Paul and Baptism
Posted on May 30, 2007
Filed Under Matt Clifton, Salvation | Leave a Comment
by Matt Clifton
It is sometimes stated that the writings of the apostle Paul give no particular emphasis to baptism as a command of the gospel. In fact, the average “man on the street” evangelical adherent will claim that since Paul said Christ sent him “not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17), it must mean that baptism is not a part of the gospel, nor necessary for salvation.aa But how does Paul treat baptism in his writings? Does he really isolate baptism in water from the gospel? Does Paul see baptism as unnecessary and inconsequential? If not, what purposes and needs does Paul see being fulfilled by baptism?
Click to Continue Reading This Story…
a- Blomberg, Craig L. The NIV Application Commentary, 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. Blomberg claims that 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 is a proof that baptism is not required for salvation, but in both his references (p. 46 and pp. 191-197) he fails to give exegetical support to the statement, other than to say that the Israelites were not literally immersed in water while following the cloud and at the crossing of the Red Sea. Somehow he applies Paul’s figurative use of “baptism” in reference to the Israelites to the Bible’s literal teaching in regards to baptism and conversion.aaa
Who wrote Hebrews?
Posted on May 29, 2007
Filed Under Matt Clifton, New Testament Commentary | 1 Comment
by Matt Clifton
New Testament scholars down through the years have been left in a quandary when it comes to consideration of the authorship of the book we know as the Epistle to the Hebrews. After all, although traditionally it was ascribed to Paul as the author, there is the looming fact of the omission of his name in the greeting, where it characteristically appears in thirteen epistles of Paul.
Did Paul write the letter to the Hebrews? If not, who did?
Click to Continue Reading This Story…
Mere Christianity
Posted on May 19, 2007
Filed Under Brandon Renfroe, Denominationalism | Leave a Comment
by Brandon Renfroe
One of the most treasured volumes in my library is Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis’ classic work on apologetics. Lewis’ avowed goal was to set forth his conception of the basics of Christian faith and practice, irrespective of sectarian ideologies. Though one will not always agree with Lewis’ theology, the method in which he treats the human condition is nothing short of masterful. Indeed, if one is able to separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of ecumenism, there are many golden nuggets to be mined from Lewis’ vast depository of writings.
Today, if one were to set forth a “mere” Christianity more in keeping with the teaching of the New Testament, what would it look like? That such an effort is necessary is evident from the fact that an increasing number have no real conception of the distinctive nature of the church for which the Savior died. Unable to conceive of Christianity other than in terms of an “-ism,” they view virtually every religious body, regardless of its teachings, as being on equal footing. It was for this reason that N.B. Hardeman once lamented that his greatest difficulty as a preacher was to help others comprehend the non-denominational nature of the church. Said Hardeman:
In this country of ours, we’ve been bred and born and reared in the denominational idea until it has become such a mass of confusion that it’s next to impossible for any man to make clear the distinction between the church of the Bible and a human organization, founded by some uninspired man, at some other time than the year 33, at some place other than the city of Jerusalem (198).
It is not terribly difficult to convince a reasonable mind of the singular nature of the Lord’s church. To wit, if there is but one body (Eph. 4:4), and if that body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23), there can be only one church. No degree in philosophy, logic, or theology is needed to draw such a simple conclusion.
The problem in most minds, as Hardeman alluded to, stems from dueling conceptions of this one church. Many within the community of “Christendom” view the church as a jigsaw puzzle of sorts, with the various denominational bodies coming together to form the whole. Others, though in the decided minority, realize that while the church is the body composed of every saved individual on earth (cf. Eph. 5:23), only those who have done exactly what the Bible requires to do are in fact saved (cf. Rom. 6:17).
Coming to a proper understanding of “mere Christianity” involves making at least one crucial, yet fundamental, distinction; namely, that conflicting ideas cannot both be correct. In their book World Religions & Cults 101, Bruce Bickel and Stan Jantz describe the thinking of those who would place Judaism, Islam, and other world religions on par with Christianity. Viewing “God” as living at the top of a large “mountain,” they believe the various belief systems of the world represent different paths which eventually lead to the summit. Just as every winding trail eventually reaches the mountain peak, all religions, it is believed, eventually lead to God. The problem with this mindset, Bickel and Jantz argue, is that “all religions can’t be true.” This is because “all religions are different and mutually exclusive at various points” (10). Thus, if Christianity confidently contends for Jesus as the Son of God, and Judaism just as fervently rejects this notion, obviously both cannot be correct.
Though many readily concede the veracity of this initial point, they fall prey to essentially the same error when they seek to excuse similar divisions among those claiming to follow Christ. Few there are among us who have not heard the tried and true, “We’re all going to heaven, just taking different roads to get there.” What is this if not another version of the “God at the top of the mountain” analogy? In this case, Christ is sitting at the top of the mountain, and the various denominational bodies that dot our landscape are the pathways that lead to the top. If we can understand its fallacy in the one instance, the same should be apparent in the other. Did not Christ speak of a “strait and narrow way” (not ways) which leads to glory? (cf. Mt. 7:13-14). Consequently, if one church argues that baptism is “for” the remission of sins (cf. Acts 2:38), while another contends that baptism is “not for” the remission of sins, it should go without saying that these positions””and the religious bodies that hold them””cannot be reconciled.
