How Do I Improve My Spiritual Understandings?

Posted by David on January 12, 1997 under Sermons

Every sincere Christian hungers to improve his or her spiritual understandings. Every person genuinely converted to Jesus Christ wants accurate knowledge. But to possess accurate knowledge, he or she realizes it is not enough to have accurate facts. It is just as important to have accurate understandings. It was the desire to understand that played an important role in our conversion.

Our Christian desire to understand is intensified by an enormous personal need. Each of our private worlds creates a very complex existence for all of us. Life is not simple for any of us. Is life simple for you? Our lives and worlds challenge each of us. Our lives and worlds often confuse us. We want to do what is good; we want to do what is right; we want to depend on Jesus–but often the proper way to do that is not clearly evident. How often do you have a week that does not challenge your spiritual understanding? Often personal situations and circumstances force us to realize that we do not have enough spiritual understanding. We are frequently reminded that we need a better understanding of God and His will.

But how do you acquire it? If we want a better understanding, how do we build it? The answer to that question has many parts, and the answer will not be identical for all of us. But there is a common beginning point for everyone. Any person who wants a better spiritual understanding must advance his or her understanding of God. A better understanding of God is essential to a better spiritual understanding.

Tonight we begin focusing on forbearance. I want to illustrate the importance of better understanding God to increase our spiritual understanding. We will do that by examining the concept of forbearance.

1. Let’s begin by reading together Romans 2:1-4.
   1. Consider the context of this scripture:
      1. Because of his devotion to the gospel (the good news about Jesus Christ), Paul suffered major physical abuse–but that abuse did not cause him to be ashamed of that good news (Romans 1:16).
         1. He was not ashamed because he knew that the good news revealed God’s power to save anyone who believes.
         2. He was not ashamed because the good news revealed God’s righteousness.
      2. Paul verified that everyone–excluding no one–needed the righteousness revealed by this good news.
         1. This revealed righteousness allows a person to become righteous through faith, and everyone desperately needs the means of becoming righteous.
         2. Those who abandon themselves to ungodliness need the way to become righteous through faith (Romans 1:18-29).
         3. The “good moral person” who passes judgment on people who do not meet his or her moral standards needs the way to become righteous through faith (Romans 2:1-16).
         4. The teacher and defender of the Old Testament law needs the way to become righteous through faith (Romans 2:17-29).
   2. I want to focus your attention for a moment on the good moral person.
      1. It is common for a person committed to a moral code to judge everyone who fails to measure up to that moral code–that is very characteristic of people committed to a moral code.
      2. It is also common for few people to meet his or her moral expectations.
      3. Paul said what the moral person fails to realize that each time he or she passes judgment on other’s failure to meet his or her moral code, he or she automatically passes judgment on himself or herself.
      4. Why? Because no moral person perfectly meets the standards of her or her moral code–thus condemning the short comings of others automatically condemns his or her own shortcomings.
      5. Paul said in verse 4 that the moralist makes this mistake because he or she places too little significance, to little importance on God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience.
         1. Forbearance is a divine attribute, a part of God’s divine nature that is reflected in His divine character.
         2. Understanding God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience is extremely important, for that is the understanding that motivates a person to repent.
         3. But what is forbearance? How much do you understand about forbearance?
         4. How can you increase your understanding of forbearance? By better understanding God.
2. Consider the concept of forbearance.
   1. Divine forbearance keeps some close friends: divine kindness, divine patience, and divine mercy.
      1. Forbearance always exists and functions in conjunction with kindness, patience, and mercy.
      2. Forbearance is one of the ways that patience expresses itself.
      3. It is also a specific element of mercy.
      4. The kind God’s patience and mercy interact with each other and express themselves through forbearance.
   2. What does forbearance do?
      1. To forbear means to restrain oneself.
      2. One forbears by holding oneself back.
      3. In God’s actions, divine forbearance restrains divine wrath.
   3. But does God really do that?
      1. Does he really hold himself back?
      2. Did he really restrain his wrath?
      3. Absolutely!
         1. God has been doing that from the time of the first human evil.
         2. God did it in incredible ways until He could offer Jesus in sacrifice for us.
         3. Until God satisfied justice with Jesus’ blood by paying for the evil people committed, it was God’s forbearance that governed His response to human evil.
      4. Read with me Romans 3:21-25.
         1. God has revealed a way to righteous that has nothing to do with law–not Old Testament law, not any form of law.
            1. In this revealed way to be righteous, God could be true to His own righteous nature.
            2. Evil people could become righteous.
            3. The Old Testament law and the Old Testament prophets stood as the witnesses to this revealed way to be righteous.
         2. In this revealed way, righteousness exists through faith in Jesus Christ.
            1. It is available to every person who will place his or her faith in Jesus Christ.
            2. Every person needs this revealed way to become righteous because every person is guilty of doing evil.
         3. This revealed way to be righteous can exist because God gives His grace as a gift.
            1. God acquired this right to expresss His goodness because God justified us.
            2. He justified us by redeeming us with Jesus Christ.
            3. He allowed His son to die publicly, substituting His innocent life for our guilty lives, paying the penalty for our evil with His own son’s blood.
         4. God did this for two reasons:
            1. First, to create a “doable” means by which every evil person can become righteous.
            2. Second, to be true to his own righteous nature.
            3. It was necessary for God to demonstrate His loyalty to His own righteousness because He had been forbearing–He had passed over the evil that was committed before the death of Christ.
            4. He had held Himself back, He had restrained His wrath, until He could pay for human evil with the blood of His innocent son.
3. Let me show you in a clear manner that is exactly what God did before He sent Jesus to die for human evil.
   1. Go all the way back to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.
      1. Genesis 2:8, 9 states that God planted a garden to exist as the ideal place for Adam and Eve to live.
         1. He placed them in the garden to cultivate and keep it (2:15).
         2. They were permitted to eat fruit from everything that grew in the garden except for one tree–the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:16).
         3. They were told that if they ate of that tree, on that day they would surely die (2:17), and they clearly understood what God said and meant (3:3).
      2. Most of my past life I did not understand forbearance, nor did I understand God’s forbearance.
         1. In my lack of understanding, I oversimplified this situation and created a problem.
         2. God said that the day they ate the fruit that they would die.
         3. They ate the fruit, and they did not die.
         4. In my too narrow, too shallow understanding, that fact created a dilemma for me: Why did they not die that day? Did God lie when He told them they would die?
         5. The possibility that God lied was totally unacceptable and contradictory to what other scriptures clearly state–God cannot lie.
         6. Then I created a theological answer to the dilemma: God did not mean that they would physically die (since they obviously did not), so the word “death” as God used it meant something else–it meant that they would be separated from God.
         7. But it is very obvious in Genesis four that there was not a complete separation between God, and Adam and Eve, or Able, or Seth, the men that began to call upon the name of the Lord.
      3. When God did not kill Adam and Eve, it had nothing to do with truthfulness or lying; it had everything to do with divine forbearance.
         1. Adam and Eve defied God in the face of all His love, all His goodness, and all His kindness.
         2. And when they did, God held Himself back, He restrained His wrath, He further extended His kindness in exercising patience and mercy.
   2. That is only the first expression of His forbearance.
      1. Consider God’s refusal to kill Cain when Cain murdered his brother.
      2. Consider God’s saving of Noah and his family.
      3. Consider the way God continued to work with Isaac and Jacob when they did some very ungodly things.
      4. Consider the ways God repeatedly refused to completely destroy the wicked, rebellious nation of Israel in the wilderness.
      5. Consider the centuries that God endured incredible ungodliness in Israel through the periods of the judges, the united kingdom, and the divided kingdom.
      6. Over and over and over you see God’s forbearance, God’s holding Himself back, God’s restraining His wrath.
      7. Even when God exercised His wrath, He restrained it–He never completely destroyed evil humanity, never completely destroyed evil Israel.

