Of Jesus<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">It has been argued that when Jesus fed the multitudes, we
are being given a precedent for the congregation to provide or fund
potlucks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus fed the multitudes,
therefore we can eat in the building, build a kitchen, fellowship hall, and so
on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Points To Note:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Someone has said, “That which proves too much
(or just about everything) proves nothing at all.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus also healed people, does that give the
Church the authority to go into the medical field?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it the work of the Church to own
hospitals, have stock in pharmaceutical companies and so on?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus also made some wine for a wedding party
(John 2:6-9).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it the work of the
Church to be involved in the catering business, can we building a wedding
chapel, or can we own a processing plant for various beverages?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Seeing that Jesus made wine, can we ‘make’
anything and distribute it, Church of Christ Natural Fruit Drinks?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To parallel such meals to a church funded
meal misses a number of points.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>1. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The church wasn’t established as yet (Matthew
16:18; Acts 2:47).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Money collected on the first day of the week
wasn’t used, facilities purchased with the Lord’s money weren’t used
either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How many people are really
prepared to argue that whatever Jesus did as an individual, the funds and
resources of the local congregation can be used for the same thing?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>3.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Jesus feeding the multitudes is not a parallel to congregational action,
rather it is a parallel to what an individual Christian might do (of course in
a non-miraculous manner and on a smaller scale).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As an individual I have the right to provide
meals for neighbors, friends, and strangers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The obligation of extending hospitality rests upon the individual
Christian (Hebrews 13:2).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/lessons/series/Authority/Authority_Class_20_21.htm"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;">http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/lessons/series/Authority/Authority_Class_20_21.htm</span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The call of God to the church is to preach the gospel to the
lost, and when men get their hearts and lives right with God, they will begin
taking care of their families and helping others as they become productive
citizens and neighbors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The social
gospel is to charge the church with a mission God did not give the early
church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The social gospel is now, as it
has always been, a step in the wrong direction. It has no stopping point
logically or scripturally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who
advocate it are never able to demonstrate from scriptures that the church then
or now should have set up kitchens and hotels for the feeding and sheltering of
the lost.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our mission is to feed them
with the gospel and provide for their spiritual shelter in Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The home and community are to see to the
physical needs as they have opportunity and ability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Let not the church be charged”(1 Tim.5:16)
needs to echo in their conscience until they realize they need to start seeking
God’s way of doing things instead of their own way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>-<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Terry W. Benton</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-83473630136675513502013-01-14T06:55:00.003-08:002013-01-14T06:55:09.783-08:00Preaching the Grace of God
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Preaching the Grace of God<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">A brother made the following comment:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Grace
is one subject one hears very little about in conservative Churches of Christ
except it be prefaced by a stern warning of what grace is not</i>.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I wonder if that statement has been true of my preaching.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I personally know it has not, but could someone
perceive that of me?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I suppose someone
could perceive that I do not preach enough about the grace of God, but let us
think clearly and fairly about our perception.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It seems to me that Paul taught both about what grace is AND what it is
not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Romans 1-2 is why we need grace (we
have all sinned), Romans 3-5 is about what grace provides for the remedy of
sin, and Romans 6 is about what it is NOT. It is not license to sin. When a
majority around us pervert the grace of God and talk as if it is “unconditional”,
then a good minister will evaluate what needs to be said.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I judge that we need to both understand what
it is and what it is not. Paul made that same judgment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jude felt a need to point out that some “turned
the grace of God into licentiousness (license to sin)”(Jude 5).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He felt a need to declare what grace is NOT. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">But, let us consider something else about preaching the
grace of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are broad topics
within the preaching of grace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Notice
what Paul says that GRACE teaches:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Titus 2:11-15<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">For the grace of God
that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying
ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly
in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of
our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He
might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special
people, zealous for good works. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">15 Speak these things,
exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you. NKJV<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Notice that when preachers are teaching you to “deny
ungodliness”, they are preaching the true grace of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, don’t dismiss his teaching as not enough
about the specific topic of the nature of God’s love. He is only teaching you
to deny ungodliness because that is part of preaching true grace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When some of the sermons center on denying “worldly
lusts”, you need to remember that this is what GRACE teaches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When a preacher is preaching about “living
soberly” and making good judgments, he is preaching GRACE.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When he tells you what the New Testament
teaches about morals and righteous principles of living for Christ, he is
preaching true GRACE.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When he is
preaching that you should avoid “every lawless deed” he is preaching true
GRACE.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would you look at the nature and
content of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and accuse him of not preaching
enough about GRACE?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Wouldn’t that be a
bit unfair?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">When we preach God’s word, we are preaching true GRACE.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, like each of the books and letters of
the New Testament, we will mention a variety of things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We will cover the love of God and the mercy
of God, and we will illustrate it like Jesus did in the parable of the prodigal
son.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We will also preach the kingdom,
because that is where grace is enjoyed. We will preach the kingdom and church
of Christ, because that is where grace is enjoyed, and that too was illustrated
in much of the teaching of Jesus and His apostles.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">When we examine Jesus’ teaching, it was not all about the
gracious nature of God SPECIFICALLY, but it was all part of the grace of God
generally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would it be fair to examine
Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and charge that Jesus did not preach enough about
the grace of God specifically? Examine Peter’s sermon on Pentecost.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would it be fair to charge that Peter did not
preach enough about the gracious nature of God’s grace SPECIFICALLY?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, the entire sermon with the opportunity
to call on the Lord and be saved, was all generally part of preaching true
grace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When we preach against any and
all error, we are basically exhorting the brethren to “continue in His grace”
and not get side-tracked away from true grace.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">We should and do preach about what Jesus did for us on the
cross, and we should and do preach about the gracious nature of God, but we
should know enough to recognize that our range of topics should be as broad as
the topics found in the New Testament or against any topic that competes with
or challenges the truths of the New Testament (2 Cor.10:3-5).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Part of preaching grace is to preach the
truth about how to enter His grace and how to continue in His grace. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Paul wrote a whole book on law versus grace through faith
(Galatians).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would it be fair to judge
that he did not write enough to the Galatians about the specific topic of God’s
amazing love?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Was he spending too much
time telling what grace was not?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was
not adding the Law of Moses or circumcision to the liberty given in
Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did Paul say too many negative
things in this book?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some at Corinth
charged him with preaching too much in a rebuking manner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, sometimes that is what brethren need in
order to get back on track with the grace of God. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Acts 11:23-24<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">23 When he came and
had seen the grace of God, he was glad, and encouraged them all that with
purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord. NKJV<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">What did Paul see?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
saw how people had repented and had entered Christ, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>were joyful about their blessings in Christ,
and were continuing in the activity that faith in Jesus demanded.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Acts 13:43<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">43 Now when the
congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed
Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>persuaded them to continue in the grace of
God. NKJV<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">What would it take to “continue in the grace of God”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would be “continuing steadfastly in the
apostles’ doctrine, in fellowship, in breaking of bread, and in prayers”(Acts
2:42).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What the 3,000 brethren were
doing by “continuing in the apostle’s doctrine” was the very same thing as “continuing
in the grace of God”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Acts 14:22<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them
to continue in the faith, and saying, "We must through many tribulations
enter the kingdom of God." NKJV<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Continuing in the faith (that body of teaching expressed in
the New Testament) is the same thing as continuing in His grace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Teaching brethren to be faithful and true to
the “faith once delivered” to the saints, is teaching grace and how to continue
in it. Would it be fair to say that Jude wasted a letter and did not say enough,
specifically, about the positive nature of God’s gracious nature?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did he spend too much time warning about
apostasy? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When we think fairly and
soberly, we would have to check ourselves before we accused gospel preachers of
not preaching enough about a certain topic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It may be that we were not paying close attention. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may also be that we have a distorted view
of how much time should be spent on one topic as opposed to another.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may also be that the time we were not
present, or the times we were not paying attention was when those topics were
indeed preached on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, anytime a man
preaches the kingdom, the parables of Jesus, the books of the New Testament, we
do not skip over the grace of God. We are teaching and preaching it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sometimes a church needs a series of topics
like Paul delivered in his first letter to Corinth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Brethren, that IS preaching the grace of
God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Be fair in your assessment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Col 1:22-23<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are
not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached
to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister. NKJV<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">1 Tim 4:15-16<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">15 Meditate on these
things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to
all. 16 Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in
doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you. NKJV<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Can we read the two letters to Timothy and get the idea that
he should only preach about the God’s gracious nature?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can we save people if we do not defend the