At the outset, then, a plea for mere Christianity would recognize the “common faith” (Tit. 1:4) and “common salvation” (Jude 3) of which the Bible so clearly speaks. That is, there is a uniform body of objective truth set forth in the sacred scriptures, and a definite process to which men must submit as result, if they would be cleansed from their sins. When writing to the Romans, Paul described this as “that form of doctrine” they had “obeyed from the heart” (Rom. 6:17). In short, there are not differing “schemes of redemption” or “plans of salvation” to which men must submit.
Additionally, a plea for mere Christianity would surely involve wearing nothing other than the “noble name” of Christ (cf. Jas. 2:7). When the divine name was bestowed upon the disciples in Antioch of Syria, it was Christian (Acts 11:26). When Paul made his defense before Agrippa, it included a plea for the ruler to become a Christian (Acts 26:28). Indeed, it is in wearing the name Christian that we bring glory and honor to God (1 Pet. 4:16).
Unfortunately, many in our day are unduly enamored with names which, if they do not completely displace “Christian,” are at the very least given equal billing with it. When asked of their religious affiliation, scores will respond by offering the name of a man, doctrinal position, or congregational arrangement to which they subscribe. It is only after seeking clarification that they will append the name “Christian” to themselves. Is there nothing amiss in this procedure?
In reality, this problem is not a new one. Modern day division may be traced back to its seed form in the church at Corinth. When the apostle Paul directed his first letter to the brethren there, he rebuked them for displaying inordinate allegiance to those who had taught them the gospel. Specifically, some were apparently wearing the names of Paul, Apollos, and Cephas (Peter) as religious appellatives. Since none of these men had been crucified on their behalf, and, further, since none of the Corinthians had been baptized into their name, they had no right to their names (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11-13). Applying this ancient problem to more modern times, Bible scholar J.W. McGarvey observed, “If it was sinful for these brethren to assume the names of men, how can it be innocent in us to do the very same thing?” (147-148). It could be argued that the sin of today is even more egregious in its nature, for if the Corinthians were wrong for wearing the names of apostles and prophets, how much more blame do some today bear for wearing the names of uninspired men? In truth, there is only one name for those who claim to follow the Lord to wear, and that is Christian.
Finally, a plea for mere Christianity would not be complete without the realization that religion, to be effective, must be active. Those who seek to follow Christ, the perfect example (cf. 1 Pet. 2:21), must go about “doing good” (Acts 10:38). “Pure religion,” as James would write, involves “visiting” and “keeping”””action words! (Jas. 1:27). We must ever keep in mind that the “doers” of the word are blessed, not “hearers only” (Jas. 1:22). Only by practicing what we preach will men see our good works, and come to glorify the heavenly Father (Mt. 5:16). Any religion which would suggest that “penance” may supplant “repentance” cannot be other than a counterfeit!
If the Savior’s prayer for unity is ever to be realized (cf. Jn. 17:20-21), His people must lay aside the divisions which so easily beset them and pledge total allegiance and fealty to none other than the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15). This is our calling, and it is a noble one.
Sources
Bickel, Bruce and Stan Jantz (2002), World Religions & Cults 101: A Guide to Spiritual Beliefs, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers).
Hardeman, N.B. (2001 Reprint), Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. 4, (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), Original Commentary on Acts, (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation).
Counterfeit Christianity
Posted on May 18, 2007
Filed Under The Church, Weylan Deaver | Leave a Comment
by Weylan Deaver
What can counterfeiting do to a currency? According to the U.S. Secret Service, “During the American Revolution, the British counterfeited U.S. currency in such large amounts that the Continental currency soon became worthless. “˜Not worth a Continental’ became a popular expression that is still heard today. During the Civil War, one-third to one-half of the currency in circulation was counterfeit. At that time, approximately 1,600 state banks designed and printed their own bills” (http://www.secretservice.gov/counterfeit.shtml). To combat the counterfeiters, America adopted a national currency in 1862. Soon thereafter, it, too, was faked, leading to the establishment of the Secret Service on July 5, 1865 to suppress the burgeoning problem.
How do you recognize a counterfeit dollar bill? Do you have to learn every possible nuance of thousands of fake bills? No. Hear this advice from the Secret Service: “You can help guard against the threat from counterfeiters by becoming more familiar with United States currency. Look at the money you receive. Compare a suspect note with a genuine note of the same denomination and series, paying attention to the quality of printing and paper characteristics. Look for differences, not similarities” (http://www.secretservice.gov/money_detect.shtml). Primarily, you learn to spot the fake by thoroughly learning the genuine.
What would happen if the devil could counterfeit the church? Would it not be one of his crowning achievements to the detriment of mankind? Most look for similarities among churches and assume they are close enough (after all, don’t the denominations carry the same Bible, believe in the same God, talk about the same Jesus, worship on Sunday, etc.?). On the contrary, the Secret Service says you detect counterfeits when you “Look for differences, not similarities”!
Under a section titled “How To Detect Counterfeit Money,” the Secret Service website lists five areas to look for differences (ibid.). Let us study each, in turn (all verses quoted are from the English Standard Version).
I. PORTRAIT
“The genuine portrait appears lifelike and stands out distinctly from the background. The counterfeit portrait is usually lifeless and flat. Details merge into the background which is often too dark or mottled.”
The Lord’s church is to make sure the portrait of Jesus stands out distinctly as the “pillar and buttress of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). If you are a genuine Christian, all should see “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27).