Because of God’s forbearance, you and I can be Christians. Because of God’s forbearance you and I have a Savior. Because of God’s forbearance you and I can be forgiven.

And the forbearing God asks those who accept His forgiveness and live in the Savior to be forbearing. But we cannot possibly understand how to be forbearing, we cannot even understand what forbearance is, unless we first understand the forbearance of God.

Don’t you rejoice in the fact that God was and is a God of forbearance?

Reconciliation:  The Bridge That Spans Quarrels

Posted by David on under Sermons

We are too often disillusioned and defeated when our expectations are rooted in the ideal. For example, soon-to-be married Christians commonly expect their coming marriage to be ideal. “In our marriage, we won’t have problems. We will agree about everything. We will experience nothing but togetherness, happiness, and pleasantness. Our marriage will be the best of the best.”

The truth is that there are no ideal marriages. There are successful marriages and happy marriages, but no ideal marriages. Every marriage experiences problems. Every marriage endures stress. Every marriage has disagreements. Different kinds of marriage relationships handle the problems, stress, and disagreements in different ways. Regardless of how a marriage handles them, it has them. No marriage experiences nothing but joy, laughter, and total agreement seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year.

To expect an ideal marriage and then to slam into the wall of reality is at best disillusioning and at worst devastating.

Commonly, Christians expect a congregation of Christ’s church to be ideal. The real church doesn’t have problems. The true church never experiences conflict. The church that really belongs to Christ has only love and peace as everyone always gets along superbly and makes only good decisions. When we discover that a congregation is not the ideal congregation, at best we are spiritually disillusioned; at worst we are spiritually devastated.