truth on all fronts of attack?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Timothy
will be preaching the saving truth if he defends it against those trying to
bind the Law of Moses on Christians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
brethren start trying to make Genealogies after Jesus came to have some
importance, Timothy can defend true grace against such talk.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Preaching grace is much broader than simply
dwelling on the gracious nature of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is preaching “the whole counsel of God”. It is preaching a wide range
of topics like we find in 1 Corinthians.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I do not believe that I have neglected the grace of God. I
do not believe that there is another preacher who appreciates the grace of God
more than I do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t believe that
such preachers as make comments like the above opening comment have a better
grasp of the topic or understand it better.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I think many who make such comments are not thinking correctly about the
topic specifically and generically.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am
not saying that we all do not have room to grow in the grace and knowledge of
Jesus Christ, but I am saying that the opening comment of the brother is not
true of my experience in conservative churches of Christ in general or of my
preaching specifically. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would think
that the comment is indicative of someone who is simply not satisfied with his
own experience and who has surmised that it was the fault of others who were
preaching rather than problems with his own perceptions due to his own
spiritual problems and lack of personal study. At any rate, let us be sure we
understand and appreciate the nature of God and His amazing grace, while
realizing that there is far more to preaching the true grace of God than merely
dwelling on that specific aspect of it to the neglect of what grace teaches and
demands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let us be careful to enjoy and
preach the whole counsel of God.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-55228829286252411312012-12-22T10:07:00.000-08:002012-12-22T10:07:00.488-08:00A Reply to A Better Way (1b)
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">What the Apostles and elders did in Acts 15 on the question
of circumcision was gather the evidence from statements of prophecy, examples
of conversions without circumcision, and then drawing the “judgment”, verdict,
or necessary inference. They did what we all have to do on any question. There
is really just one common sense way to approach any Bible subjected. You gather
the evidence as they did, you test it for relevance to the issue at hand, and
you draw the necessary conclusions from the tested evidence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Our courts are set up to use this approach because it is
common sense. Suppose someone came along and said we need to free all prisoners
because the courts have been using a faulty hermeneutic? That would certainly
cause us some concern for the person making such a claim. But, I’m sure there
would be people who would rally to that man and act like he was really thinking
and being wise and conscientious. The fact would still remain that in order for
the man to be credible he would have to do more than CLAIM that a faulty
hermeneutic was the problem of the injustice of having so many men and women in
prison, but he would have to show exactly HOW the evidence SHOULD be handled in
order to arrive at the right conclusions and judgment. Unless he can clearly set
forth his case for a “new hermeneutic” his credibility will rightly fall flat.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In similar manner, brethren today who say we need a “new
hermeneutic” and then proceed to say that the old way of judging and
determining truth was faulty and brought about faulty conclusions, will view
this man suspiciously until he sets forth the clarity of a better way of
handling evidence. We would gladly listen if the man will actually show a
better way of gathering, handling, and testing evidence so that the right conclusions
can be drawn. But, merely claiming that gathering the evidence, testing it, and
drawing the necessary conclusions is a faulty process and a faulty
“hermeneutic” is not going to clear up anything. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Before someone came along and termed it CENI, we have long
been doing it as in Acts 15 long before a summarizing acrostic (CENI) was
invented to describe it. There is nothing wrong with the description summary,
but I never consciously think of the acrostic description while I am studying
the evidence on a topic. I simply gather the available evidence as they did in
Acts 15 and try to draw the necessary conclusions. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Now, if the teachers of circumcision had accused the
apostles and elders of needing a “new hermeneutic” and that the problem was
that their SENI approach (statements, examples, necessary inference approach)
is what blinded them and was causing division, the apostles and elders would
have probably engaged the man further to see what was wrong with their
hermeneutic. If the man did not show clearly what was wrong with what they did,
then they would have good reason to mark that man (Rom.16:17).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The problem is not with the summarizing acrostic (CENI). It
is just a summary of what we do without even thinking about it. It summarizes
that we gather the relevant evidence and draw the conclusions from the
evidence. That is all we can do.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Even if you never hear of the acrostic, you do the same
thing they did in Acts 15. So, why not call it “the Acts 15 hermeneutic” if
CENI gives you problems? What you CALL what you do with evidence and
conclusions is NEVER the problem. The problem is always either: 1) Not
gathering all the evidence, or 2) mishandling the evidence, or 3 ) ignoring the
evidence. And, this is why different conclusions are reached. Disputing is good
if you are testing ideas. The apostles and elders engaged “much dispute” before
they laid out the evidence and drew the conclusion they reached over the
circumcision question. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Using Acts 15 as the model for a process of dealing with
issues of differences, it is unifying if you truly want truth. If you don’t
want truth it doesn’t do any good to test ideas in “much dispute”. The process
even in Acts 15 does not work for those who do not WANT the truth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">If we don’t like the conclusions on a matter, then retest
the evidence and show where the conclusions went wrong, but don’t blame a
summary acrostic for causing blindness and division. Let us not divide over an
acrostic summary. Call it the “Acts 15 Hermeneutic” and go on and gather the
evidence and draw the conclusions demanded. We don’t need a new hermeneutic. We
just need to use the same common sense they used in Acts 15. Combine that
process with love, honesty, and desire for truth, and we can come to the unity
of the faith in the unity of the Spirit. -Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-80384520121777314382012-12-19T14:08:00.001-08:002012-12-19T14:08:05.257-08:00My Reply to “A Better Way” (1a)
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">My Reply to “A Better Way” (1a)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I do not want to be uncharitable or seem uncharitable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> So, I am not. Replying to what I deem as misleading information is not being unkind or uncharitable. </span>I labor to say the right things in the best
way possible, trying hard to speak the truth in love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I want to respond to some things a brother (MR
) has published on the internet. </span><a href="http://maxdray.com/2012/12/14/a-better-way-1/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;">http://maxdray.com/2012/12/14/a-better-way-1/</span></a><span style="font-family: Calibri;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do not know this brother, and have no
personal dislike for him. This is not about personalities. It is about ideas. This is wholly an examination of ideas that he has
expressed publicly. I will quote the ideas he expressed and show what I think
are mistakes in the idea presented.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><em>MR: I still stand behind my affirmations that the presently
accepted (Command, Example, Necessary Inference) approach used by brethren in
Churches of Christ is inadequate and flawed</em>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">TB: I would desire for an “adequate and unflawed” approach,
but do not anticipate that our brother will be able to avoid using commands,
examples, and necessary inferences and still present to us an approach that is
both “adequate and unflawed”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What will
a man look at and consider in the scriptures if he will not draw his
conclusions (necessary inference) from commands and examples in the
scriptures?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the surface it seems that
his approach will seek to avoid the very things he has to use to get to
something less flawed and fully adequate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Since the scriptures come to us in the form of commands, statements, and
examples, and reasoning upon the scriptures requires necessary conclusions, how
will our brother avoid these things?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><em>MR: . I will get to a presentation of what I consider to be
a better way to understand God's will for both ourselves individually and for
the church but first I must make some preliminary observations before I get to
that.<o:p></o:p></em></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">TB: We are to anticipate from our brother a better way ‘to
understand God’s will” than gathering information in the form of commands and
examples, and a better way than drawing necessary inferences from the
evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the surface it seems to me
to be an impossible task.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
preliminary observations are to me a useless exercise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems designed to create doubt and
frustration and suspicion by use of prejudicial inferences and unfair
misrepresentation of what brethren have done with their approach to the
scriptures.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><em>MR: All we have to do is look at the evidence all around us
in the devastation of division with its attendant animosity to see that what is
supposed to be the best way to understand the Bible just isn't working – at
all.<o:p></o:p></em></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">TB: I contend that it is not a problem with the way to
understand the Bible, but more with the will to understand and apply the Bible.
I would contend that gathering information from the Bible and drawing necessary
inference from that evidence is all we can do, and that our brother will not be
able to avoid commands and examples or the necessary inferences from the
evidence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><em>MR: Rather than finding the peace and unity we professedly
all want, the landscape is littered with the ruins and devastation of incessant
battles and rings with the continual sniping of partisans rather than genuine
love accompanied with the peace that naturally flows from hearts that are ruled
by love.<o:p></o:p></em></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">TB:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I agree
whole-heartedly that genuine love is necessary and that our hearts should be
ruled with love, but, even when we are genuinely guided by love, we are still
to “test all things” and “hold fast what is good” and “mark those who cause
divisions contrary to the doctrine”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Love does not forbid the testing of ideas and love does not
demand the surrendering of truth and just agreeing to ignore practices our
consciences forbid us to participate in and condone.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">What normally happens is that brethren who want a “new
hermeneutic” do the “sniping” and show no genuine love, and when brethren love
them enough to tell them the truth, they start “sniping” brethren and accusing
them of no love and of having a bad attitude.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Paul asked, “Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paul “loved” the Galatian brethren enough to
tell them the truth. It was not a pleasant thing for him to do, but it was a “loving”
thing for Paul to do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Likewise, when
brethren start saying that we are wrong to appeal to “commands, examples, and
draw the necessary inferences from the total evidence of scripture, and then when
we point out the error of such thinking, it is the loving thing to do on our
part, but the new hermeneutic brother thinks we have become their enemy by
telling them the truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why won’t the
new hermeneutic brother love us and quit impugning our motives and attitude?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Why is it that we cannot be viewed as loving God with all
our heart and our brethren, when like Paul, we try to tell brethren the
truth?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How is it that we have to accept
their view and their mishandling of scripture before we can be viewed as loving
God and our brethren?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I believe this is
what Paul meant when he appealed to some brethren at Corinth to be at least as “open”
to him as they were the false teachers of another Jesus, to be at least “equally
yoked” to true Jesus teachers so as to give truth the same chance as they were
willing to give error.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Perhaps through bad experience with a few, we think all
brethren who seek authority through God’s commands and examples in scripture
cannot possibly “love” God as much as the man who is advocating “love” and
fellowship of all erroneous practices. We must take heed to be fair-minded. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I know plenty of brethren who respect
authority, agree to “prove all things” by examining the evidence of commands
and examples and then drawing the necessary inferences of the total scriptural
evidence, and who are very kind and loving men and women.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t forget those brethren just because you
had a bad experience. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I do not see attacking “commands, examples, and necessary
inferences” as loving simply because it is not right. It is misguided and
reckless, and therefore we need to point this out if we are to do the “loving”
thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The problem is not CENI
(commands, examples, necessary inference).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Jesus and the apostles used all of these. The problems we have is in the
MISUSE of commands, examples, necessary inferences, or not caring enough to use
the Bible at all to “prove what is acceptable to the Lord”. Not using commands