Far from being “lifeless and flat,” God’s word is “living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb 4:12). Denominationalism’s portrayal of Christ is watered down and indistinct. The sharp details that set Him apart are blunted to lessen the force. A portrait of Jesus that tolerates religious division is counterfeit (Jn 17:11). A portrait of Jesus that condones any sin (no matter its popularity) is counterfeit (Jn 5:14). A portrait of Jesus that molds the gospel to accommodate modern culture is counterfeit (Jn 12:48). A portrait of Jesus that changes His teaching on divorce is counterfeit (Mt 19:9). A portrait of Jesus that amends His plan of salvation is counterfeit (Mt 28:19,20). A portrait of Jesus that lets man set his own doctrine and practice is counterfeit (Mt 15:13). A portrait of Jesus that devalues His church is counterfeit (Ac 20:28). A portrait of Jesus that makes Him save other than His body (the church) is counterfeit (Eph 5:23). Paul could have changed his message to fit the wants of various audiences. Instead, he wrote, “For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:22,23).
II. SEAL
“On a genuine bill, the saw-tooth points of the Federal Reserve and Treasury seals are clear, distinct, and sharp. The counterfeit seals may have uneven, blunt, or broken saw-tooth points.”
The Lord’s church bears an unmistakable seal. “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph 1:13). God has “put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts” (2 Cor 1:22). Who gets God’s seal? The Holy Spirit””the seal””is “given to those who obey him” (Ac 5:32). That means every alleged Christian who has never fully obeyed the Gospel (including immersion for the remission of sins [Ac 2:38]) wears a counterfeit seal. Though men may be, God is not fooled. “But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “˜The Lord knows those who are his’” (2 Tim 2:19). As the Lord can recognize His own, so can His children recognize each other by their fruit (Mt 7:20).
III. BORDER
“The fine lines in the border of a genuine bill are clear and unbroken. On the counterfeit, the lines in the outer margin and scrollwork may be blurred and indistinct.”
The Lord’s church is surrounded by a distinct boundary, called “the light” (1 Jn 1:7). As long as we remain in the light of Scripture (cf. Ps 119:105), we maintain fellowship with God and fellow saints. This boundary is also called “the teaching of Christ” (2 Jn 9). All who get out-of-step with the teaching are out of favor with God and Christ. The problem is this. Denominationalism wants inside the Lord’s border while remaining outside the Lord’s teaching! Such is a formula destined for failure. Denominational folk claim they are on God’s side, while teaching what the Bible does not teach.
This blurs the distinction between the true and the counterfeit. This is why it is dangerous, as well as wrong, to say that those outside the Lord’s church can produce even some of the Holy Spirit’s fruit (as in Gal 5:22,23). Jesus said, in no uncertain terms, that a diseased tree cannot bear any good fruit (Mt 7:18) and that a branch unattached to the vine (Himself) cannot bear any fruit (Jn 15:4).
How, then, can you explain what looks like the Holy Spirit’s fruit in the lives of non-saints? It is counterfeit fruit. Read carefully what Paul wrote: “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds” (2 Cor 11:14,15). The phrase, “servants of righteousness,” is synonymous with “Christians.” More than anything, what would the devil want his servants to look like? He wants them to appear as devilishly similar to real Christians as possible. This is a crucial fact to know, and comforting when surrounded by sincere neighbors in religious error. It is tempting to blur the border of the church to include these people, but it would purchase eternal regret.
IV. SERIAL NUMBER
“Genuine serial numbers have a distinctive style and are evenly spaced. The serial numbers are printed in the same ink color as the Treasury Seal. On a counterfeit, the serial numbers may differ in color or shade of ink from the Treasury seal. The numbers may not be uniformly spaced or aligned.”
The Lord’s church is the same “color or shade” as the Lord’s teaching (Jn 14:15). Denominations “differ in color or shade” from the true teaching. Just compare any number of vital items between what the New Testament says and what a particular denomination says, and the differences stand out like a sunset over the Kalahari (e.g. organization of the church, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, music in the church, worship, religious titles, inherited sin, the work of the Spirit, falling from grace, etc., etc.).
Long ago, Paul said a divine curse rests on anyone””angel included””who would dare to “preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you” (Gal 1:8). And Jesus revealed that many at Judgment will be turned away, even though they make grand claims on Christian service. The one really saved will not be the one with a claim, but “the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 7:21-23). If we are not striving to be the mirror image of what Christ was on earth, in teaching, belief, and practice, then we are counterfeiting His image and degrading it in the eyes of all who love truth (cf. Mt 5:16; 1 Cor 11:1).
V. PAPER
“Genuine currency paper has tiny red and blue fibers embedded throughout. Often counterfeiters try to simulate these fibers by printing tiny red and blue lines on their paper. Close inspection reveals, however, that on the counterfeit note the lines are printed on the surface, not embedded in the paper. It is illegal to reproduce the distinctive paper used in the manufacturing of United States currency.”
When it comes to a dollar bill, if the paper is not genuine, it does not matter what color the ink, how sharp the points on the seals, whether it bears the right face, is the proper size, and so on. To begin with counterfeit paper and end with genuine currency is a task impossible of accomplishment.
What about the “paper” (or, creeds) upon which various churches are built. My coat pocket New Testament comprises 315 pages of paper. Because of the words on those pages, it is the right paper (and the only one) on which to build a belief, a life, a church, an eternal destiny. The New Testament””God’s word””is the seed which, if planted in the honest heart, brings forth fruit to God (Lk 8:11,15). Everyone is expressly forbidden either to add to or subtract from the “paper” God wrote (Rev 22:18,19). Nor do we have a right to ignore it as is. The plea of the church of Christ has been and remains a call for all to rid themselves of humanly devised creeds and take the New Testament alone as their authority (cf. Mt 15:9,13). It is the only avenue to the unity for which Christ prayed (Jn 17:20,21).