Marriages and congregations can never be ideal for the same reason–both are made of people, and there are no ideal people. The best people can ever be is forgiven sinners.

A successful marriage is not a marriage that has no problems. A successful marriage is a marriage that deals honestly and responsibly with its problems. A successful congregation is not a congregation that has no problems. A successful congregation is a congregation that deals honestly and responsibly with its problems.

1. I wonder why students of the New Testament ever conclude it is possible to have an ideal congregation.
   1. In the New Testament we have nine letters that Paul wrote to seven congregations.
   2. Because of the information in the book of Acts and the information in those nine letters, we know many things about each of those seven congregations. Not one of them approached the ideal.
      1. The congregation in Rome was in severe disagreement about the control of the congregation and about the theology of salvation.
      2. The congregation in Corinth had every congregational problem you ever heard of, and a few you never heard of.
      3. The congregations in Galatia were totally confused–they thought it was more important to follow Judaism than Christ.
      4. The congregation at Ephesus did not understand that Christians were to abandon the lifestyle of their ungodly past.
      5. The congregation at Philippi had serious personal conflicts within.
      6. The congregation at Colosse has serious relationship problems, serious concept problems, and serious moral problems.
      7. The congregation at Thessalonica had members who refused to work and take responsibility for their own physical needs.
   3. Even if a congregation is composed of nothing but the finest Christians, each Christian is still a distinct individual.
      1. We are not and cannot become carbon copies of each other, and we certainly are not carbon copies of Jesus.
      2. When we, in faith, surrender our wills and lives to Christ, God uses our differences for His purposes–that is why we can be Christ’s body.
      3. While God uses our differences for His purposes, too often we handle our differences very poorly.
2. Please allow me to introduce you to three men that most of you know, three men whom God used powerfully, but three men who did a poor job of handling their differences: Paul, Barnabas, and Mark.
   1. Consider Paul:
      1. Prior to his conversion, Paul was a man of violence (1 Timothy 1:12, 13).
         1. He believed the crucified Jesus was an impostor, a liar, and a fraud.
         2. He rejoiced in the execution of Christians.
         3. He was a vigilante who put Christians in prison.
         4. He dedicated his life and his faith to destroying the church.
      2. Paul was not a nice person–you would have detested him.
   2. Consider Barnabas:
      1. He was among the first converts of the first congregation that ever existed.
         1. In the early days of this congregation, the members shared anything they owned with fellow Christians in need (Acts 4:32-36).
            1. All private property was considered by the owners to be common property.
            2. Because of their incredible generosity, there was not one needy person in this congregation of several thousand members.
         2. Barnabas was one of the effective, good-hearted members of this congregation, so much so that the apostles changed his name from Joseph to Barnabas, the encourager (Acts 4:36, 37).
            1. He sold some land he owned.
            2. He gave 100% of the money to be used to help those in need.
      2. Barnabas was an exceptionally nice person–you would have loved Barnabas.
3. Paul, through the direct intervention of the resurrected Jesus, was converted and immediately found himself in big trouble (Acts 9).
   1. The people who encouraged him to persecute Christians quickly decided they needed to kill this traitor (Acts 9:23-25).
      1. A death squad watched the gates of the city, waiting to kill him when he left.
      2. Some of the Christians he came to arrest saved his life by lowering him over the city wall in a basket at night.
   2. Sometime later Paul returned to Jerusalem.
      1. Because it was in Jerusalem:
         1. That Paul assisted those who killed the Christian Stephen,
         2. That Paul conducted house-to-house searches to arrest Christians,
         3. Christians were afraid of him.
      2. It was Barnabas who took Paul to the apostles and told them that his conversion was genuine, and gained acceptance in the congregation for him.
         1. Paul immediately began preaching boldly.
         2. Quickly the persecutors he formerly worked with decided the traitor needed to die.
         3. Christians took him safely to the coast and sent him home to Tarsus by boat.
      3. Because Barnabas was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, the Jerusalem congregation of several thousand members sent Barnabas to check on the non-Jewish congregation in Antioch that was experiencing explosive growth (Acts 11:20-24).
         1. The need and opportunity in Antioch was too big for Barnabas alone.
         2. He personally traveled to Tarsus, found Paul, and brought him back to Antioch (Acts 11:25, 26).
         3. There they worked together for a year and became a powerful team.
4. One day, at the specific instruction of the Holy Spirit, Paul and Barnabas began a missionary trip to non-Jewish countries (Acts 13:1-3).
   1. They took with them a young Christian named Mark.
      1. Early in the trip, Mark left them and returned home.
   2. Much later, perhaps a couple of years or more, after completing the missionary journey and visiting the congregation in Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas decided to take a second journey and check on all the young congregations (Act 15:36).
      1. Barnabas insisted that they take Mark again.
      2. Paul emphatically said no.
      3. They disagreed so sharply that they broke up as a team: perhaps the best missionary team in the history of the church, and the only team that I recall being personally put together by the direct action of the Holy Spirit.
   3. Why did this happen? It happened because these two exceptional Christians were very different persons.
      1. Barnabas was committed to people–he had always been that kind of man.
         1. He was a people-person who saw potential in Mark just as he had seen potential in Paul.
      2. Paul was committed mind and body to an objective–he had always been that kind of man.
      3. Barnabas saw great potential in Mark that needed to be developed.
      4. Paul saw an essential job that needed to done efficiently and effectively.
      5. They more than disagreed–their argument was so intense that it reached the point that they split up as a missionary team.
      6. Barnabas took Mark as his new team member; Paul took a man named Silas.
5. I wonder how all this affected Mark?
   1. While he surely felt loved by Barnabas, he must have felt rejected and slammed by Paul.
      1. I wonder how much pain he felt because Paul rejected him?
      2. I wonder how put down and humiliated he felt?
      3. I wonder if he felt like Paul degraded him and attacked his faith and devotion to Christ by insisting that Mark could not be a part of the mission team?
      4. Mark must have had some deep feelings about the incident because Paul felt so deeply about Mark’s involvement that Paul left a dear, good friend.
      5. Did Mark feel that it was his fault that the team broke up? Did he resent being put in that position?
      6. Did he feel guilty for coming between two good friends?
   2. I am afraid that I understand too much about that kind of situation.
      1. I know the anger that is common in that situation.
      2. I know the deep hurt that comes from that situation.
      3. I know the resentment felt in that situation.
      4. I know how easy it is to be bitter.
   3. I personally have no doubt that Paul and Barnabas had some deep, negative feelings and some pain after the argument and the split.
6. I call your attention to two amazing things.
   1. Amazing thing number one:
      1. A few years after this, Paul wrote at least three letters to the congregation in Corinth.
         1. When Paul and Barnabas had their argument and split, neither had visited this city and the congregation did not exist.
      2. In Paul’s second letter to that congregation (1 Corinthians 9:1-6), Paul used Barnabas as a positive illustration, as positive evidence of his point.
   2. Amazing thing number two:
      1. The last existing letter that Paul wrote is 2 Timothy.
      2. When Paul wrote this letter, he knew that he would be executed.
      3. He made some final requests of Timothy.
         1. “Come to me as soon as you can.”
         2. “Bring the coat that I left in Troas when you come.”
         3. “Bring my books and parchments” (he wanted his study materials).
         4. And this: “Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service.”
      4. Paul split a fantastic missionary team that the Holy Spirit put together because he had no use for Mark.
      5. Years later, as he neared death by execution, one of his last requests was, “Bring Mark with you; he is useful to me…”