and examples, or misuse of commands and examples, is the problem every time. It
is never the FACT that we appeal to these things.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">It takes nothing but common sense and reading the Bible to
discover that Jesus appealed to commands (Matt.4:1ff) and examples (Matt.12)
and drew necessary inferences (Matt.22).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It was not the fact that Jesus appealed to each of these things that
caused problems. It was the fact that He did and His hearers did not like the
TRUTH that caused problems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anybody can
misuse a command or example and therefore draw the wrong inference.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You blame that persons’ misuse, not the very
use of such.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><em>MR: We never consider the possibility that there could be
anything wrong with our conclusions because there is something wrong with the
method we have employed in reaching those conclusions.<o:p></o:p></em></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">TB: Of course we would consider the possibility that there
is something wrong with our conclusions and of the method used to reach those
erroneous conclusions if someone would point it out. I have changed my mind on
various things through the years because someone tested my idea and did an
excellent job of showing the evidence, showing how the evidence was mishandled
earlier, showing the right way to handle the evidence, and then reaching the
right conclusion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is how
truth-seekers have always worked out of error into the light of truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, for a brother to suggest that we are
wrong to gather the evidence of scripture (looking at the available commands,
statements, and examples) and drawing a necessary inference from that evidence,
tells me this person is not a truth-seeker.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He wants us to consider that we may be wrong, but he does not want to
consider that he may be wrong, and is wrong. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">We have to be fair-minded and not just blame the other
person. But, we don’t need to humble ourselves to the point that we cannot
trust our conclusions about truth just because the other person might accuse us
of being prideful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paul rebuked Peter “because
he was to be blamed”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would not be
right for Peter to turn and accuse Paul of thinking he was always right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, if Peter was a false teacher, he just
might have turned the tables on Paul in that way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m thankful that Paul rebuked Peter when it
was right to do so, and I’m thankful that Peter was man enough and humble
enough to accept correction. That should be the manner of all of us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><em>MR: . The question that must be answered before we can even
approach the matter of what is authorized is “How does God exercise his
authority through the Bible?”<o:p></o:p></em></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">TB: Instead of beating around the bush with continual
prejudice against gathering commands, statements, examples, and drawing
necessary inference, I truly wish our brother would come right out and tell us “How
does God exercise his authority through the Bible?” The mystery of what “better
way” of “proving what is acceptable to the Lord” has got me on edge, hoping his
next paragraph will clear it all up. Sadly, he goes a whole series of articles
and never clears it up, and then he came out with “A Better Way (5)” and still made
nothing any clearer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">There are two things that keep me bothered about our brother’s
approach: 1) He never shows WHY we are wrong to gather total Bible evidence on
a subject and draw necessary inferences, and 2) He keeps leading us along like
he is going to show what we missed, how God REALLY exercises His authority
through the Bible”, and never comes out with it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><em>MR: There is agreement among all I know – even those who
question the validity of the CENI approach – that Bible is authoritative.<o:p></o:p></em></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">TB: I wonder what “method” we all used to reach this agreement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Was it not the fact that we looked at the
total evidence of statements and examples and drew the necessary inference that
the Bible IS “authoritative”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that was how we reached agreement on the
issue of WHETHER the Bible is authoritative, do we take a different approach on
how to use the authoritative word to find out how to “prove what is acceptable
to the Lord?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><em>MR: The assumption made by those who rely on CENI approach
is that this is the correct and ONLY way that his authority can be determined.<o:p></o:p></em></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">TB: CENI simply means “commands, examples, and necessary
inference”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It says NOTHING about how to
“approach” anything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If someone has “approached”
commands, examples, and necessary inferences in the wrong way, we do not throw
out commands, examples, and necessary inferences. We simply try to correct the
fellow that was “approaching” commands, examples, and necessary inferences in a
wrong manner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was his MANNER of
approach, not CENI that would be the problem. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, whether I ever
heard of that acrostic or not, I will have to look at the Bible, consider the
commands and examples pertaining to any subject, and try to draw the necessary
conclusion or inferences from the evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>CENI does not tell me to ignore any other biblical form of evidence. If
it is an acrostic to remember to gather just the words expressed in the form of
examples and commands, but don’t consider statements, exclamations, or other
forms of literary expression, then I would be the first to say that it is
wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, that is just getting too
technical.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What the Bible is, is an
EXAMPLE of God’s communication to other people in other places of the
world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, in that sense we are looking
at examples of commands and statements and other forms of literature written to
other people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are to gather evidence,
all the evidence, on a topic such as baptism or the Lord’s Supper and draw a
necessary conclusion about what God wants from us using someone else’s mail. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">CENI (commands, examples, necessary inferences) IS NOT AN
APPROACH to the Bible. Rather, it is WHAT we are approaching just by handling
the Bible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Bible is basically a book
with a great story of God’s love in trying to redeem a condemned people. Inside
the expectation part of the story are commands and examples that demand
necessary inferences about what applies and how it applies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How would we determine how His authority is
to be executed if we do not look at what has been commanded and the examples of
those who were carrying out His will? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Making the issue the very use of the acrostic, CENI, is a
mistake.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What needs to be done is to
simply acknowledge that God’s authority is indeed revealed to us in commands
and examples, and the evidence does in fact have to be reasoned upon to draw
the right conclusions, and then to discuss with our brethren where and how some
have misused a command or example and drew the wrong inferences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would encourage brethren to refrain from
muddying the water and clouding the issues. That is what happens when you make
CENI, a memory acrostic, the problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That is not a problem and never has been and never will be. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">It is ALWAYS the misuse of evidence in whatever form, or not
appealing at all to the evidence, ignoring the evidence, or misusing the
evidence that causes problems. But the evidence itself is not the problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When brethren realize this, they will quit
making a memory acrostic the issue and will start to reason over the evidence
and start drawing the necessary conclusions and be equipped to show how others
mishandled the evidence and drew the wrong conclusions. When we start talking
TO each other about the evidence, and start discussing the evidence and the
proper handling of the evidence, we will start making some progress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who do not want to test their ideas and
those who do not want to reason together will get culled out, and the remaining
disciples will have a greater amount of unity. I pray that we can do more of
the kind of thing we see done in Acts 15 when we disagree.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We ought to engage much dispute if necessary
to test the ideas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our courts of law
believe that evidence can be tested in such a manner that 12 jurors can draw
the right judgment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a matter of
evidence, testing the evidence, and drawing the necessary conclusion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If courts of the world can do it, surely
brethren in the Lord can do that as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That is pretty much what we see in the efforts made in Acts 15.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is a good pattern for brethren to follow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>–<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-68027244792207787042012-11-26T08:01:00.001-08:002012-11-26T08:01:17.855-08:00Facts About ChristmasFacts About Christmas<br />(Kent E. Heaton Sr.)<br /><br />Some years ago, a Catholic
Priest preached a sermon that Santa Clause was<br />dead. What a commotion was
caused and parents came out of church crying.<br />Imagine messing with a
tradition as strong as that and not getting into a<br />lot of trouble about it
all. It reminds me of the fellow who said he knew<br />that Santa Clause was real
because the Easter bunny had told him so.<br /><br />Christmas is here again and it
looks like it will be here for a very long<br />time. The longer one tells an
untruth, the more it becomes truth - so it is<br />with Christmas. The sad part
is there are children of God who still do not<br />understand that Christmas is a
Catholic mass. To celebrate Christmas as the<br />birth of Christ is to embrace
Catholicism.<br /><br />As the Catholic church is the mother of all apostasy, her
children called<br />Protestants have followed in her same way. The World Book
Encyclopedia<br />explains that Christmas is of Catholic origin meaning, "Christes
Masse".<br />Bishop Liberius of Rome adopted December 25 as the birth day of Jesus
in the<br />year 354. They chose this date because the feast of the sun, or
winter<br />solstice, was a familiar Roman feast celebrating the victory of light
over<br />darkness.<br /><br />The disciples of the New Testament never celebrated the
birth of Jesus.<br />They remembered His death, burial and resurrection once a
week but never His<br />birth. In fact, they lived during the same time of Jesus
and could very<br />well have known what day Jesus was born. They were his age
and even older<br />and Mary His mother was with the disciples in Acts 1. Why was
the day of<br />His birth never given in scripture? It is not important to
God!<br /><br />The Christian should recognize that to take part in any facet of
Christmas<br />as the birth of Christ (mangers, angels, stars, shepherds, wise
men, etc.)<br />is to practice something that God never gave authority for. It
makes a<br />difference to God!<br /><br />No one knows what day He was born.
December 25 could not be the birth day<br />of Jesus because the shepherds would
not be in the field with their sheep<br />during this time of the year.<br />The
Bible never said to celebrate His birth - the Catholic church did.<br />Myriad's
of secular writers and religious writers affirm that no one knows<br />the birth
date of Jesus.<br /><br />The wise men never saw Jesus in the manger. Matthew 2:11
says they found<br />him in a "house." If Herod's order to kill the children from
two years old<br />and under is a help in determining the age of Jesus, a rough
guess could be<br />that Jesus (as a "child" - Matthew 2:11) was at least a year
old and maybe a<br />little older. The reasoning I offer for this is if Jesus is
six months old,<br />why kill two-year-old children? Herod wanted to make certain
the baby Jesus<br />was killed. (I suggest this only as an idea - not really
worth a plug<br />nickel but food for thought) The fact is though - Jesus was a
child when<br />the Wise men saw him.<br /><br />No one knows how many wise men there
were. There could have been three,<br />four, five, twenty-five or ten. No one
knows. To suggest there were three<br />because three gifts were given is to
suggest that if you received three<br />gifts for your birthday that three people
gave them to you.<br /><br />The church in Trenton will not celebrate today or next
week in any fashion<br />that points to the birth of Jesus. Is this because we do
not accept or<br />believe in His birth? On the contrary, the greatest birth ever
blessed upon<br />this world was that holy night of redemption. We will celebrate
his death,<br />burial and resurrection as we do each first day of the
week.<br /><br />It is important to us that we follow the Bible and the Bible
alone.<br />"Christmas" is not found in God's holy writ. That matters to us and
we pray<br />it will matter to you. It is a nice thought to celebrate the birth
of Jesus<br />but God said that we could not add to His revelation - even if an
angel said<br />so. (Galatians 1:9,10) Christmas did not come from the mind of
God and God<br />minds what we say comes from Him. We are seeking the paths of
God's will<br />and we ask you to join with us in that journey.<br /><br />Kent E.
Heaton Sr.<br />P. O. Box 265<br />Trenton, Florida 32693<br /><a href="wlmailhtml:{7C341160-B5F2-496A-B1C3-5972B7AFF931}mid://00000000/!x-usc:mailto:Kerux@svic.net">Kerux@svic.net</a>Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-23338819684801059912012-11-25T21:48:00.002-08:002012-11-25T21:48:39.196-08:00Has Anyone Seen God?
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Has Anyone Seen God?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<h1 style="margin: 24pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #365f91;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">The Argument:<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h1>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Has anyone seen God? John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time.
(Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12) Gen. 32:30 For I have seen god
face to face. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">How do you harmonize these passages?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h1 style="margin: 24pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #365f91;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">The Answer:<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h1>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Seeing <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God "face
to face" is the highest imaginable experience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A person gets so close to "face to
face" that they cannot imagine getting any closer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, when a person says he came "face to
face" with death, they mean that they cannot imagine getting any closer to
the actual experience.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Still, it is a figure of speech.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mortals cannot literally look into the face
of God and live. This body is not suitable for such an event.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, God has revealed Himself in veiled ways
and some have come closer to the experience than others in meeting God in as
personable way as can be allowed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
experience was far more intimate and personal than before, and so, in
comparison to prior experiences, a person might be known to say that, as far as
he was concerned, he had seen God "face to face".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we allow for figures of speech (which we
must), then we cannot consider these face-to-face statements to be any more of
a contradiction than the example of the biography that said both "he went
to church"( meaning "usually" in one context) and in a later
part of the biography we find "he did not go to church" (meaning with
reference to a specific day when he was sick).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is a way for both statements to be true in their various contexts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">If one text says "no man has seen God" (with,
perhaps, an unveiled, fully revealed, presence in mind) and another passage
shows where man "saw God" (but has in mind, a close encounter, but
somewhat less than full disclosure of His actual glory), then the language does
not represent an actual ontradiction. It would be that a figure of speech was
used in the encounter much like "I came face to face with
death".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To counter my argument,
which admittedly was not a full treatment of the subject, one writer presented
the case for a real, face-to-face encounter between Moses and God. The writer
appeals to the<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">following passage:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Exodus 33:7 -Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it
outside the camp, far off from the camp; he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone
who sought the LORD would go out to the tent of meeting, which was outside the
camp. 8 Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people would rise and stand,
each of them, at the entrance of their tents and watch Moses until he had gone
into the tent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>9 When Moses entered the
tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and the LORD would speak with Moses. 10 When
all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent,
all the people would rise and bow down, all of them, at the entrance of their
tent. 11 Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a
friend. Then he would return to the camp; but his young assistant, Joshua son
of Nun, would not leave the tent. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Note: What gives away the fact that this is not a literal
"face-to-face" (viewing each other personally) encounter?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, verse 9 has Moses inside the tent and
verse 10 has the Lord in the "pillar of cloud"(which conceals full
glory) and "at the entrance of the tent" (which is not actually
inside and unconcealed where Moses was).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No doubt it was special, a very close encounter. But, this was still not
unveiled face-to-face (personally looking in the literal face of God). Two
Muslim women could talk face to face as one speaks to a friend and still have
their veils on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The expression "face-to-face"
does not tell us how naked or covered their literal faces were.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It speaks of a more intimate encounter and conversation
than God had with the other people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
comparison to the others, it was face to face, that is, much more intimate than
their own encounter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">It would be much like watching a robber on a monitor and
seeing his disguised form move face to face with the store clerk.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if the robber were wearing a mask, it
would still be a face-to-face encounter between the robber and the clerk, but
it would not be face to face with those viewing only the monitor or seeing this
happen from a distance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, to further
demonstrate that Moses did not have an unveiled encounter with God, we see
Moses admitting this just a few verses later.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">18 Moses said, "Show me your glory, I pray."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">19 And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass
before you, and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>will proclaim before you
the name, 'The LORD'; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and
will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20 But," he said, "you
cannot see my face; for no one shall see me and live."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Note: How could it be "face to face" without
seeing His face?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By "face to face"
meaning close, intimate, and personal encounter rather than having to do with
what Moses actually SAW with his own eyes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The expression "face to face" does not have to do with what we
SEE. It is an expression of close, intimate encounter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, it is a figure of speech in this
context.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To get around this, the Bible
critic invents the idea that this part of the passage "contradicts"
the other part, or they try to rationalize that two different<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>authors are involved in which the first
writer is contradicted by the later writer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No, there is no contradiction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is simply a misunderstanding (intentional or unintentional) as to
what is meant by "face to face".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">21 And the LORD continued, "See, there is a place by me
where you shall stand on the rock; 22 and while my glory passes by I will put
you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have
passed by; 23 then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face
shall not be seen."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Now, to counter my argument, Mr. Weida (or Vida) said:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">It is quite obvious from the reading in exodus that god
actually comes down and makes his presence, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>possibly physical, known to Moses in direct contact,
face to face, as one speaks to a friend. This doesn't indicate to me that the
relationship god and Moses had was "face to face" figuratively, as
one speaks to a friend. It indicates literally, as one would sit down and speak
to a friend, literally face to face,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">My Reply:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The Hebrew word has various shades of meaning. A common
nuance is "presence to presence",<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The word is most commonly rendered "before", which means in this
case that each one was before the other (saying nothing about what was literally
seen or how extensively revealed or covered each party was).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, all we can gather from the context is
that Moses met "face to face" with God, and that expression does not
reflect what either party actually SAW.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">It was a literal "presence to presence"
confrontation, but the expression is also not a literal, precise declaration of
what Moses SAW.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The store clerk came
face to face with a robber, but that does not tell us anything about the
literal face of the robber.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He could be
wearing a mask and it is still a face to face experience. Our text tells us
that Moses COULD NOT see the actual face of God and live.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, there are various levels of interaction, and
face to face was not, in this case, a SIGHT-OF-GOD'S-FACE matter, but a close,
person-to-person presence with each other.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The text tells us specifically where Moses was (in the
tent), where God was (in a cloud at the door of the tent) and specifically what
Moses DID NOT SEE.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The text also tells
exactly WHY Moses could not see the actual face of God. It was because "no
man can see the face of God and live".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is a much more intimate encounter that man is not suited to
experience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, SPEAKING face to face
as one speaks to a friend, does not equate with SEEING the actual face of
God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>"Face to face" is a manner
of speech, confrontation, communication, but does not necessarily relate to
what one SEES in the face to face experience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I have shown that the context defines the nature of the face to face as
close encounter and intimate communication. There are other passages that have
this same connotation:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Strong's defines "paniym" (paw-neem'); plural (but
always as singular) of an unused noun [paneh (paw-neh'); from OT:6437]; the
face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications
(literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition
(before,etc.):<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance
with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and
International Bible Translators, Inc.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Num 12:8<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">8 I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in
dark sayings; And he sees the form of the LORD.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant
Moses?" NKJV<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">This passage pertains to the closeness and more direct
SPEAKING and HEARING experience and explains that face to face means "EVEN
PLAINLY" and not in dark sayings, and he SEES THE FORM of the Lord (not
His face).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, face to face does
not have to do with what one SEES, necessarily, but in the proximity of two
individuals in communication.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Num 14:13-15<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">13 And Moses said to the LORD: "Then the Egyptians will
hear it, for by Your might You brought these people up from among them, 14 and
they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that You,
LORD, are among these people; that You, LORD, are seen face to face and that
Your cloud stands above them; and You go before them in a pillar of cloud by
day and in a pillar of fire by night.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>NKJV<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">This passage claims that compared to other people, Israel
saw God face to face in the presence they saw in the cloud and pillar of
fire.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was a face to face experience
for the Israelites, though it does not make a claim about them seeing the
actual face of God.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Deut 5:3-6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">3 The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but
with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive. 4 The LORD talked
with you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 5 I stood
between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD;
for you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up the mountain. He
said:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">6'I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage.NKJV<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Once again, this is a passage that denotes "presence to
presence" as the nature of the "face to face" experience, but
says nothing about them seeing God in all His unveiled, radiant glory, or
seeing His face.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Deut 34:10-12<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">10 But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet
like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, 11 in all the signs and wonders
which the LORDsent <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>him to do in the land
of Egypt, before Pharaoh, before all his servants, and in all his land, 12 and
by all that mighty power and all the great terror which Moses performed in the
sight of all Israel. NKJV<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">This passage shows that Moses knew the Lord face to face IN
ALL THE SIGNS AND WONDERS. It is a claim to the intimate connection Moses had
with God, but does not relate to Moses glaring in the unveiled face of God.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Ezek 20:34-37<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>35 And I will bring
you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will plead My case with you
face to face. 36 Just as I pleaded My case with your fathers in the wilderness
of the land of Egypt, so I will plead My case with you," says the Lord GOD.
NKJV<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">This is long after the Babylonian Captivity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The same idea of what face to face meant is
continued.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God wanted to plead with them
face to face. But, He wanted to do it in the same manner that He did it in the
wilderness of the land of Egypt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, in
the wilderness of the land of Egypt they did not look directly into the
unveiled face of God, nor did He present Himself to them in that way. The
evidence shows that face to face speaks of presence to presence communication,
but does not always relate to what one sees, or even if one sees the actual
face of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, I must conclude
that Mr. Weida (Vida) is mistaken as to what the passages speak of in Exodus,
Isaiah, and Job.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each case was a close
encounter of a personal nature, but in neither case does the text say that man
saw the actual face of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They saw a
form, or a cloud, or a mental dream-vision, or a pillar of fire, or a whirlwind,
or some other veiled experience, but they did not see the unveiled, actual face
of God and live to tell about it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
cannot be done until we are clothed with that immortal body that is suited to
the glorious experience.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-28295058423970748462012-11-24T19:13:00.001-08:002012-11-24T19:13:05.288-08:00Unconditional Love?
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Unconditional Love?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">That God’s love is “unconditional” means one thing to one
person and a different thing to someone else. The Bible does not use the
expression “unconditional love” but does imply it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God “so loved” the world (John 3:16).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That would mean that love is what moved Him
to give His Son for the sinful world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Paul said that he loved us “while we were yet sinners” (Rom.5:8).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, it was not a situation of God would
love us IF…..<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God loved us when we were
at our worst. Thus, in that regard, it was an unconditional love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, what does that mean?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some seem to think that because God loves us
all unconditionally, that therefore He ACCEPTS us unconditionally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is this what the Bible really teaches?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h2 style="margin: 10pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #4f81bd;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">False Concepts of God’s Love<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h2>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">One clearly false concept is that God only loves us IF we
perfectly obey Him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, that is not the
case because the Bible says He loved us at our worst, “while we were yet
sinners”(Rom.5:8).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Prodigal Son’s
father loved him unconditionally, but certainly was not pleased with his son’s
choices. To love is not to accept any and all behavior.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A parent can “so love” a child but not be
pleased with the lifestyle of that child.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Still, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>love is what causes the
parent to keep hoping for a turn around and return of the lost child.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Love longs for a turning point in the
thinking of the child, and love is unconditional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, love does not accept the child in
rebellious behavior.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The prodigal son’s
father never stopped loving his son, but there was broken fellowship and
relationship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The father was not glad
about the son’s choices and behavior, and did not pretend that relationship
remained the same as ever.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perfect
obedience was not the reason he loved his son.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He loved his son while he was yet a sinner in hope of his son’s coming
to himself and returning in humility. Love is that way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God is not a God who takes pleasure in
wickedness (Psalm 5:4-6). A person determined to keep practicing sin is
certainly not acceptable to the Lord (Prov.15:8-9).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Love means God longs for a sinner who is
ruining his life and his potential, longing for the sinner to wake up and turn
back to God. God’s love causes Him to also hate what the sinner represents and
how that sinner influences others to ruin their lives as well (Rom.1:20ff).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">A similar false concept is that “God Only Loves Us BECAUSE
We Deserve His Love”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God’s love is totally
unconditional. The Character of God Is LOVE.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Relationship with God is in fact conditional. Love does not equate to
relationship and acceptance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As an
illustration we might say that George loves everyone. Does everyone love
George? And Does George automatically let everyone in his house?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can we not love our enemies without trusting
them with our house and our children?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Love does not equate with relationship and acceptance. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h2 style="margin: 10pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #4f81bd;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Things God’s Love Will NOT Do<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h2>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Love will not automatically accept you “as you are” if that
means “as you have been”. Love does not mean I accept my child as a murderer or
adulterer or thief.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Love means I have “good
will” for someone and will help them get right with God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If one is “continuing in sin”, love means
that I am sad for them and long for their salvation from sin and ruin. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Love does not automatically forgive you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Forgiveness is conditioned on being “in
Christ”(Eph.1:3,7; Gal.3:26-27). Love longs for our forgiveness and will
provide a just way that it can happen if we want it. There are conditions for
coming into Christ where forgiveness is enjoyed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God’s love longs to forgive, but will not automatically
accept you “as you are”, if that means you are going to decide to continue as
you are. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Love will not force your love and service to Him. It will
not force you to act against your will, but yearns to get you to change your
will in His favor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, love will
not, by itself, prevent you from going to torment or hell. God loved even the
rich man, but the rich man still went to torment (Luke 16:19f). It was not that
God did not love him. It was that the rich man did not love God and therefore did
not love his fellow man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h2 style="margin: 10pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #4f81bd;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Things God’s Love WILL Do<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h2>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">God’s love will provide a conditional way for you to be saved.
