The Social Gospel

The Social Gospel

Quote:

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? (Max Ray)

Reply:  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. 

In Acts 3 we have an opportunity for the Lord to show us what the church should and should not be doing.  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.  He did not think about it being the work of the church to see to the physical needs of the poor.  Instead, he showed that it was an individual responsibility to do what he could.  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.  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.  His view of authority simply does not match the scriptures.  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.

 

In 1983 brother Harold Fite wrote:

Where are the Scriptures which authorize churches involving themselves in recreational pursuits and setting themselves up as social services agencies?

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!

In 1980 Mike Willis observed:

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!

The Example Of Jesus

It has been argued that when Jesus fed the multitudes, we are being given a precedent for the congregation to provide or fund potlucks.  Jesus fed the multitudes, therefore we can eat in the building, build a kitchen, fellowship hall, and so on.  Points To Note:  Someone has said, “That which proves too much (or just about everything) proves nothing at all.”   Jesus also healed people, does that give the Church the authority to go into the medical field?  Is it the work of the Church to own hospitals, have stock in pharmaceutical companies and so on?  Jesus also made some wine for a wedding party (John 2:6-9).  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?  Seeing that Jesus made wine, can we ‘make’ anything and distribute it, Church of Christ Natural Fruit Drinks?   To parallel such meals to a church funded meal misses a number of points.  1.  The church wasn’t established as yet (Matthew 16:18; Acts 2:47).  2.  Money collected on the first day of the week wasn’t used, facilities purchased with the Lord’s money weren’t used either.  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?   3.  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).  As an individual I have the right to provide meals for neighbors, friends, and strangers.  The obligation of extending hospitality rests upon the individual Christian (Hebrews 13:2).  http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/lessons/series/Authority/Authority_Class_20_21.htm

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.  The social gospel is to charge the church with a mission God did not give the early church.  The social gospel is now, as it has always been, a step in the wrong direction. It has no stopping point logically or scripturally.  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.  Our mission is to feed them with the gospel and provide for their spiritual shelter in Christ.  The home and community are to see to the physical needs as they have opportunity and ability.  “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.   -Terry W. Benton

 

 

 

 

 

Preaching the Grace of God

Preaching the Grace of God

A brother made the following comment:  “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 wonder if that statement has been true of my preaching.  I personally know it has not, but could someone perceive that of me?  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.  It seems to me that Paul taught both about what grace is AND what it is not.  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.  I judge that we need to both understand what it is and what it is not. Paul made that same judgment.  Jude felt a need to point out that some “turned the grace of God into licentiousness (license to sin)”(Jude 5).  He felt a need to declare what grace is NOT.

But, let us consider something else about preaching the grace of God.  There are broad topics within the preaching of grace.  Notice what Paul says that GRACE teaches:

Titus 2:11-15

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.

15 Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you. NKJV

Notice that when preachers are teaching you to “deny ungodliness”, they are preaching the true grace of God.  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.  When some of the sermons center on denying “worldly lusts”, you need to remember that this is what GRACE teaches.  When a preacher is preaching about “living soberly” and making good judgments, he is preaching GRACE.  When he tells you what the New Testament teaches about morals and righteous principles of living for Christ, he is preaching true GRACE.  When he is preaching that you should avoid “every lawless deed” he is preaching true GRACE.  Would you look at the nature and content of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and accuse him of not preaching enough about GRACE?  Wouldn’t that be a bit unfair?

When we preach God’s word, we are preaching true GRACE.  Now, like each of the books and letters of the New Testament, we will mention a variety of things.  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.  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.

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.  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.  Would it be fair to charge that Peter did not preach enough about the gracious nature of God’s grace SPECIFICALLY?  Yet, the entire sermon with the opportunity to call on the Lord and be saved, was all generally part of preaching true grace.  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.

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).  Part of preaching grace is to preach the truth about how to enter His grace and how to continue in His grace.

Paul wrote a whole book on law versus grace through faith (Galatians).  Would it be fair to judge that he did not write enough to the Galatians about the specific topic of God’s amazing love?  Was he spending too much time telling what grace was not?  It was not adding the Law of Moses or circumcision to the liberty given in Christ.  Did Paul say too many negative things in this book?  Some at Corinth charged him with preaching too much in a rebuking manner.  Well, sometimes that is what brethren need in order to get back on track with the grace of God.

Acts 11:23-24

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

What did Paul see?  He saw how people had repented and had entered Christ,  were joyful about their blessings in Christ, and were continuing in the activity that faith in Jesus demanded.