Instead, a survey of the landscape reveals churches based on all kinds of “papers,” including: the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, Standard Manual for Baptist Churches, Methodist Book of Discipline, Catholic Catechism, Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran Church, Mennonite Confession of Faith, Articles of War for the Salvation Army, Statement of Faith of the Evangelical Free Church of America, Statement of Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God, and the list grows.
In conclusion, you cannot begin with a counterfeit foundation and end up with the Lord’s church. Counterfeiting can destroy the dollar’s value, but it cannot destroy the value of the Lord’s church, which was bought at the price of divine blood (Ac 20:28). What it can do is keep countless souls from coming to the Lord’s church because the devil has so successfully blurred the borders of the church that people unwilling to study as though their souls depended on it (for they do) are unable to distinguish between what is real and what is not. The devil says, “Look at all the similarities between churches and take comfort in choosing the one you like.” The New Testament says, in effect, “Look at the differences.” Or, to be more precise, “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thes 5:21). Are you willing to put your beliefs under the microscope of God’s word? Do not settle for a counterfeit Christianity. The Lord knows those who are his.
Three Questions
Posted on May 16, 2007
Filed Under Basil Overton, Denominationalism | Leave a Comment
by Basil Overton
The Bible teaches that God’s people must be united on the teachings of inspired men (John 17:17-23). The Bible teaches the oneness of the church, and that division is sinful. Denominations exist without any Bible authority. The people in denominations, including their preachers, almost without exception, will answer negatively the three following questions:
1. Does one have to be in your denomination to receive the remission of sins?
2. Does one have to be in your denomination to live a Christian life?
3. Does one have to be in your denomination to go to heaven?
Since nearly any denominationalist would say “no” to each of these three questions, it is well to ask another question. And that is, “If one does not have to be in a denomination to receive the remission of sins, to live the Christian life, and to go to heaven, just why do denominations exist?” Could one want any more in religion than the remission of sins, to live the Christian life, and to go to heaven? Surely not! Yet many say they do not have to be what they are religiously to receive any of these! Why are they what they are?
If you were to ask a member of the church of Christ the above three questions about the church he is in, he would have to say “Yes” to all of them. Because the church he is in is the church that we can read about in the Bible; it’s God’s family! One has to be in God’s family to receive the remission of sins, to live the Christian life, and to go to heaven. When one says that he does not have to be in the church that he is in, he thereby admits that the church that he is in is not the church that we read about in the Bible. The church that we read about in the Bible is not sectarian, and is not denominational. One must be in that church to be one of God’s people, and those in that church must worship “in spirit and in truth” to please God (John 4:24).
Some insist that the church is not essential. They say that Christ is the Savior, not the church. Truly, Christ is the Savior, but He saves in the church (Eph. 5:23)!
Have you turned the spigot on?
Posted on May 14, 2007
Filed Under Christian Growth, Weylan Deaver | Leave a Comment
by Weylan Deaver
Paul the Apostle wrote about prayer in 1 Timothy 2:1-4, saying, “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (King James Version).
Four Greek words descriptive of prayer are used. In the Word Biblical Commentary, volume 46, William Mounce observes, “To emphasize that prayers should be made for all people, Paul adds four types of prayers one after another”¦Although each of these words can describe slightly different types of prayers, that is not the point here. The point is that all prayers, of all types, should be for all people” (p. 79).
The first Greek word, deesis, is translated as “supplication.” This word means “a seeking, asking, entreating” (The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p.126). “The word was a regular term for a petition to a superior and in the papyri it was constantly used of any writing addressed to the king” (Linguistic Key To The Greek New Testament, pp. 618-619). When we pray, we are making a request of the ultimate power””God””to take action on our behalf.
The second Greek word, proseuche, is translated as “prayers.” According to Thayer, this word means “prayer addressed to God” (p.545). We do not pray to Mother Nature, the gods, a particular god among the gods, or merely to some higher power. Rather, we pray to the one and only living God””the creator and sustainer of all.
The third Greek word, enteuxis, is translated as “intercessions,” and, per Thayer, means “a falling in with, meeting with; an interview, a coming together”¦a conference or conversation” (p. 218). W.E. Vine says it means “seeking the presence and hearing of God on behalf of others” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary, p. 330). When we make “intercessions” in prayer, we are conversing with God, and most likely on behalf of someone else, such as family, the sick, friends, leaders, the lost, even enemies.
The fourth Greek word, eucharistia, is translated as “giving of thanks,” and, literally, means just that. The New Testament brims with passages encouraging us to offer thanks to God; and, what other response could there be from a heart that recognizes his gifts (cf. James 1:17)? As the psalmist put it, “What shall I render to the Lord for all his benefits to me?” (Psalm 116:12).
Now, look again at the words Paul used: supplications, prayers, intercessions, giving of thanks. Take the first letter of each word and you have “spigot,” which is another term for faucet. God is willing and able to pour down blessings of all kinds on his faithful children who ask. In fact, the Lord challenges us to test his generosity. “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it” (Malachi 3:10). Sometimes the pipeline of heavenly blessings is shut off because we are not being faithful (1 John 1:7), and sometimes it is closed because we are not asking God in prayer (James 4:2). Prayer is the spigot to the free flow of divine blessings. Have you turned the spigot on?