(John 3:16; Mark 16:15-16). These conditions do not merit salvation on your end.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are things that you MUST do (Acts 2:37-41),
and yet they are not works of merit whereby God OWES us anything (Eph.2:8-9).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Belief and baptism in Jesus’ name are not
meritorious works, nor are they works of perfect law-keeping.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are both actions of mind, will, and
appeal to God for His mercy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God loves
us and will forgive us if we believe, repent, and are baptized in Jesus’ name
for remission of sins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God’s love
provides the remission of sins and the conditions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">These conditions are within your power to do. There is no
excuse for not meeting these conditions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">God’s love will try to attract your better possibilities and
potential and will provide the greatest incentives for you to repent
(Rom.2:4-8). Heaven and Hell are incentives, but God’s amazing love and
fellowship is a primary incentive.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">God’s love is so great that He will do what is painful to Himself
in order to be merciful and just in an effort to win your love and fellowship. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God IS Love. (1 John 3).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h2 style="margin: 10pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #4f81bd;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">How do we define His Love?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h2>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">We cannot define it as automatic acceptance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It does not mean that none will be lost. What
does it mean? It means that there is “good will”, mercy, and compassion already
resident within His character. It is there driving Jesus to the cross for your
possible salvation. It is your greatest opportunity in life to have
reconciliation with God now so that He can bring you home to glory. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Don’t blow your opportunity to experience and enjoy His
greatness of Being. There are conditions for being made acceptable
(Rom.5:1f).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We see how 3,000 Jews came
from lost and condemned to being acceptable, having remission of sins (Acts
2:36-41) all because of the love of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You have the same opportunity because of His love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What will your response be?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>-<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Terry W. Benton</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-49492152931013965692012-08-29T09:14:00.004-07:002012-08-29T09:15:25.149-07:00DANGER: Church of Christ -Reply Part 2<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div class="MsoTitleCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">DANGER: The Church of Christ<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoTitleCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="color: #17365d; font-family: Cambria;"> </span></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoTitleCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">By David J. Stewart<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoTitleCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="color: #17365d; font-family: Cambria;"> </span></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoTitleCxSpLast" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt;">
<span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Reviewed and Refuted by Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #4f81bd;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Part 2<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></i><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">David J. Stewart said previously:<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> As we see in 1st Corinthians 5:5, some believers live in unrepentant
sin; yet, they are still saved. -</i>Unquote.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">TB: Let us consider 1 Cor.5:5. Does this verse teach that
unrepentant sinful believers "are still saved"? No! It speaks of the
church taking a certain action "that his spirit may be saved in the day of
the Lord Jesus". Without taking this action, he may not be saved in the
day of the Lord Jesus. What action were they taking? It is called
"delivering such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh".
What does that mean? It means to withdraw fellowship and tell him he is with
Satan, not with them. When he is made to realize that he cannot practice his
sin AND continue in fellowship with them and God, then it may cause him to give
up and destroy the sinful, fleshly activity that is making him lose God and the
brethren. Repentance destroys the fleshly power of sin in the blood of Christ,
and as a result his spirit may be saved. So, this verse actually teaches the
opposite of what Stewart is claiming.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Stewart says the verse means this:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">1 Cor 5:5<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>- deliver such a one to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, because his spirit is already saved even to the day
of the Lord Jesus. </i>(David J. Stewart Version).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">But, now notice the difference between David's version of
the verse and what the verse actually says:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;">1 Cor. 5:5 <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>deliver
such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. NKJV<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The word "that" means "in order that"
pointing to desired goals or results. It is the same in the whole context.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">1 Cor 5:2 <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And ye are
puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that (in order that) he that hath done
this deed might be taken away from among you.KJV<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">1 Cor 5:5 <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To deliver
such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that (in order that)
the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.KJV<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">1 Cor 5:7 <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Purge out
therefore the old leaven, that (in order that) ye may be a new lump, as ye are
unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us: KJV<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">So, once again, this man that calls churches of Christ a
"damnable religion" from the "pits of Hell" is sure
perverting and twisting a lot of scripture in order to promote his own
"heresy". For him to abuse the Bible like this means that he is the
one, in fact, who is working with Satan to "make you a victim of his
damnable religion". If you read the book of Acts you will see how the
early church was maligned and falsely accused in similar ways. Let us not allow
someone like David J. Stewart to pervert the word and falsely abuse and misrepresent
God's people.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">If Stewart has been saved by “faith only” then we have too,
and if by faith only we have all been “once-saved-always-saved” then Stewart
should hold that there can be no “damnable heresy” to anybody who has faith and
has been “once-saved-always-saved”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
should view churches of Christ according to his own belief.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If he does not, then he is showing himself to
be a very confused man who does not even believe his OWN teaching.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly the problem is that this man is
twisting the scriptures to his own destruction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(2 Pet.3:17f).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;">(to be continued).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong><em>Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></em></strong></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-50339783588908078772012-08-28T13:20:00.002-07:002012-08-28T13:20:26.652-07:00DANGER: The Church of Christ -REPLY Part 1<strong>DANGER: The Church of Christ</strong><br />
By David J. Stewart<br />
<br />
Reviewed and
Refuted by Terry W. Benton<br />
<br />
Part 1<br />
<br />
<em>DS: The Church of Christ is a
false church. They require good works for<br />salvation.</em><br />
TB: Would belief
be a good work? (John 6:28,29). If so, then David Stewart is<br />
falsely teaching
that a good work is required for salvation. Would repentance be<br />
a good work
or a bad work? (Acts 17:30,31; Acts 2:38; Rom.2:4). If repentance<br />
is a good
work, then Stewart is teaching falsely that you must not repent
for<br />
salvation. Is it a "good work" to "say a little prayer"? If so, then
Stewart is<br />
telling you that you must not say a little prayer for salvation.
On one post<br />
Stewart said: "All that God REQUIRES of a man to be saved is that
he "confess"<br />
(admit) his sinful condition and turn to the Saviour in faith,
that man does NOT<br />
need to give his all." But, is confessing a good work or a
bad work? If it is<br />
a good work, then Stewart is shooting his own doctrine in
the foot. He would<br />
have to say that one must not confess or turn, since those
are good works for<br />
salvation. Work is defined as exertion or effort directed
to produce or<br />
accomplish something; labor; toil. Well, Stewart teaches that
you must exert<br />
effort to learn, believe, confess, and turn. All of that is
work. Thus, Stewart<br />
teaches false doctrine according to his own claim against
churches of Christ.<br />
Thus, Stewart shows that he is not going to be fair and
honest right here in his<br />
first two sentences.<br />
<br />
<em>DS: The Church of Christ
is just as dangerous as Catholicism, Jehovah's<br />Witness, or the Mormons,
because they claim to be "Christian"; BUT they are not!<br />Whereas religions
like Islam and Black Muslim openly deny the Christian faith;<br />the Church of
Christ claims to be Christian, and so Satan uses them to seduce<br />people into
Hellfire.</em><br />
TB: Well, if that is so, then David Stewart is used by Satan to
seduce people<br />
into hellfire because he teaches that one must do good works to
be saved. He is<br />
just as dangerous as Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the
Mormons. He claims<br />
to be "Christian", but he is NOT. Satan is using David
Stewart to seduce people<br />
into Hellfire.<br />
<br />
<em>DS: The following doctrinal
statement is taken directly from the Church of<br />Christ website:<br /><br />How
does one become a member of the church of Christ?<br /><br />In the salvation of
man's soul there are 2 necessary parts: God's part and man's<br />part. God's part
is the big part, "For by grace you have been saved through<br />faith, and that
not of yourselves, it is the gift if God; not of works, that no<br />man should
glory" (Ephesians 2:8-9). The love which God felt for man led him to<br />send
Christ into the world to redeem man. The life and teaching of Jesus,
the<br />sacrifice on the cross, and the proclaiming of the gospel to men
constitute<br />God's part in salvation.<br /><br />Though God's part is the big part,
man's part is also necessary if man is to<br />reach heaven. Man must comply with
the conditions of pardon which the Lord has<br />announced. Man's part can clearly
set forth in the following steps:<br /><br />Hear the Gospel. "How shall they call
on him whom they have not believed? and<br />how shall they believe him whom they
have not heard? and how shall they hear<br />without a preacher?" (Romans
10:14).<br /><br />Believe. "And without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing
unto him; for<br />he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a
rewarder of them<br />that seek after him" (Hebrews 11:6).<br /><br />Repent of past
sins. "The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now<br />he commandeth
men that they should all everywhere repent" (Acts 17:30).<br /><br />Confess Jesus
as Lord. "Behold here is water; What doth hinder me to be baptized<br />? And
Philip said, if thou believeth with all thy heart thou mayest. And
he<br />answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
(Acts<br />8:36-37).<br /><br />Be baptized for the remission of sins. "And Peter said
unto them, Repent ye, and<br />be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus
Christ unto the remission of<br />your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).<br /><br />Live a Christian life. "Ye are an elect race, a
royal priesthood, a holy nation,<br />a people for God's own possession, that ye
may show forth the excellencies of<br />him who called you out of darkness into
his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9).<br /><br />SOURCE: Who are the churches of
Christ?<br /><br />There is much heresy in the preceding statement.<br /><br />First,
salvation is of God alone, and not men. This is plainly stated
in<br />John1:12-13, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become
the<br />sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not
of<br />blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
Man<br />has no part in God's salvation.</em><br />
TB: Notice carefully the verse and
then notice how David Stewart denied the<br />
verse. The verse says that man has a
part. Man has to "receive him". Those that<br />
receive him are given power to
become sons of God. Born of the will of man means<br />
our parents wanted us to be
born so that God would have another human to call<br />
His. No, physical birth by
the will of man does not make a child of God.<br />
Stewart goes too far in saying
that "man has NO PART in God's salvation". Man<br />
cannot be born of God's will
without some cooperation. If man has NO PART, then<br />
only God is to blame if
people are not His children. Stewart makes another<br />
self-contradicting
statement in another article of his. He says:<br />
<br />
<em>People go to hell for one
reason and for one reason only, because they rejected<br />Jesus Christ as their
own personal Saviour.-</em>Unquote.<br />
<br />
But, if there is no WILL to reject or
accept, and it all depends on God and "Man<br />
has NO PART in God's salvation",
then rejection is not man's fault. How can I be<br />
blamed for "rejecting" when I
was not given the power to reject or not reject?<br />
Stewart is certainly
twisting the scriptures to get himself in this mess.<br />
<br />
John 1:13 is not
saying that man has no part in his salvation. Man does have, at<br />
the very
least, a "cooperative" part. The text is best view this way:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
John
1:13<br />
<br />
therefore, neither the will of the flesh-anything that the corrupt
heart of man<br />
could purpose or determine in its own behalf; nor the will of
man-anything that<br />
another may be disposed to do in our behalf, can avail
here; this new birth must<br />
come through the will of God-through his own
unlimited power and boundless<br />
mercy, prescribing salvation by Christ Jesus
alone.<br />
<br />
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
John
1:13<br />
<br />
[Nor of the will of the flesh] Not by natural
generation.<br />
<br />
[Nor of the will of man] This MAY refer, perhaps, to the will
of man in adopting<br />
a child, as the former phrases do to the natural birth;
and the design of using<br />
these three phrases MAY have been to say that they
became the children of God<br />
neither in virtue of their descent from
illustrious parents like Abraham, nor by<br />
their natural birth, nor by being
"adopted" by a pious man. None of the ways by<br />
which we become entitled to the
privileges of "children" among people can give<br />
us a title to be called the
sons of God. It is not by human power or agency that<br />
men become children of
the Most High.<br />
<br />
[But of God] That is, God produces the change, and confers
the privilege of<br />
being called his children. The heart is changed by his
power. No unaided effort<br />
of man, no works of ours, can produce this change.