Acts 13:43

43 Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them,  persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. NKJV

What would it take to “continue in the grace of God”?  It would be “continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, in fellowship, in breaking of bread, and in prayers”(Acts 2:42).  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”.

Acts 14:22

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

Continuing in the faith (that body of teaching expressed in the New Testament) is the same thing as continuing in His grace.  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?  Did he spend too much time warning about apostasy?  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.  It may be that we were not paying close attention.  It may also be that we have a distorted view of how much time should be spent on one topic as opposed to another.  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.  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.  Sometimes a church needs a series of topics like Paul delivered in his first letter to Corinth.  Brethren, that IS preaching the grace of God.  Be fair in your assessment. 

Col 1:22-23

 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

1 Tim 4:15-16

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

Can we read the two letters to Timothy and get the idea that he should only preach about the God’s gracious nature?  Can we save people if we do not defend the truth on all fronts of attack?  Timothy will be preaching the saving truth if he defends it against those trying to bind the Law of Moses on Christians.  If brethren start trying to make Genealogies after Jesus came to have some importance, Timothy can defend true grace against such talk.  Preaching grace is much broader than simply dwelling on the gracious nature of God.  It is preaching “the whole counsel of God”. It is preaching a wide range of topics like we find in 1 Corinthians.

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.  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.  I think many who make such comments are not thinking correctly about the topic specifically and generically.  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.  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.  Let us be careful to enjoy and preach the whole counsel of God.

Terry W. Benton

 

 

 

A Reply to A Better Way (1b)

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

My Reply to “A Better Way” (1a)

My Reply to “A Better Way” (1a)

I do not want to be uncharitable or seem uncharitable.  So, I am not. Replying to what I deem as misleading information is not being unkind or uncharitable.  I labor to say the right things in the best way possible, trying hard to speak the truth in love.  I want to respond to some things a brother (MR ) has published on the internet. http://maxdray.com/2012/12/14/a-better-way-1/  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.

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.

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”.  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?  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.  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? 

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.

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.  On the surface it seems to me to be an impossible task.  The preliminary observations are to me a useless exercise.  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.

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.

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.

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.

TB:  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”.

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.

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.  Paul asked, “Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth”?  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.  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.  Why won’t the new hermeneutic brother love us and quit impugning our motives and attitude?

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?  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?  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.

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.  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.  Don’t forget those brethren just because you had a bad experience.

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.  The problem is not CENI (commands, examples, necessary inference).  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.

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).  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.  Anybody can misuse a command or example and therefore draw the wrong inference.  You blame that persons’ misuse, not the very use of such.

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.

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.  That is how truth-seekers have always worked out of error into the light of truth.  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.  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.

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.  Paul rebuked Peter “because he was to be blamed”.  It would not be right for Peter to turn and accuse Paul of thinking he was always right.  But, if Peter was a false teacher, he just might have turned the tables on Paul in that way.  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.

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?”

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.

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. 

MR: There is agreement among all I know – even those who question the validity of the CENI approach – that Bible is authoritative.

TB: I wonder what “method” we all used to reach this agreement.  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”?   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?”

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.

TB: CENI simply means “commands, examples, and necessary inference”.  It says NOTHING about how to “approach” anything.  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.  It was his MANNER of approach, not CENI that would be the problem.

 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.  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.  But, that is just getting too technical.  What the Bible is, is an EXAMPLE of God’s communication to other people in other places of the world.  So, in that sense we are looking at examples of commands and statements and other forms of literature written to other people.  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.

CENI (commands, examples, necessary inferences) IS NOT AN APPROACH to the Bible. Rather, it is WHAT we are approaching just by handling the Bible.  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.  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?

Making the issue the very use of the acrostic, CENI, is a mistake.  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.  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.  That is not a problem and never has been and never will be.

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.  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.  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.  We ought to engage much dispute if necessary to test the ideas.  Our courts of law believe that evidence can be tested in such a manner that 12 jurors can draw the right judgment.  It is a matter of evidence, testing the evidence, and drawing the necessary conclusion.  If courts of the world can do it, surely brethren in the Lord can do that as well.  That is pretty much what we see in the efforts made in Acts 15.  That is a good pattern for brethren to follow.   –Terry W. Benton

 

 

 

Facts About Christmas

Facts About Christmas
(Kent E. Heaton Sr.)