(To give credit where due, the idea for this article came from my wife, Cheri, who first noticed the acronym””Weylan)
Why I Left the Catholic Church
Posted on May 14, 2007
Filed Under Denominationalism | Leave a Comment
by Joe Malone
(From the book “Why I Left,” published by Hester Publications. Reprinted here by written permission. To purchase the book, visit their website, or write to 165 Gibson Drive, Henderson, TN 38340)
Brethren and respected friends, I count it a profound privilege to have the opportunity to speak to you on the subject which has been assigned to me, “Why I Left the Catholic Church.”
In the very beginning, let me stress that when people leave error which has been imbued into their consciousness so very keenly, it is not altogether easy. Further, there was a time, as you might well conclude, when I was adversely sensitive to any attack upon Catholicism. Bearing that in mind and realizing that there are probably those in the audience who stand where I stood, though I intend to speak plainly, I shall strive to show my interest in you and my consideration for you, whoever you might be, by speech that is free from rancor and that which is caustic. I trust that the spirit manifested will not only be discernible but agreeable to you, and that you will respond by lending an attentive ear.
CATHOLICS DISREGARD THE WORD OF GOD
I left the Roman Catholic Church because of its disregard for the Word of God. Should any be inclined to take issue with that statement relative to the attitude of the Catholic Church, let me remind you that the Catholic Church maintains that “the Bible is a dead letter and unable to interpret itself.” Yet in the Bible, whether Catholic or not, we read, “The word of God is quick and powerful (living and active), and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4: 12). That is Heaven’s pronouncement in regard to the matter. Further the Catholic Church asserts, “We do not in any wise presuppose that the books of the New Testament are inspired, but, rather, they are only genuine, authentic documents written by honest men.” John, one of the writers of the New Testament, wrote, “And I heard a voice from heaven saying, Write, Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; for their works follow them” (Rev. 14:13). That is either an inspired statement or John was dishonest, and, in either case, the Catholic Church would be in error. Paul, another one of the writers of the New Testament wrote, “If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord” (I Cor. 14:37). The attitude of the Catholic Church is the attitude of Diotrephes, “who loveth to have preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth, prating against us with wicked words” (III John 9, 10). My friends the Bible becomes a “dead letter” to those whose doctrine it condemns; but, in the words of Paul, here is the attitude toward the Bible of those who respect heaven’s way. “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (11 Tim. 3:16, 17).
CATHOLICS CLAIM THAT NEW TESTAMENT IS UNINSPIRED
Not only does the Catholic Church contend that the Bible is a “dead letter” and the New Testament is uninspired, but it maintains that the apostles appointed a “divine, infallible apostolate” to direct us. That, my friends, is essentially the way the Catholic Church endeavors to make room in the realm of religion for papal edicts and the decrees of the Romanish councils. But consider this: “For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken unto us through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard” (Heb. 2:2-3). Those who heard the word were the ones to confirm it, and that is in keeping with the following statement of Peter, “Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.” This was said in regard to one “to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away” (Acts 1: 21, 22 and 25). Can this so-called “divine, infallible apostolate” qualify? And after the word has been spoken and confirmed, what purpose could such an office serve?
GOD’S DIRECTIONS FIXED AND NOT FLEXIBLE
I submit to you that the means of direction from earth to heaven is thereby fixed, complete and final. Listen to the apostle Paul, “I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another gospel: only there are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema, For if I am now seeking the favor of men, I should not be a servant of Christ. For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1: 6-12). Thus we are caused to better understand why the same apostle declared, “Now these things, brethren, I have transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written ” In keeping with that statement is this declaration of John’s with its awful consequence, “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God” (II John 9). In closing the Book of God, John said in the last chapter, “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take’ away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18, 19). That statement, as already shown, is consonant with the tenor of the whole New Testament. Hence, this very vital conclusion is sustained: the Word has been spoken and confirmed; it is fixed, complete and final; and there is, therefore, absolutely no place or purpose in God’s design for a so-called “divine, infallible apostolate.” Please remember this conclusion. It is essential to a proper understanding of what we shall say henceforth. The weight of that conclusion, as it is readily arrived at in the Scriptures, might well account for why the Catholic Church contends that the Bible is a “dead letter.”
Now, my friends, perhaps it can be better understood why the Council of Trent in its twenty-fifth session, decreed that a council under the pope should draw up and publish an index of books which were to be prohibited in the church. Among these is the Bible, which is said to have been the first prohibited in the Council of Toloso. In the fourth of the ten rules concerning prohibited books as set forth in the Council of Trent, license to read the Bible is put under control of bishops and inquisitors. He that presumes to “read without such license cannot receive absolution of sins.”
WORD OF GOD INJURIOUS TO ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
Recently, I had a conversation with a young lady who had been a government engineer and a Catholic. She is now employed in a vital capacity with the American Bible Society, a non-profit organization which has as its purpose the distribution of Bibles and Testaments. Last year, that institution in the pursuit of its noble course distributed throughout the world some twelve million Bibles and twenty-nine million New Testaments, and, remember, without cost to the recipients. Several months ago that young lady went to confession. While there, the priest asked her where she was working. She told him that she was working for the American Bible Society. He said, “You’ll have to stop that.” She inquired why-adding that she thought it was a wonderful thing to spread God’s Word. His answer was that such furthers Protestantism. If the distribution of Bibles and Testaments free from anything other than the Word of God itself furthers Protestantism, what can you say for Catholicism? Could there be any stronger indictment of the Catholic Church as a man-made religious organization than that? Incidentally, you might be interested to know that I baptized that young lady into Christ.