At some point Paul realized that God used and worked through Mark as surely as God used and worked through him. At some point, there was reconciliation.

As Christians we have two challenges that never end as long as we live in this world. The first is to be reconciled to God. The second is to be reconciled with each other. We do not dare live in the past. We can never undo what we did in the past. We can bridge enmity and quarrels of the past with reconciliation.

Reconciliation? What is That?

Posted by David on under Bulletin Articles

Reconciliation (translation for three New Testament Greek words) brings an end to enmity. It builds a bridge over the quarrel that produced enemies and caused separation. It ends the hostility.

The priority illustration is the reconciliation to God that produces a Christian (2 Corinthians 5:18-21). Prior to entering Christ, every accountable person is God’s enemy (Romans 5:10; Colossians 1:21,22; James 4:4). Human evil, as it occurs in an unforgiven life, invokes God’s anger and stirs His just wrath. Righteous hostility alienates the God of holiness from the unforgiven person.

Reconciliation occurs only if the true cause of the enmity is addressed. God addressed the true cause of the enmity that invoked His wrath and alienated Him from people–sin. God empowered perfect forgiveness by destroying the cause of the enmity. The guiltiness for sin (evil) can be removed from a person by the perfect cleansing power of Christ’s blood. Atonement and redemption built a bridge over human evil.

If a person is to be reconciled to God, he must respond to God’s initiative. (God’s initiative exists independent of human response.) For a person to make reconciliation reality, he must accept ownership of his evil and surrender his evil to God’s forgiveness. While God cannot “forget” unforgiven human evil, God and people can be reconciled. God initiated reconciliation. People must respond to His initiative if reconciliation is to occur.

When enmity and hostility are born in person-to-person alienation, they, too, must be reconciled. A classic Old Testament example involved brothers, Jacob and Esau. Through exploitation and greed, Jacob stole Esau’s most precious right. Enraged, Esau vowed that he would kill Jacob, and Jacob fled.