At the same time, it is true<br />
that no man is renewed who does not himself
"desire" and "will" to be a<br />
believer; for the effect of the change is on his
"will" (Ps 110:3), and no one<br />
is changed who does not strive to enter in at
the strait gate, Phil 2:12. This<br />
important verse, therefore, teaches
us:<br />
<br />
1. that if men are saved they must be born again.<br />
<br />
2. that
their salvation is not the result of their birth, or of any honorable
or<br />
pious parentage.<br />
<br />
3. that the children of the rich and the noble, as
well as of the poor, must be<br />
born of God if they will be saved.<br />
<br />
4.
that the children of pious parents must be born again; or they cannot
be<br />
saved. None will go to heaven simply because their "parents" are
Christians.<br />
<br />
5. that this work is the work of God, and "no man" can do it
for us.<br />
<br />
6. that we should forsake all human dependence, cast off all
confidence in the<br />
flesh, and go at once to the throne of grace, and beseech
of God to adopt us<br />
into his family and save our souls from
death.<br />
<br />
(from Barnes' Notes)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
John 1:6-9<br />
<br />
Believers
are further described in terms of what God does for them. They are<br />
born . . .
of God. This is not a natural process such as brings people into
the<br />
world-not of blood (literally, bloods), suggesting the mingling of
paternal and<br />
maternal strains in procreation. The will of the flesh suggests
the natural,<br />
human desire for children, as the will of man (the word for
husband) suggests<br />
the special desire for progeny to carry on a family name.
So the new birth,<br />
something supernatural, is carefully guarded from confusion
with natural birth.<br />
<br />
(from The Wycliffe Bible
Commentary)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
John 1:13<br />
<br />
There is a progress of thought in
the three following clauses, describing the<br />
proper origin of a believer's new
life. Children of God are begotten, not of<br />
blood, nor of the will of man.
"The new birth is not brought about by descent,<br />
by desire, or by human power"
(Westcott).<br />
<br />
(from Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament)<br />
<br />
So,
Stewart has misused John 1:12-13 to teach that man has NO PART in
the<br />
salvation process. If that is so, then it cannot be man's fault if he
remains<br />
lost. If it is totally up to God, then it is totally up to God, and
man cannot<br />
be faulted for not being among the arbitrarily selected ones.
Stewart teaches<br />
"unconditional election" and "limited atonement" and
"irresistible grace" which<br />
means that God arbitrarily selects the individuals
he wants and rejects the<br />
rest. They can do nothing about it. The selected
cannot resist salvation and the<br />
rest cannot desire and get it. Yet, Stewart
wants you to think that the Churches<br />
of Christ are teaching false doctrine
when the fact is that Stewart is teaching<br />
heresy.<br />
<br />
<em>DS:
In Philippians 2:12 the Apostle Paul states, "Wherefore, my beloved, as
ye<br />have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my
absence,<br />work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Carefully
notice that the<br />Bible says "work out YOUR OWN salvation"; it does not say
anything about God's<br />salvation.</em><br />
TB: Your own salvation is what God has
given you. When God gives the gift of<br />
salvation TO US, then it becomes OUR
OWN salvation. The gift of salvation is a<br />
package of things: 1) remission of
our past sins, 2) the blood to use when we<br />
need it for new sins we will
commit, 3) the hope of heaven, 4) the access to the<br />
throne of grace in the
name of Jesus to find help in time of need. How do we<br />
"work out our own
salvation"? We use the tools He gave us. Stewart is wrong<br />
about this passage
as well.<br />
<br />
<em>DS: When God saves a man, it is then up to that man whether or
not he is going<br />to obey God or not. God saves us by faith, but then it is up
to us to allow the<br />Lord to live the Christian life through us.</em><br />
TB:
Stewart sounds very confused. He speaks as though "it is NOT up to
man"<br />
whether God will save him, but then after saving him against his will,
Stewart<br />
then speaks as though NOW it is "up to us" whether to allow the Lord
to work out<br />
our salvation by obedience. Stewart is struggling with this
passage also.<br />
Obviously these brethren have a part in their salvation to both
accept initial<br />
salvation from sin AND continuing the salvation by yielded
obedience.<br />
<br />
<em>DS: This has nothing to do with salvation. So many heretics
today are trying to<br />add holy living to faith for salvation. No sir! As we see
in 1st Corinthians<br />5:5, some believers live in unrepentant sin; yet, they are
still saved.</em><br />
TB: Once again David J. Stewart is denial of the word of God
because it does not<br />
agree with his Calvinistic doctrines. He says salvation
is "NOT up to man" but<br />
totally up to God, and then says is "up to us" whether
we allow the Lord to work<br />
out our salvation, and then says Phil.2:12 "has
nothing to do with salvation"<br />
even though it says "salvation". Perhaps
Stewart's dilemma is increased by the<br />
fact that the Bible uses "salvation" in
two ways: 1) Salvation from past sins<br />
and condemnation due, and 2) Salvation
from a corruptible body and a world of<br />
temptation. So, one can be saved from
sin, but need to work out making sure<br />
that we stay saved by faithful
obedience so that we can reach the goal, eternal<br />
salvation (1
Pet.1:5-10;Heb.5:9).<br />
<br />
But did you notice David J. Stewart's contradiction
above? If "some believers<br />
"live in unrepentant sin" and yet they are still
saved, then one sin they can<br />
live in is the sin of heresy. He cannot say that
we who have believed in Jesus<br />
for salvation are now lost. He teaches that
"some believers live in unrepentant<br />
sin; yet, they are still saved." So, at
best that is all he can say about the<br />
churches of Christ. Yet, he is in
contradiction of his own doctrine because he<br />
calls these believers a heresy
that is "damnable". AT the end of his article he<br />
says:<br />
<br />
The Church of
Christ is straight from the pits of Hell. I plead with you not to<br />
become a
victim of their damnable religion.-Unquote.<br />
<br />
But, all members of the
church of Christ believe in Jesus Christ. We believed<br />
even before we were
baptized. Thus, Stewart would have to say that we are saved<br />
at the moment of
faith exactly as the Jews in Acts 2:37. What we do and teach<br />
after that point
cannot effect our salvation (according to his doctrine
of<br />
Once-Saved-Always-Saved). His misuse of 1 Cor.5:5 should be apparent to
all. So,<br />
Stewart is claiming a group of believers today is not saved by faith
only, and<br />
not "once-saved-always-saved". Stewart cannot have it both ways.
Either the<br />
churches of Christ are still saved by faith only and
"once-saved-always-saved"<br />
regardless of false teaching, OR the doctrines of
Stewart about salvation by<br />
"faith only" and "once-saved-always-saved" are
false. Stewart cannot have it<br />
both ways.<br />
<br />
(To be continued). Terry W.
BentonTerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-7040065517273229692012-08-24T09:47:00.002-07:002012-08-24T09:47:15.895-07:00Is Salvation Given in a Metaphorical Baptism?