Click to Continue Reading This Story…
Why I Left the Baptist Church
Posted on May 14, 2007
Filed Under Denominationalism | Leave a Comment
by Grover Stevens
(From the book “Why I Left,” published by Hester Publications. Reprinted here by written permission. To purchase the book, visit their website, or write to 165 Gibson Drive, Henderson, TN 38340)
NO ANIMOSITY FOR BAPTISTS
I would like to say in the beginning that I have no animosity whatsoever against Baptists. Personally, I have no reason for leaving the Baptist church, but quite to the contrary, if personal reasons counted, I would never have left the Baptist Church, because personality is in their favor. Especially is this true of the congregation of which I was a member in Phillips, Texas. I believe that the Baptists are, for the most part, splendid people. I believe that most of them are honest and sincere. I believe that, if there are Baptists here tonight, most of them want the truth, and will consider the things that are said honestly and open-minded. However, some times, out of a sense of loyalty to that which we have become members of, we are prone to cast aside lightly any charges that might be made against us. I sincerely hope that that will not be the way you will do tonight. I beg you to hear what I have to say, study it carefully with an open Bible in hand, then, out of honesty to your own soul and to God Almighty, to embrace all that you find to be in harmony with the Bible. Believe it, not because I said it, but because you found it in the word of God. That is the only thing any of us would have you believe–the Bible, the word of God. In spite of all the accusations made to the contrary, we still preach only the Bible. Such expressions are idle, I suppose, in view of the fact that all “churches” claim the same thing. We know that all of them do not preach “only the Bible” for they are many and the Bible is one. The Bible does not teach contradictory doctrines. The Baptists hold the Bible up and say, “We preach the Bible.” That is what we do.
So, what have I gained by telling you that we take the Bible and nothing but the Bible? Nothing, I suppose. I will just have to prove to you that we do actually stand on the Bible and nothing else, and that the Baptists do not. If they did, I never would have left them. I want you to consider the things that are said as honestly as you know how, tonight.
When I came into this world, I found it divided religiously. When I was old enough to notice things, I found a church on every hand. Here was one and there was another, all claiming to preach the Bible, yet wearing different names and teaching different doctrines. This sentiment prevailed, “It doesn’t make any difference what church you are a member of, or what you believe, just so long as you are honest and sincere about it.” Having grown up in an atmosphere like that, most of us just seem to accept it as the truth–as axiomatic, but it isn’t. The Bible doesn’t teach that. If so, where? Nevertheless, that is what we heard every day. Another thought akin to this is that everyone ought to go to church; everyone ought to be a member of some church. These things are preached by all denominational preachers. Hence, the general conception in religious circles, and the basis for all resentment toward the church of Christ, because we deny it.
BAPTISTS PREACH SOME TRUTH
I do not believe that everything they say is a falsehood or a lie. I believe that they preach a lot of truth. The part that they preach that is true, I am glad to accept, but the things they preach which are not the truth made me leave them. Let me illustrate my point. You will recall that in the Garden of Eden the devil preached truth along with a lie. He said, “Thou shalt not surely die.” That is false doctrine. He also said, “For God doth know that in the day that ye eat thereof your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” That is the truth. This made the lie more deceptive. Did Adam and Eve sin when they believed and obeyed that? Why, certainly they did. It was half a truth and half a lie. If you say, “Well, I only stand for the things that are the truth,” then I will reply, “Maybe that was what Adam and Eve thought too.” “We’ll just stand for half of it, and we’ll tell the Lord that we did not believe the other half.” But it led them into error and condemnation just the same. Hence, what truth the Baptist Church preaches is perverted by the false. Then, too, they many times preach more against sin, moral sin or immorality, than gospel preachers do. I do not mean to say that we do not preach against immorality, but that they preach on it almost altogether, and we spend some time preaching doctrine and pointing out false doctrines. And we need to do that.
Upon attending the Baptist Church, one hears the Baptist preach against sin, and recognize the fact that he is a sinner– that he is lost. Then being convicted of sin, and desiring to be saved and do what is right, we join the Baptist Church, or some other church. A person convicted of sin is ready to do anything he is commanded. For example, when I first became a member of the church of Christ, I wished that the Lord had left baptism out of the Bible. I said to myself, “Everything that the church of Christ teaches is fine, and I believe that most of the people in the denominations believe exactly what the church teaches, but when they come to baptism, they just seem to resent that. If the Lord had just left baptism out, then everything would be all right.” I have learned since that that wasn’t the trouble. People do not mind being baptized when they are convicted of sin. People wanting to obey God do not mind being baptized. They do not mind doing anything that God commands them to do. It is a matter of surrendering whole-heartedly one’s own will to God’s will. When that’s done his attitude is simply, “Lord, whatever you want me to do, I’m willing to do it.” Many, not realizing this, go on in rebellion against God, believing all the while that they are pleasing to Him. Hence, we join some church because we are convicted of sin, realize that we are lost, and because we believe that it is the right thing to do. That is the reason I joined the Baptist Church.