In great fear of Esau’s anger and vow, Jacob returned many years later with a family and wealth (Genesis 32, 33). He initiated reconciliation, and Esau accepted. Jacob could not right the ugliness of his greed and abuse in the past. However, through reconciliation, they ended their enmity and built a bridge across their quarrel.

Responsibilities of a Righteous Person

Posted by David on January 5, 1997 under Sermons

For several weeks we have examined Jesus’ sermon found in Matthew 5, 6, and 7. May I call your attention to a brief, insightful overview? First, Jesus presented in positive concepts a basic description of a righteous person. In that description, eight times he said, “Blessed are . . .” He did not present the description by saying, “Cursed are . . .” He presented basically what a righteous person did, not what a righteous person did not do.

Second, he emphasized that the righteousness of the person who followed him must go beyond the righteousness of the religious leaders of their society.

Third, he drew a distinct contrast between what they always had been taught and what they were now to understand. He contrasted “you have heard that it was said” with “I say to you.”

Fourth, he revealed two current inadequacies in the religious life common to their society. Inadequacy one: religious acts done for wrong motives are inadequate. Inadequacy two: placing your life focus on physical well being and material security is inadequate.

Fifth, he concluded with five responsibilities.

This is the insight:

Jesus was not teaching them just to inform them: the objective was not merely knowledge.

Jesus was not teaching them just for them to understand proper contrasts: the objective was not merely understanding.

Jesus was not teaching them just for them to realize inadequacies: the objective was not merely realization.

Jesus was teaching them to enable them to accept responsibility: the objective was to lead them to the knowledge, the understanding, and the realizations that would allow them to accept responsibility.

As I stated last Sunday evening [i.e., 22 December 1996], chapter 7 concluded the sermon by declaring five responsibilities. Last Sunday evening we examined the first: the responsibility for self-evaluation.