<br />
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 12pt 0in 3pt;">
<strong><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Is Salvation Given in a Metaphorical Baptism?<o:p></o:p></span></span></strong></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: center 3.25in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: center 3.25in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;">(This a letter I sent to a brother years ago).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;">Dear Keith,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I appreciate you meeting and
discussing these vital topics of eternal value.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I truly believe that you are doing the right thing in discussing and
testing the validity of concepts held by others as well as self.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I appreciate anyone who can and will take the
time to discuss spiritual things in an effort to tear down walls of
misunderstanding and establish the truth more firmly in one's mind and
heart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sometimes the process can be
long, but we are commanded to be "longsuffering as we teach the
word". <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;">I'm afraid that the vast majority of religious people today are not
inclined to see how their own views could stand under cross-examination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who are truly interested in the truth
of God's word are not afraid to change their mind for the sake of pleasing God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With this attitude <u>any</u> two people who
disagree on the Bible, can begin little by little to chip away at the walls
that divide them. It seems that real Biblical "love" urges this upon
us. So, in response to your thanking me, the pleasure is mine and the feeling
is mutual.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>You bring up Luke 12:50
again, and I must say something that I did not get to say the other night.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, I agree that baptism can sometimes be
used to refer to some kind of metaphorical submersion, immersion, or overwhelming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I certainly agree that the <u>context</u> is
the determining factor as to <u>how</u> any given word is used.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don't think I said that baptism is always a
word that talks about immersion in water.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It means immersion, which <u>normally</u> implied <u>water</u>, but that
does not mean that it might not at times be employed in another way.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this case, it is the context
which shows that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. In any other context, we
would think Jesus meant that he needed to be baptized (and we would
automatically think of immersion in water because that is its normal
significance).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even you would have
thought that in another context.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What
about this context makes us think of some other submersion?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Notice the statement that joins itself to the
50th verse. "I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were
already kindled!"<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is obvious
that He is not talking about literal fire, but metaphorically speaking of the
fire of religious passion and zeal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
such fire would not be kindled until after Jesus was flooded(baptized) with
suffering.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His suffering in the garden,
His crucifixion, and His resurrection, kindled the fire in the disciples'
hearts and they said "Did not our heart burn within us while He talked
with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?"(Luke
24:32).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fire was kindled after Jesus
was bathed or flooded with suffering. "So the serpent spewed water out of
his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away
by the flood"(Rev.12:15).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Metaphorically then, Jesus was baptized by Satan in his attempt to wash
away the worlds' only hope, seeking to destroy Jesus in the suffering and death
of the cross.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, Jesus then crushed
the serpents' head when He was raised from the dead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The disciples would also experience an
immersion in sufferings for the cause of Christ, but the "gates of Hades
would not prevail" against the church.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;">This is clearly a metaphorical use of baptism, but not the normal
use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The question you have to answer
Keith is which of the following passages take on a metaphorical meaning rather
than its <u>normal</u> meaning? <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;">Matt.28:19?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mk.16:16?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jno.3:22,23?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Acts 2:38? Acts 2:41?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Acts
8:12,13?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Acts 8:36-38?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Acts 9:18? Acts 10:47-48?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Acts 16:33?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Acts 18:8?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Acts 19:5?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Acts 22:16?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Rom.6:3,4? 1 Cor.1:13-17?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
Cor.12:13?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Gal.3:27?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Col.2:12?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I Pet.3:21? <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;">You will have to take each passage and demonstrate when and why the
context changes the normal use into a metaphor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is the area that you and I need to have/take time to discuss more
thoroughly.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The baptism of the Great
Commission (Matt.28:19; Mk.16:16) was performed by the disciples "in the
name of Jesus Christ"(Acts 2:38;10:47-48; 8:12,13), in
"water"(Acts 10:47-48; 8:36-38), "for the remission of
sins"(Acts 2:38; 22:16). You cannot demonstrate a single person in the New
Testament (after the Great Commission began to be carried out) that thought
they were saved before and without baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can dream up situations all
we want, but when it comes back to looking at what the Bible says, salvation
and the joy attendant to that experience <u>always</u> <u>followed</u>
baptism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That does not necessarily fit
what I would like to believe, but I cannot get over the fact that God did not
ask me what I wanted to believe about His terms of entrance into the body of
Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems clear that baptism was
certainly involved in the salvation process (Mk.16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; I
Pet.3:21), and it takes some fantastic ingenuity of logic to remove it from
that process. I hope I can see it if it is true.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The other area of discussion
is the area of "faith versus works". It is not a discussion of faith
versus activity, but a discussion of faith(what is involved in following
Christ) versus Works(what one would have to do to be justified before God
should that person not believe in Jesus).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There are works that demonstrate the reality and life of faith
(Jas.2:19-24). Without this activity, the faith is no good, it is dead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The works of which Paul says a man might
boast, is the imagined works that some of the Jews apparently felt they could
have by meeting the full demands of the law(Acts 13:38,39;Rom.2:17-23;
3:19-24). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The faith was always an active
faith, "obedience to the faith"(Rom.1:5; 6:17,18; 16:26), a
"walking in the steps of Abraham faith"(Rom.4:12).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Abraham was not justified before he <u>demonstrated</u>
faith. Neither are we.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The point and act
of demonstration may be different, but the faith is the same.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no doubt that had God told Abraham
to believe in Jesus and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of
sins, that Abraham would have done that without question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Had Abraham questioned God or said that he
didn't see any sense in His commands, then Abraham would not have been justified
by faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He would be demonstrating a
LACK of faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This issue of salvation
by "faith only" is thoroughly denounced by James and never advocated
by Paul or any other inspired man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
was imagined by Luther, Calvin, and others, but not taught by the
scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We will need to spend more
time on this subject as well.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I am looking forward to our
next period of discussion. I too enjoy it so much when we get together.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I thought I would ask if you would like to
correspond on these matters in the mean time?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Again, thank you for your
love and concern for me and your willingness to bear with the challenge that
such studies naturally bring.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It can
only do good as long as our spirits are tempered with the desire to help each
other make it to the wonderful Promised Land.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 7;"> </span>Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Courier New;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 6;"> </span>Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 7;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-22734569613707537492012-08-09T11:43:00.002-07:002012-08-09T11:43:58.782-07:00When God Is Silent<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">When God Is Silent<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">It has always been the case that when God was silent about
what He wanted, man is not to presume that he can guess his way into pleasing
God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When David presumed that he could
carry the ark on the ox-cart, he soon found out that he should have consulted God
about what God DID say about the transporting of the ark.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God had not been silent (1 Chron.15:13), but
David had forgotten to check God’s will in the matter. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People are often reckless regarding God’s word
and the authority it possesses over our every move and decision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
fact that God had spoken meant that only what God specified could be used in
transporting the ark. The fact that God had spoken about a specific way and was
silent about any other possibility meant that everyone was restricted to what
God said. When God specified, there was no general authority to give other
options.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>David was confronted
about another issue of silence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>David
was feeling guilty that he himself had a nice house and that God was still in a
tent, a lesser house.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this regard God
said to David:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wherever I have moved
about with all Israel, have I ever spoken a word to any of the judges of
Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, 'Why have you not built
Me a house of cedar?'"'</i>( 1 Chron. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>17:6-7NKJV)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">God’s point to David is that if God had wanted a house of
cedar He would have “spoken a word” about it to others long before now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact that God did not say a word about it
was all the proof anyone needed to conclude that God did not want a cedar house
up till now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The silence meant that God
did not want it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People need to learn
this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, keep in mind that a dwelling
for God such as a tabernacle or temple has to be commanded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A building for people to meet in, such as a
synagogue, is not a dwelling place for God, but a place for people to
meet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If God commanded the priests to
make arrangements for teaching, then a place is generally authorized to
facilitate that command. Building a synagogue to carry out the instructions to
teach God’s word throughout Israel is not the same as building a gymnasium to
do something God did not command the priests of Israel to do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Likewise, a church building to facilitate
doing something God has commanded us to do (meet for worship and edification)
is not the same as building kitchens and gymnasiums to do something God has NOT
commanded us to do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The synagogue for
the Jews was an aid to do what was commanded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Likewise, when persecution is not a factor to consider,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>local churches are authorized to choose
anything that expediently aids them in assembling. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An addition would be to determine a work that
has not been given to the church, such as games, social and recreational
activities, and then adding facilities to accomplish what has not been
commanded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h1 style="margin: 24pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #365f91;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">God had Not Commanded<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h1>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Then Nadab and Abihu,
the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it,
and offered profane fire before the LORD, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>which
He had not commanded them</u></b>. 2 So fire went out from the LORD and
devoured them, and they died before the LORD. (Lev 10:1-3 NKJV)<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The fact that God had not commanded the kind of fire or
source of fire they used, was enough.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>God does not have to give a long list of forbidden things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When He has spoken specifically, we are
limited to what was specified and cannot presume upon His silence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Silence is not automatic permission.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, it should throw up a red flag.
Silence is not permission.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Who is he who speaks and it comes to pass,<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">When the Lord has not
commanded it?</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Lam 3:37 NKJV)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h1 style="margin: 24pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #365f91;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Jesus Did Nothing of Himself<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h1>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Then Jesus answered
and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>the Son can do nothing of Himself</u></b>, but what He sees the
Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. </i>(John
5:18-20 NKJV)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">This principle of respecting the silence of God is seen in
Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He did not act unless He had
authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We should be careful not to
do anything when it is merely a personal desire from within.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus did not act that way, and it is certain
that we cannot follow Jesus and do differently.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h1 style="margin: 24pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #365f91;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">We Gave No Such Commandment<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h1>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">It was considered into the evidence of the discussion in
Acts 15 that we cannot bind upon brethren what had not been bound by the
apostles from the beginning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The silence
of God was reason to reject allowing anyone to make circumcision a church
ordinance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, God is also silent about
infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, popes, Cardinals, human names
and organizations, and a lot of other things that were not taught by the
original apostles of Jesus. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When we see
that the silence of God was considered on “proving” this issue of circumcision
in the church, we know that we should take into our consideration the fact that
God never commanded that and other similar matters.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h1 style="margin: 24pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #365f91;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Prove All Things<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h1>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">All matters must be tested as to their divine authority (1
Thess.5:21).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only after it can be proven
good, and scriptures furnish us unto “every good work”(2 Tim.3:15-17), can we “hold
fast” to that tested and proven thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This alone demonstrates that we cannot presume upon the silence of God’s
word.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h1 style="margin: 24pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #365f91;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Prove What IS Acceptable<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h1>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Silence is not proof that something is acceptable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The burden to prove all things and to prove
it IS acceptable places us all under personal responsibility to not act unless
and until we have proven that something is acceptable to God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That means that we have to gather the
evidence, test the evidence, and draw the necessary conclusions from that
evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That process is not
optional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even though many brethren are
now denying the process, there is still the obligation to “prove what is
acceptable” to the Lord (Rom.12:1-3; Eph.5:11). You simply cannot use silence
AGAINST something to prove that it IS acceptable to the Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Human desire and imagination is not proof
that God accepts something.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">So, when God is silent, we must not act. We must act with
caution, and seek to prove what is acceptable to the Lord before we get others
on board to do something with us that has not gone through the proving
process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Beware of those who are not so
inclined to be cautious with regard to the authority of God’s word! – <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Terry
W. Benton<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></div>Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-68128441768190197272012-08-07T10:55:00.001-07:002012-08-07T10:55:43.470-07:00Did Jesus Speak About Homosexuality?<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 2pt;">
<div class="MsoTitle" style="border: currentColor; margin: 0in 0in 15pt; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #4F81BD 1.0pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 2.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Did
Jesus Speak About Homosexuality?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I keep seeing statements about Jesus and the Bible that are
not actually true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those trying to
support the gay right to marry are sometimes seen making a statement like “Jesus