EARLY EXPERIENCE
I attended Sunday School at the Baptist Church in Caddo, Oklahoma, when I was a little fellow. After we moved to Texas, I didn’t go much, if at all. By and by my mother started attending the church of Christ at Banger, Texas,, so I began attending Bible study there. I attended there several months and was impressed with the way they studied the Bible. Then I took pneumonia and was out for about six weeks, so I lost interest and did not go back. After some time, I was encouraged by some of my friends to go to Sunday School at the Baptist Church. I became regular in attendance and made 100 in Sunday School right along. Our class was good to win the Banner. Those of you who know the Baptist grading system know that I had to stay for church to make 100. It wasn’t long until I began to realize that I was lost and in sin, and needed to be saved. I wanted to be saved, so one Sunday night when the preacher was making propositions with folks, he invited any who knew that they were lost and “desired the prayers of the church” to hold up their hand. I knew that I was lost, so at this suggestion I raised my hand. It was difficult at first. It took all the strength I had to make that arm move, but after I got it started it wasn’t so hard. As I held my hand up my face burned and my heart came up to my throat. When the preacher said, “God bless you, son,” my face burned more and I was very self-conscious. Afterwards, several came to me and told me how proud they were of me and encouraged me. Then I felt more confident and was proud of myself. Of course, my Sunday School teacher and a few others encouraged me to join the church. I talked to my mother about it and was persuaded to wait awhile. She felt that I was being persuaded and didn’t realize what I was doing. After some time I began to visit the Methodist Sunday School and church occasionally with a friend who was a Methodist. Finally, I quit attending at all.
A little over a year later I made a speech at the Annual Boy Scout Father and Son Banquet. After the Banquet the Methodist preacher came by and asked me if I went to Sunday School or church anywhere. I told him that I didn’t, so he urged me to come to the Methodist Church. Later the Baptist preacher approached me and was equally as urgent in his invitation as the Methodist preacher. (They had changed preachers at both places since the incident mentioned before). After some delay I began attending the Baptist Church. It wasn’t long until I was under conviction again. I remembered the time before, so the Sunday morning I went up during the invitation and asked the preacher to pray for me. I felt just as I had before. I spent the afternoon trying to decide what to do. Late in the afternoon, some time before B. T. U. was to begin, I gathered up a change of clothes and went to the church building to see the preacher. He was in the auditorium talking with one of the men. I asked him if he would baptize me that night. He asked me, “Are you saved, Grover?”
Click to Continue Reading This Story…
The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery
Posted on May 10, 2007
Filed Under Church History, Denominationalism, Weylan Deaver | Leave a Comment
by Weylan Deaver
A presbytery is a court, or body, of church leaders who make and enforce decisions on member congregations. The Washington Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church covered southwest Ohio and the northeast part of Kentucky as the nineteenth century began. Staunchly Calvinistic, the Presbyterian Church grew alarmed by the preaching of Barton Warren Stone and others at the Great Revival at Cane Ridge, Kentucky in 1801. This was due to Stone’s belief that the gospel was for all men and that faith was a pre-condition for salvation. Both those doctrines are denied by Calvinism, which teaches a limited atonement, unconditional election and irresistible grace.
So, Barton W. Stone, as a Presbyterian preacher, was in hot water with the Washington Presbytery, along with Robert Marshall, Richard McNemar, John Dunlavy and John Thompson. Charges were first brought by the Washington Presbytery against Richard McNemar, and his case came before the Synod of Kentucky in September 1803 for a ruling. The Kentucky Synod sided with the Washington Presbytery. Stone and the others could see the writing on the wall and knew they were next. Thus, with the courage of their convictions, they announced their withdrawal from the Washington Presbytery and that, furthermore, the Presbyterian Confession of Faith was an impediment to the gospel.
On breaking with the Presbyterian Church, these five men established an organization of their own, called the Springfield Presbytery. Their goal was to abandon all manmade creeds and accept only the Bible as their authoritative guide. Soon, fifteen churches belonged to the Springfield Presbytery. However, as the work rapidly grew, Stone and others came to see that they had established the very thing they were seeking to leave behind””a manmade organization not authorized in Scripture.
In an effort toward unity, the Springfield Presbytery was actually fueling division, along with all the other presbyteries and such like. Consequently, they rightly decided their new creation needed to be immediately dissolved for the good of the gospel. To do that, they drafted “The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery,” which was issued June 28, 1804″”three years before Thomas Campbell came to America from Ireland, and five years before Alexander Campbell arrived on American shores.
All Christians would do well to acquaint themselves with the history of the Lord’s church during the Restoration of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Earl Irvin West has an outstanding 351 page book, Search For The Ancient Order, Vol. I (published by Gospel Advocate, Nashville). Or, for a brief yet insightful survey of the same history in 111 pages, there is Adron Doran’s book, Restoring New Testament Christianity (published by 21st Century Christian, Nashville).
“The Last Will and Testament” is a thrilling statement of determination to throw off the chains of denominationalism once and for all. It shows what happens when the truth dawns on the minds of men who see clearly for the first time that the gospel of Christ does not need buttressing by presbyteries, synods, catechisms, creeds, and the like. Without their courageous trailblazing, we might be still in the quagmire of men’s doctrines. Here is what they penned from Kentucky, 200 years ago:
The Presbytery of Springfield, sitting at Cane Ridge, in the county of Bourbon, being, through a gracious Providence, in more than ordinary bodily health, growing in strength and size daily; and in perfect soundness and composure of mind; but knowing that it is appointed for all delegated bodies once to die: and considering that the life of every such body is very uncertain, do make, and ordain this our last Will and Testament, in manner and form following, viz.
Imprimis. We will, that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large; for there is but one Body, and one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling.
Item. We will, that our name of distinction, with its Reverend title, be forgotten, that there be but one Lord over God’s heritage, and his name One.
Item. We will, that our power of making laws for the government of the church, and executing them by delegated authority, forever cease; that the people may have free course to the Bible, and adopt the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.