Some years ago, a Catholic Priest preached a sermon that Santa Clause was
dead. What a commotion was caused and parents came out of church crying.
Imagine messing with a tradition as strong as that and not getting into a
lot of trouble about it all. It reminds me of the fellow who said he knew
that Santa Clause was real because the Easter bunny had told him so.

Christmas is here again and it looks like it will be here for a very long
time. The longer one tells an untruth, the more it becomes truth - so it is
with Christmas. The sad part is there are children of God who still do not
understand that Christmas is a Catholic mass. To celebrate Christmas as the
birth of Christ is to embrace Catholicism.

As the Catholic church is the mother of all apostasy, her children called
Protestants have followed in her same way. The World Book Encyclopedia
explains that Christmas is of Catholic origin meaning, "Christes Masse".
Bishop Liberius of Rome adopted December 25 as the birth day of Jesus in the
year 354. They chose this date because the feast of the sun, or winter
solstice, was a familiar Roman feast celebrating the victory of light over
darkness.

The disciples of the New Testament never celebrated the birth of Jesus.
They remembered His death, burial and resurrection once a week but never His
birth. In fact, they lived during the same time of Jesus and could very
well have known what day Jesus was born. They were his age and even older
and Mary His mother was with the disciples in Acts 1. Why was the day of
His birth never given in scripture? It is not important to God!

The Christian should recognize that to take part in any facet of Christmas
as the birth of Christ (mangers, angels, stars, shepherds, wise men, etc.)
is to practice something that God never gave authority for. It makes a
difference to God!

No one knows what day He was born. December 25 could not be the birth day
of Jesus because the shepherds would not be in the field with their sheep
during this time of the year.
The Bible never said to celebrate His birth - the Catholic church did.
Myriad's of secular writers and religious writers affirm that no one knows
the birth date of Jesus.

The wise men never saw Jesus in the manger. Matthew 2:11 says they found
him in a "house." If Herod's order to kill the children from two years old
and under is a help in determining the age of Jesus, a rough guess could be
that Jesus (as a "child" - Matthew 2:11) was at least a year old and maybe a
little older. The reasoning I offer for this is if Jesus is six months old,
why kill two-year-old children? Herod wanted to make certain the baby Jesus
was killed. (I suggest this only as an idea - not really worth a plug
nickel but food for thought) The fact is though - Jesus was a child when
the Wise men saw him.

No one knows how many wise men there were. There could have been three,
four, five, twenty-five or ten. No one knows. To suggest there were three
because three gifts were given is to suggest that if you received three
gifts for your birthday that three people gave them to you.

The church in Trenton will not celebrate today or next week in any fashion
that points to the birth of Jesus. Is this because we do not accept or
believe in His birth? On the contrary, the greatest birth ever blessed upon
this world was that holy night of redemption. We will celebrate his death,
burial and resurrection as we do each first day of the week.

It is important to us that we follow the Bible and the Bible alone.
"Christmas" is not found in God's holy writ. That matters to us and we pray
it will matter to you. It is a nice thought to celebrate the birth of Jesus
but God said that we could not add to His revelation - even if an angel said
so. (Galatians 1:9,10) Christmas did not come from the mind of God and God
minds what we say comes from Him. We are seeking the paths of God's will
and we ask you to join with us in that journey.

Kent E. Heaton Sr.
P. O. Box 265
Trenton, Florida 32693
Kerux@svic.net

Has Anyone Seen God?

Has Anyone Seen God?

The Argument:

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)

How do you harmonize these passages?

The Answer:

Seeing  God "face to face" is the highest imaginable experience.  A person gets so close to "face to face" that they cannot imagine getting any closer.  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.

Still, it is a figure of speech.  Mortals cannot literally look into the face of God and live. This body is not suitable for such an event.  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.  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".  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).  There is a way for both statements to be true in their various contexts.

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".  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

following passage:

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.  9 When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent,   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.

Note: What gives away the fact that this is not a literal "face-to-face" (viewing each other personally) encounter?  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).  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.  The expression "face-to-face" does not tell us how naked or covered their literal faces were.  It speaks of a more intimate encounter and conversation than God had with the other people.  In comparison to the others, it was face to face, that is, much more intimate than their own encounter.

It would be much like watching a robber on a monitor and seeing his disguised form move face to face with the store clerk.  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.  But, to further demonstrate that Moses did not have an unveiled encounter with God, we see Moses admitting this just a few verses later.

18 Moses said, "Show me your glory, I pray."

19 And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you, and  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."