1. Responsibility # 2: the responsibility for spiritual discretion (Matthew 7:6).
   1. “Do not judge,” responsibility #1, could have been interpreted to mean that they should indiscriminately share Jesus’ teachings with all others.
      1. If they saw and understood, they should go out and share their understandings with everyone.
      2. “Be excited about what you understand and share it with absolutely everyone.”
      3. “Don’t go out to condemn anyone, but go out to tell them what you have learned.”
   2. But immediately following the instruction not to judge, Jesus said something we would not expect: do not go out and share what you have learned with just anyone.
      1. Jesus’ statement was not a statement of exclusion: he was not indicating that God is unconcerned about some people.
      2. His point: “Share my teachings with those who are receptive; do not try to force my teachings on those who are incapable of appreciating or understanding them.”
      3. Jesus made his point by using dogs and pigs, both unclean animals to the Jews.
         1. Dogs were incapable of appreciating anything holy–in fact, they made no distinction between something holy and something unclean; they would eat either a holy thing or an unclean thing without hesitation.
            1. Sacrifices, such as the sin offering, were holy (Leviticus 6:24-30).
            2. A portion of the holy sacrifice was eaten by the priest.
            3. What the priest could not eat was to be burned (Leviticus 7:17).
            4. You did not provide the dogs opportunity to eat the priests’ holy food–for they surely would.
         2. Pearls are totally without value to pigs, though they were extremely valuable to those people.
            1. Since pearls are not food to pigs, pigs will sniff at, then ignore a pearl, and then trample it into the muck of the pigpen.
         3. If you frustrate or disappoint the dog or the pig, it will turn on you and rip you if it can.
      4. Some people are incapable of understanding what is holy and what is spiritually of great value.
         1. They not only have no appreciation of what you try to share with them, but they easily become irritated and frustrated with you.
         2. Among the most violent enemies you will ever encounter are religious enemies. Some of the most horrible things are done in the name of religion.
      5. Jesus was talking about both ungodly and religious people who were incapable of appreciating his teachings.
2. Responsibility # 3: the responsibility of initiative.
   1. When a person understands Jesus’ teachings, that understanding makes him aware of how much he does not know, does not understand.
      1. I am certain that Jesus was not speaking of material pursuits when he instructed them to ask, to seek, to knock.
      2. “If you truly want to be a righteous person, if you truly want to understand the existence and relationship with God that I am revealing, it is your responsibility to ask God for wisdom/understanding, to pursue this new awareness built on new insights by knocking on God’s door.”
         1. It is the responsibility of faith to initiate, to act.
         2. If you hunger for righteousness, act.
      3. “You are evil; it is impossible for you to remove the reality of evil and the influence of evil from your lives.”
         1. Even though evil will forever be the reality of your earthly existence, you still know how to respond to your children’s requests for food by giving them food–by doing good.
         2. Is not the God of pure goodness much more capable and willing to respond to your requests when you ask, seek, and knock?
      4. Since you belong to the God of pure goodness, you do good by treating other people like you want to be treated.
3. Responsibility # 4: the responsibility of direction.
   1. The easiest, simplest course of action to take in life is to move in the direction the crowd is moving.
      1. It is easy to go with the crowd in the ungodly world.
      2. It is easy to go with the unspiritual crowd in the religious world.
   2. The most difficult, challenging course to take is the “I am responsible for me and my decisions” direction.
      1. The crowd in both the ungodly world and the religious world typically moves in the direction of least resistance, the path more comfortably traveled.
      2. The path of personal responsibility requires personal knowledge, personal understanding, personal commitment, and personal decision.
   3. We have to be very careful to use this scripture in its context.
      1. It is much too easy to assign anything we personally dislike or disapprove of to the broad way.
      2. It is much too easy to assign any demand we personally think needs emphasis as an evidence that we are traveling the narrow way.
      3. Here the narrow way is the direction Jesus’ teachings would take them.
      4. The broad way could be the direction of disinterest or the direction of the Pharisees.
      5. Just being hard to do does not make a direction the narrow way Jesus spoke of.
      6. The narrow way is the more difficult way because it requires thought, understanding, and heart response.
      7. The broad way may be any easy direction that leads me away from Jesus’ teachings.
4. Responsibility # 5: the responsibility to exercise caution.
   1. Jesus said it was their responsibility to exercise caution in identifying three sources of spiritual deceit:
      1. False prophets.
      2. Faulty fruit trees.
      3. Verbal declarations.
      4. False prophets and faulty fruit trees focus on your choice of influences.
   2. Be on guard against false prophets.
      1. If you use today’s typical concept of false prophets, you will miss Jesus’ point.
      2. The false prophet Jesus spoke of was identified in two ways.
         1. The false prophet deliberately created a fake spiritual appearance to hide his or her savagery and greed.
            1. A wolf is a cunning, deadly animal that stalks its prey.
            2. A false prophet made prey of other people.
            3. A wolf thinks only of himself, his desire of the moment, his appetite–in his greed, he destroys for his own purposes.
         2. Thus, the false prophet was to be identified by the way he used you, preyed upon you.
            1. It was not what he or she said that make him or her a false prophet.
            2. It was what he or she did, how he or she exploited and preyed upon others, that made him or her a false prophet.
   3. Be on guard against faulty fruit trees.
      1. Do not pattern your life and existence after the person who bears faulty fruit.
         1. Righteous people do not live their lives doing evil things.
         2. Righteous people do not look good but have horrible influences on others.
         3. Righteous people’s lives do not produce the consequences of ungodliness.
         4. The Pharisees bore faulty fruit.
      2. Good trees produce good fruit, and rotten trees produce rotten fruit.
      3. When you choose those you will allow to spiritually influence you, do not merely examine their appearance or listen to their claims; examine the influence and the impact of their lives.
   4. Be on guard: distinguish between verbal declarations and commitment to the will of God.
      1. Verbal declarations will not place you in God’s kingdom.
         1. You can honor Jesus with the right words and right titles.
         2. You can properly praise Jesus.
         3. You can do the priority religious deeds of the day.
      2. But, if in doing these things, you are not committed to the will of God, then Jesus does not know you and will not acknowledge you in the last day.

Was what Jesus shared in that sermon very important? That lesson did not deal with many of what you and I refer to as fundamentals. Since it did not focus on fundamentals, what he said was good, but was it essential?

Jesus said, “If you have heard me (meaning understood me) and will put into practice what I have told you, in so doing you build a life that will not collapse no matter what storms descend on your life. If you have heard me (meaning understood me), and you do not act on what I have shared, you can be assured that you are building a life that will collapse when the storms come.”

Look at the lessons Jesus taught in Matthew 5, 6, and 7, and ask yourself, “What kind of life am I building?”

God Can’t Do That!  Can He?

Posted by David on under Sermons

I want to begin this morning by challenging you to use your imagination. Imagine the physical and emotional impact of these circumstances. Suppose that a coalition of Middle East nations successfully developed several nuclear bombs. Suppose by covert action they successfully planted those devises in Washington, DC; in New York City; in Norfolk, VA; at Norad in Colorado; at AWAC in Oklahoma City; and in San Diego, CA. Suppose each of those devises exploded simultaneously. The result: our Federal government was crippled; our business world was crippled; and the command for our armed forces was crippled.

Suppose that within a week America surrendered to that coalition of Middle East nations. Suppose the militant Muslim religion immediately became the official religion of this nation, and that Christianity immediately became illegal.