Item. We will, that candidates for the Gospel ministry henceforth study the Holy Scriptures with fervent prayer, and obtain license from God to preach the simple Gospel, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, without any mixture of philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, or the rudiments of the world. And let none henceforth take this honor to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
Item. We will, that the church of Christ resume her native right of internal government””try her candidates for the ministry, as to their soundness in the faith, acquaintance with experimental religion, gravity and aptness to teach; and admit no other proof of their authority but Christ speaking in them. We will, that the church of Christ look up to the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers into his harvest; and that she resume her primitive right of trying those who say they are apostles, and are not.
Item. We will, that each particular church, as a body, actuated by the same spirit, choose her own preacher, and support him by a free will offering, without a written call or subscription””admit members””remove offences; and never henceforth delegate her right of government to any man or set of men whatever.
Item. We will, that the people henceforth take the Bible as the only sure guide to heaven; and as many as are offended with other books, which stand in competition with it, may cast them into the fire if they choose; for it is better to enter into life having one book, than having many to be cast into hell.
Item. We will, that preachers and people, cultivate a spirit of mutual forbearance; pray more and dispute less; and while they behold the signs of the times, look up, and confidently expect that redemption draweth nigh.
Item. We will, that our weak brethren, who may have been wishing to make the Presbytery of Springfield their king, and wot not what is now become of it, betake themselves to the Rock of Ages, and follow Jesus for the future.
Item. We will, that the Synod of Kentucky examine every member, who may be suspected of having departed from the Confession of Faith, and suspend every such suspected heretic immediately; in order that the oppressed may go free, and taste the sweets of gospel liberty.
Item. We will, that Ja——, the author of two letters lately published in Lexington, be encouraged in his zeal to destroy partyism. We will, moreover, that our past conduct be examined into by all who may have correct information; but let foreigners beware of speaking evil of things which they know not.
Item. Finally, we will, that all our sister bodies read their Bibles carefully, that they may see their fate there determined, and prepare for death before it is too late.
Springfield Presbytery, June 28th, 1804
Witnesses: Robert Marshall, John Dunlavy, Richard M’Nemar, B. W. Stone, John Thompson, David Purviance
Change: Good or Bad?
Posted on May 7, 2007
Filed Under Brandon Renfroe, The Church | 3 Comments
by Brandon Renfroe
We live in a changing world. One need only glance around his own community to notice the myriad of changes occurring, seemingly on a daily basis. Is change good? Or is change intrinsically bad?
Surely it is not correct to suggest that all change is harmful. Those old enough to remember the stifling summer days before the advent of air conditioning are surely thankful during the “dog days” for such a marvelous “innovation.” Too, those in need of surgical procedures are certainly grateful for the amazing advances made yearly in modern medicine.
Of course, the change we are most interested in discussing is of a religious nature. Secular changes, such as modern trends in pedagogical practices, or innovations in the business realm, are surely irrelevant when discussing Jehovah, whose nature “changes not” (cf. Mal. 3:6). For example, God cannot lie (cf. Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18), and has always felt the same regarding disobedience, whether such lawlessness occurred during the days of Patriarchy, the Mosaic economy, or today, during the Christian dispensation.
Is religious change bad? The obvious answer is: it depends on what kind of change we are contemplating. As the Hebrews writer indicated, since the Levitical priesthood has been changed, “there is made of necessity also a change of the law” (Heb. 7:12). If all religious change is to be disdained, this does not bode well for those of us claiming to live under “a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (Heb. 8:6).
To be sure, there are changes we can embrace. It ought to be clear to the thoughtful individual that the preacher who makes use of “PowerPoint” in delivering his sermons is doing the same thing, in practice, as did those of yesterday who effectively used overhead projectors or those “pioneers” who employed “sheet sermons” in proclaiming the gospel of Christ. In similar fashion, the worldwide web has opened many doors that otherwise would have remained closed. Those who would disparage the appropriate use of technology in propagating the gospel are turning their backs on a most effective tool and, in so doing, are ignoring the possibilities of worldwide evangelism from the friendly confines of their own homes.
Some change, on the other hand, is to be avoided. Any change, for example, that would involve a deviation from scriptural precepts must be shunned wholeheartedly (cf. 2 John 9-11). Those who constantly clamor for religious changes contrary to Bible teaching fail to grasp that some boundaries are not meant to be crossed (cf. 1 Cor. 4:6, ASV).
The barometer we must use in determining whether or not change is beneficial is the word of God. As always, we must ask, “Is this change an aid, or is it an addition?” In the former, we respect the all-sufficiency and absolute authority of the scriptures while making use of divinely-sanctioned expediencies (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Col. 3:17). In the latter, we sacrifice foundational truths to incorporate manmade additions.
The Christian seeks to proclaim a changeless Christ to a changing world. As the Savior suggested, we clothe old truths in new robes (cf. Mt. 13:52). We have a significant degree of latitude in how we accomplish this awesome task, as far as expediencies are concerned. We are not given leeway, however, to proclaim a different message than that which was proclaimed by the apostles and was “once for all delivered unto the saints” (cf. Gal. 1:6ff; Jude 3). In this regard, we should heed the words of the wise man: “meddle not with them that are given to change” (Prov. 24:21).
« go back — keep looking »Polls
What do you think of Quail Springs' decision to add intrumental music to the worship?
- I'm a member of the church of Christ, and the decision is wrong. (65%)
- I'm a member of the church of Christ, and the decision is no big deal. (16%)
- I'm not a member of the church of Christ, and the decision is no big deal. (10%)
- I'm not a member of the church of Christ, and the decision is wrong. (4%)
- I'm a member of the church of Christ, and I'm not sure. (3%)
- I'm not a member of the church of Christ, and I'm not sure. (0%)
Total Votes: 211
Loading ...-