Note: How could it be "face to face" without seeing His face?  By "face to face" meaning close, intimate, and personal encounter rather than having to do with what Moses actually SAW with his own eyes.  The expression "face to face" does not have to do with what we SEE. It is an expression of close, intimate encounter.  Thus, it is a figure of speech in this context.  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  authors are involved in which the first writer is contradicted by the later writer.  No, there is no contradiction.  There is simply a misunderstanding (intentional or unintentional) as to what is meant by "face to face".

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."

Now, to counter my argument, Mr. Weida (or Vida) said:

It is quite obvious from the reading in exodus that god actually comes down and makes his presence,  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,

My Reply:

The Hebrew word has various shades of meaning. A common nuance is "presence to presence",  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).  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.

It was a literal "presence to presence" confrontation, but the expression is also not a literal, precise declaration of what Moses SAW.  The store clerk came face to face with a robber, but that does not tell us anything about the literal face of the robber.  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.  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.

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.  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".  This is a much more intimate encounter that man is not suited to experience.  Therefore, SPEAKING face to face as one speaks to a friend, does not equate with SEEING the actual face of God.  "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.  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:

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.):

 

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

 Num 12:8

8 I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the LORD.

Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant Moses?" NKJV

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).  Therefore, face to face does not have to do with what one SEES, necessarily, but in the proximity of two individuals in communication.

Num 14:13-15

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.  NKJV

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.  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.

Deut 5:3-6

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:

6'I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.NKJV

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.

Deut 34:10-12

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  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

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.

Ezek 20:34-37

 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

This is long after the Babylonian Captivity.  The same idea of what face to face meant is continued.  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.  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.  Therefore, I must conclude that Mr. Weida (Vida) is mistaken as to what the passages speak of in Exodus, Isaiah, and Job.  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.  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.  This cannot be done until we are clothed with that immortal body that is suited to the glorious experience.

Terry W. Benton

Unconditional Love?

Unconditional Love?

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.  God “so loved” the world (John 3:16).  That would mean that love is what moved Him to give His Son for the sinful world.  Paul said that he loved us “while we were yet sinners” (Rom.5:8).  Thus, it was not a situation of God would love us IF…..  God loved us when we were at our worst. Thus, in that regard, it was an unconditional love.  But, what does that mean?  Some seem to think that because God loves us all unconditionally, that therefore He ACCEPTS us unconditionally.  Is this what the Bible really teaches?

False Concepts of God’s Love

 

One clearly false concept is that God only loves us IF we perfectly obey Him.  But, that is not the case because the Bible says He loved us at our worst, “while we were yet sinners”(Rom.5:8).  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.  A parent can “so love” a child but not be pleased with the lifestyle of that child.  Still,  love is what causes the parent to keep hoping for a turn around and return of the lost child.  Love longs for a turning point in the thinking of the child, and love is unconditional.  But, love does not accept the child in rebellious behavior.  The prodigal son’s father never stopped loving his son, but there was broken fellowship and relationship.  The father was not glad about the son’s choices and behavior, and did not pretend that relationship remained the same as ever.  Perfect obedience was not the reason he loved his son.  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.  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).  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).

A similar false concept is that “God Only Loves Us BECAUSE We Deserve His Love”.  God’s love is totally unconditional. The Character of God Is LOVE.  Relationship with God is in fact conditional. Love does not equate to relationship and acceptance.  As an illustration we might say that George loves everyone. Does everyone love George? And Does George automatically let everyone in his house?  Can we not love our enemies without trusting them with our house and our children?  Love does not equate with relationship and acceptance.

Things God’s Love Will NOT Do

 

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.  Love means I have “good will” for someone and will help them get right with God.  If one is “continuing in sin”, love means that I am sad for them and long for their salvation from sin and ruin.

Love does not automatically forgive you.  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.   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.

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.  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. 

Things God’s Love WILL Do

 

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.  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).  Belief and baptism in Jesus’ name are not meritorious works, nor are they works of perfect law-keeping.  They are both actions of mind, will, and appeal to God for His mercy.  God loves us and will forgive us if we believe, repent, and are baptized in Jesus’ name for remission of sins.  God’s love provides the remission of sins and the conditions.

These conditions are within your power to do. There is no excuse for not meeting these conditions.

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.

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.  God IS Love. (1 John 3).

How do we define His Love?

 

We cannot define it as automatic acceptance.  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.

Don’t blow your opportunity to experience and enjoy His greatness of Being. There are conditions for being made acceptable (Rom.5:1f).  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.  You have the same opportunity because of His love.  What will your response be?   -Terry W. Benton