Suppose our captors implemented the policy of displacing devout Christians. Suppose that every member of this congregation was relocated in a northern city to provide labor to a Muslim community. How would that impact you emotionally? physically? spiritually?

You say, “Something like that could never happen in this nation.” That is what Israel said. That is what Jerusalem said. But it happened. The nation fell. The city fell. Later, the city was destroyed, the temple was destroyed, and the vast majority of the citizens of the nation were placed in exile.

In Babylon a stunned, disillusioned, dazed nation of captives asked, “How did this happen? How could it happen? We believed in the living God. We had the temple. We had the scriptures. How could a nation who does not even know the living God do this to us?”

Completely disillusioned, most Jews said, “There is nothing God can do to help us now. We will never recover. If God couldn’t help us when Jerusalem fell and the temple was destroyed, he can’t help us now!” From their human perspective, it was an impossible situation.

The prophet Ezekiel was among those who were forced into exile. He received his call to be a prophet in Babylon. In stark, graphic terms, he told them exactly how it happened and exactly why it happened.

1. In Ezekiel 37:1-14 the Lord’s hand was on Ezekiel and the Lord’s spirit took him to a valley that was filled with dry, human bones.
   1. He was placed in the middle of an old battlefield–for centuries it was common for two armies to fight a war by confronting each other in a valley.
      1. One army would camp in the hills on one side, and the other would camp in the hills on the other side.
      2. They would meet in the valley and fight until one army won.
   2. Ezekiel was standing in the middle of an old battlefield where there had been so many thousand casualties that the slain soldiers could not be buried.
      1. When the battle ended, the valley was full of dead bodies.
      2. Then came the vultures and scavengers.
      3. Then time passed.
      4. It became a valley filled with dry, bleached bones instead of a valley of decaying bodies.
   3. In that valley God had a conversation with Ezekiel.
      1. He asked, “Ezekiel, can these bones come back to life?”
      2. Ezekiel gave a noncommittal answer: “Lord, you know.”
      3. God told him, “Prophesy to these bones. Say to these bones, ‘Hear the word of the Lord.’ When you do that, I will turn these bones back into bodies, and I will put life back in those bodies.”
   4. Ezekiel told the bones to hear the word of the Lord, and suddenly there was a loud rattling noise as all the bones began fitting back into skeletons again.
      1. And as Ezekiel watched, those skeletons became fleshly bodies, but it was a valley full of bodies that had no life.
      2. And God told Ezekiel to prophesy again and tell the breath, “Thus says the Lord God, come from the fours winds and make these bodies alive again.”
      3. And a great army came to life and stood up.
   5. God then said to Ezekiel, “These bones are the whole nation of Israel.”
      1. “Everyone is saying, ‘Our bones are dried up, our hope has been destroyed, and we are completely cut off.'”
      2. “So you go to Israel and prophesy, ‘Thus says the Lord God, I will open your graves and bring you out of them, and I will return you to the land of Israel.'”
      3. “Then you will know that I am the Lord. Then you will understand that you are my people.”
      4. “And I will put my spirit in you, and you will come to life, and I will place you in your land.”
      5. “Then you will know that I, the Lord, said that I would do it, and did it.”
2. The hardest, most demanding challenge to a living faith is turning loose of the past.
   1. Unfortunately, the present is commonly captive to the past.
      1. Responsibly dealing with the consequences of our past is distinctly different from being a captive to our past.
         1. Our past always produces consequences because we all make mistakes, and we must learn to responsibly deal with consequences of those mistakes.
         2. But a captive to the past has been enslaved to the past; a captive to the past does not live in the present because the past controls his mind, his heart, and his understanding.
      2. Individuals can be captives to the past.
         1. “I had a child when I was 16 and unmarried.”
         2. “I stole a car when I was 18.”
         3. “I experimented with drugs extensively when I was in college.”
         4. “I was divorced when I was 30.”
         5. “I lost a business and everything I owned when I was 35.”
         6. “I had a car wreck that killed my family when I was 40.”
         7. Do such events result in consequences? Absolutely!
         8. Will the person be a captive who is held hostage by that past? That is a matter of decision, of choice.
      3. Congregations can be captives to the past.
         1. “We had some terrible, unkind disagreements in the past, and many people were devastated.”
         2. “We had a lot of hard feelings in the past, and some cruel things were done.”
         3. “We had alienated groups in the congregation in the past.”
         4. “We had power hungry men and women who wanted to control things in the past.”
         5. Do such occurrences produce consequences? Absolutely!
         6. Will the congregation be a captive that is held hostage to that past? That is a matter of decision, a matter of choice.
      4. Of this there can be no doubt: when a congregation becomes captive to its past and is held hostage by that past, it will become a valley of dry bones.
   2. What was God really saying to Ezekiel in that valley of dry, sun bleached bones?
      1. God is in control–even of dry bones.
      2. Life comes from God, not from the past, not from favorable circumstances.
      3. God has the power to make those dry, scattered bones skeletons; and those skeletons bodies; and those bodies alive.
      4. God could deliver Israel from the grave of their captivity and put them back in their homeland again, and God would do it.
      5. And when God did it, they would know that He was the Lord God, the God who spoke, the God who made it happen.
   3. Is there a point for us? Yes! When a congregation is becoming a valley of dry bones, the Lord God who raised Jesus from the dead can resurrect that congregation to life.
      1. God is still in control.
      2. God still has the power to make alive.
      3. God can deliver us from being a hostage to our past.
      4. God will do it, and when he does it, we will know that He is the Lord God.
3. I have a serious question to ask you, personally, and I ask it in all earnestness. I am not asking the person next to you; I am not asking everyone else assembled this morning but you; I am asking you.
   1. “What is the question? ” Are you, personally, willing to put the future of this congregation in God’s hands?
      1. Are you, personally, willing to say in all honesty, “I don’t care what is necessary, and I surrender all my personal preferences to You, God: I want your will to be done in this congregation just like heaven does your will.”
      2. “I want us, as a congregation, to have the same sensitivity to your desires and your purposes as heaven has to your desires and your purposes.”
   2. “How do I do that?” You pray. “What do I pray?”
      1. I ask every one of us to place the future of this congregation in God’s hands by regularly, frequently praying for three things.
      2. Request number one: “God, do whatever is necessary to help me, personally, become more like Jesus Christ.”
      3. Request number two: “God, help this congregation grow in all the ways you want it to grow.”
         1. Help this congregation look like people who belong to Jesus Christ. Amen?
         2. Help this congregation sound like people who belong to Jesus Christ. Amen?
         3. Help this congregation act like people who belong to Jesus Christ. Amen?
         4. Help this congregation truly belong to Jesus Christ. Amen?
      4. Request number three: “God, use me in any way that You want to help this congregation be and do what you want it to be and do.”
   3. Then, as you continue to pray, care; love; get involved.