did not say anything about homosexuality because he did not care about this
issue because he did not see it as sin”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I want to address this misguided idea because I do not like to hear
people misusing the information we have about Jesus. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus stood for the
Law of Moses and ALL it said until His death.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Law of Moses was clear about the sin of homosexuality. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was a national law for Israel and it
carried the sentence of death.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Leviticus 18:22 -
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
(NIV)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies
with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to
death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">This was to be carried out by a witness system of two
witnesses. Mosaic regulation stated that a person could be executed only if
there were two or more witnesses to the crime (Deuteronomy 19:15). One witness
was insufficient to evoke the death penalty (Deuteronomy 17:6). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, it
was not common to catch people in the act. Such sins were in the closet. People
were hiding fornication, adultery, and homosexuality, and so it was not brought
commonly into the public eye or brought to the death sentence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That did not mean that God would not bring
such sins to judgment. It only meant that such sins often escape the temporal
earthly hand of the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may not be
considered a crime in our country or other countries, but God will bring it
into final judgment. Those who practice such things “will not inherit the
kingdom of God”(1 Cor.6:8-10). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Homosexuality as a SIN was so clear that while Jesus was
preaching in Israel he did not run into this as a common problem that He needed
to address. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were no groups of
people openly trying to teach that it was a righteous thing to do. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, Jesus did address it in indirect ways
when He spoke of “fornication”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Fornication is a general word that covers all unlawful intercourse
outside the rightful place of marriage between a man and a woman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Matthew 5:32 and in 19:1-9 Jesus addressed
“sexual immorality” as sex outside a lawful marriage, and He clearly endorsed
the concept of marriage “from the beginning” (Mark 10:1-4).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God’s arrangement for “marriage” was and
always will be one man and one woman for life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>God never authorized sex between a man with a man, or with an animal, or
a woman with a woman, or with an animal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The fact that Jesus did not address homosexuality directly
does not mean it was not considered a sin. It means only that it was not a
common problem He needed to address in specific terms. He was already upholding
all that was true to the Law of Moses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But, let us remember that Jesus said there were things He did not
address that the Holy Spirit would expand upon (John 14-16) and that the Spirit
would guide the disciples into “all truth” that He did not get around to
addressing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This means that the epistles
were extensions of Jesus’ full teaching.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The epistles are in full agreement with Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If a person does not believe the epistles and
other Spirit-guided letters that form the New Testament, then they simply do
not believe JESUS.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus said the Spirit
would guide the apostles into “all truth”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If you do not believe that, you do not believe Jesus at all.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Therefore, when Paul writes, he writes “the commandments of
the Lord”(1 Cor.14:33f). When he writes, he writes as he is guided by the Holy
Spirit to write (Eph.3:3-5).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Spirit
was telling the will of Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>When Paul wrote about the sin of homosexuality in Romans 1 and 1
Corinthians 6, he was telling us the things JESUS wanted the Spirit to say
through the apostles and prophets of the New Testament.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Let us be careful to be honest with God’s word. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whether people like it or not, the issue is
settled by holy writ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We cannot bend it
or ignore it or twist it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To do so will
be to our own destruction (2 Pet.3:16f).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We must speak the truth in love. We must not compromise the truth to
appease men, for that would not be love at all as God defines love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Now, while I am addressing this issue, it is because some
are trying to justify this sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Adultery
is also a sin that will condemn us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
someone tries to justify adultery, we will have to teach what the Bible
actually says on that issue as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We
are not to pick on one kind of sinner and ignore other sins. We are only
addressing this particular sin because many are trying to justify it by
distorting the truth about what Jesus believed about this sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That attempt is not honest with God and His
word, and therefore we are to expose this sinful distortion of Jesus and the
New Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Love demands that we
defend the truth of what God’s word says.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>–<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></div>Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3198125394550801451.post-21097856464711965752012-07-13T07:57:00.002-07:002012-07-13T07:57:33.542-07:00Are you Confident of Your Salvation?<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div align="center" class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 15pt; text-align: center;">
<span><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Are you Confident of
Your Salvation?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">If you died
today, are you confident that you are prepared to meet your Maker?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I believe the Bible teaches that Christians are to be
confident, not arrogant, but assured of the salvation we have.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, I have found that there are too many
Christians who are not confident.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each
time I ask this question on a personal level, more times than not I get an “I’m
not worthy” kind of response.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would
then say, “you do know that there is a big difference between being worthy of
salvation and being confident you have it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No one is worthy of Jesus dying on the cross, but He did suffer and die
on the tree for you and me, and I am determined not to let that death be in
vain for me (2 Cor.6:1), even though I am not worthy of it. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can we be “worthy” of forgiveness?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t think we merit forgiveness, but I am
sure that we can humbly and thankfully receive it, and on the conditions
expressed by the Savior we can receive this freely given grace of God and be
confident we have been justified, washed, and sanctified.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">There are too many scriptures that tell us that we should
enjoy “full assurance” of faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hebrew
6:11 mentions this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When you consider
that “hope” is “confident expectation”, not an empty wish, you have to begin
wondering why we have so many members who are not confident of going to
heaven.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hebrews 10:22 mentions that
brethren can have “full assurance of faith”. Hebrews 11:1 says that “faith is
the assurance of things hoped for”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>1
John 2:28 mentions that we can have “perfect confidence” and 3:21 shows that
our heart can condemn us or it can trust God toward giving us confidence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h2 style="margin: 10pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #4f81bd;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Two Extreme Views of Salvation<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h2>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">1.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">I cannot know if I am saved (no security).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">2.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">I cannot be lost (false security).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The
first view is wrong as well as the second view.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The first view is wrong because it flies in the face of too many
scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John wrote “that you may
KNOW you have eternal life”(1 John 5:13).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The first view denies the word of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The first view is therefore demonic or Satanic. It does not come from
God. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any view that contradicts the word
of God should be discarded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John wrote
his books by inspiration of God, and God said through John “you may KNOW” you
have eternal life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paul wrote that we may
have “boldness and access with confidence”(Eph.3:10-12).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paul had no fear of his destiny, and it was
not because of his worthiness but because he trusted and utilized the spiritual
blessings that are in Christ (Eph.1:3,7). So, without any doubt he could say “there
IS laid up for me a crown of righteousness”(2 Tim.4:6-8), and he knew “the Lord
WILL give me in that day”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There was
confident expectation in Paul. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">One
thing I know is that this “chief of sinners” did not think he had attained any
state of “worthiness” that gave him a unique basis of confidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He felt unworthy to be called an apostle, and
certainly felt unworthy of Jesus’ death for his sins, but he did not doubt that
Jesus “was crucified for me”(Gal.2:20). He accepted that as unworthy as he was,
Christ died for him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He accepted that
truth and enjoyed the benefits of believing in Jesus’ worthiness and in Jesus’
love for him on the personal level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The
second view is also incorrect. There is a false security being taught. It is
the false doctrine of “once-saved-always-saved”. It teaches people to believe
they cannot be lost no matter what they do or fail to do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This doctrine perverts God’s grace and “turns
it into license” to sin(Jude 4-5).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
denies the word of God that said apostles and angels can do things that would
cause them to be “accursed”(Gal.1:6-10). If it is possible to pervert the
gospel (and it is possible), then it is possible to be accursed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it is possible to be influenced to start
binding the law of Moses, it is possible to “fall from grace”(Gal.5:1-4). Paul
said it took discipline to “buffet my body and bring it into subjection lest
after I have preached to others I myself would become disqualified for the
prize”(1 Cor.9:24).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paul certainly did
not teach that he could never be lost again after he was saved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He warned in Hebrews of developing “an evil
heart of unbelief in departing from the living God”(3:12).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The whole book of Hebrews gives warnings
about “crucifying Jesus afresh” and how much worse the punishment when one
trods underfoot the Son of God and does despite to the Spirit of grace (6:3-5-6;
10:25f).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is clearly some danger of
losing our way, becoming entangled again in the things of the world (2
Pet.2:20ff) and be worse than we were before we believed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A false assurance is not what we need.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We need assurance based upon a correct
handling of grace and faith, not assurance based upon abusing and misusing God’s
word and deceiving ourselves.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<h2 style="margin: 10pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #4f81bd;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">What is the Basis of Our Assurance of Salvation?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h2>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Let’s get one thing out of the way right now. My own
WORTHINESS is not the basis of my assurance. I don’t read of men in the Bible
who felt that they were worthy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John the
Baptist said he was not worthy to even untie Jesus’ shoes (Matt.3:11).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus was impressed with a centurion who said
he was not worthy for Jesus to come to his house (Matt.8:8). The Prodigal Son,
when he came to himself, said he was no longer worthy to be called his father’s
son (Luke 15:19), yet His father welcomed him home with accepting and loving
arms. Paul did not feel worthy to be called an apostle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Because he remembered his sins (1 Cor.15:9).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Revelation 5:2-5 there was no one worthy
to open the scrolls except Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
is a common consensus of feeling unworthy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But, worthiness is not the basis of assurance. It never was and never
will be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, how did all these unworthy
people still have confidence of their salvation?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The ONLY way to confidence and assurance is through faith or
trust in Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He died for sinners like
me (John 17:8; Gal.2:20f).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If he loved
me at my worst (Rom.5:8), when I was not even trying to please Him, should I
believe that He no longer loves me when I do concern myself with sin and
serving God?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Romans 8:31 Paul shows
us that God is for us and will freely give us all things we need. Need
forgiveness?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Got it!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Need strength?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Got it!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Here we are relying on HIS benefits, not our own worthiness. John says “if
we confess our sins, He is faithful (you can count on it) and just to forgive
us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”(1 John 1:7-9).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Having a partner like Jesus is the only way
to deal effectively with sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Confess
it, try not to do it any more, and when you fail, confess it and try again. The
confidence grows as the relationship, partnership, fellowship grows closer and
closer, richer and deeper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perfect love
casts out fear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God is greater than our
conscience. He will clean us up and let us start again, and that will always be
a dependable quality of our Father.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h2 style="margin: 10pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #4f81bd;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Why Should Our Conscience Condemn Us?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h2>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">If we stop hungering and thirsting for righteousness and
stop growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord, then our conscience should
condemn us and we should lose confidence and want it back enough to return to
our first love, Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we stop seeking
to do God’s will, we do not need to give ourselves a false confidence that God
will automatically cleanse us from all unrighteousness even as we plan to
continue in sin (Rom.6:1f).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we become
lukewarm in our hearts and service toward God, then we need to know that God
will spew us out of His mouth (Rev.3:16).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If we hate our brother, we should not deceive ourselves that God is
pleased with us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John addresses this self-deception
at length in 1 John 3-5. There are conditions to be met and some absolute
principles and characteristics that we have to employ, utilize, and obey in
order to have confidence that we are in good standing with God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our conscience should not condemn us if we
have confessed our sins (1 John 1:7 – 2:2) because we can count on God’s
faithfulness to forgive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our conscience
should not condemn us when we know we love God and our brethren (4:17-21).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because we HOLD confidence in Jesus
(Heb.3:14).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If I can be confident that
Jesus forgave me of past sins when I was baptized (Acts 2:36-41; 22:16), then I
can be confident He forgives each time I ask.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If He forgives me all those times in the past when I was not trying, He
is certainly willing to forgive me now that I AM trying but often failing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h2 style="margin: 10pt 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="color: #4f81bd; font-family: Cambria; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></h2>
<br />
<h2 style="margin: 10pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #4f81bd;"><span style="font-family: Cambria;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></h2>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">So,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>when I ask, “are
you confident of your salvation?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am
not asking if you feel like you DESERVE salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No one can deserve it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m not asking if you think you are perfect.
No one is sinlessly perfect, but forgiven is a daily and regularly obtainable
state of being.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m not asking if you
feel you are worthy, or if you feel you have obtained perfection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m asking if you are in Christ and regularly
washed in His blood as you strive to be more like Him?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Are you saved by grace through faith?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Have you taken His yoke, learned from Him,
and found “rest for your soul”?(Matt.11:28f). Have you been holding your
confidence in Jesus?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You certainly can “do
all things through Christ who strengthens”(Phil.4:13), and therefore we can do
the things to “make our calling and election sure”(2 Pet.1:3-11). In
progressing and growing we know we are spiritually alive, and in washing in the
blood regularly when we sin, we should be confident that we are forgiven,
justified, and sanctified.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each day we
should “know we have eternal life” unless we know we are disregarding some sin
we intend to keep practicing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let us
hold fast our confidence firm unto the end.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>- <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Terry W. Benton<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526027561757881154noreply@blogger.com