Religiously, spiritually, are you committed to a cause, or do you love God? Brothers and sisters, we simply must learn to stop playing God. When Christians attempt to play God, as individuals and as a congregation, they become a valley of dry bones.

So many times throughout my life I unknowingly tried to play God. I never realized it. I wasn’t consciously trying to play God. God has informed me in powerful ways, “David Chadwell, I never asked you to play God. I never asked you to do what only I can do. David Chadwell, stop trying to play God; just love me, and love people.”

If the core of our spirituality is commitment to a cause, it is much too easy to try to play God. When we attempt to play God, we become a valley of dry bones.

The less we pray, the more likely we are to try to play God. The more we pray, the more humble we become before God.

Will you leave here this morning committed to placing the future of this congregation in God’s hands? Will you leave here this morning committed to praying for this to happen? Will you leave here this morning committed to becoming more like Jesus Christ?

Have the battles of your past turned your life into a valley of dry bones? Here is the good news: God through Jesus Christ can bring you back to life. Will you let Him?

Why Should We Accept the Factuality of the Old Testament?

Posted by John on January 1, 1997 under Articles

Many people accept the idea of God but do not accept the God revealed in the Old Testament. They do not believe in the factual nature of the Old Testament. Will being “a church that does good and has nice people in it” convince anyone? No, for this could describe any humanitarian organization such as the Lion’s Club, etc. What about the argument that the world was created? No, that merely shows the reasonableness that a God exists. It does not tell which God or describe that God in detail. What is needed is some way to test the factual nature of the Old Testament.

THE OLD TESTAMENT IS EVENT-CENTERED

First, Not all religions are event-based. Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, etc., are all “teachings” that are not based in any historical events in the same way the Old Testament is. There is not this string of people, places and things like in the Old Testament narratives. Further, the “gods” of these religions do not “enter history” as the God of the Bible does. Being event-based is important because if a writing claims to be true historically, then it’s contents should be verifiable as far as one is able to check.
(Note: an excellent resource to contrast world religions is The Compact Guide to World Religions, by Halverson, ed.)

Second, as with any world view, it will ultimately rest on faith. But it will not be blind faith. It will be faith founded on fact. And if the God of the Bible is the true One, then faith is the key principle (Hebrews 11).

HISTORICAL ARCHEOLOGY IS THE KEY METHOD

First, it is not physical/biological science that gets the starring role in evidences. Many seem to think that physical/biological science is the star because this is how the case for creation is established. However, showing creation to be logical doesn’t say one thing about the truth of the Old Testament narratives to the contrast of other world views. As such, the physical/biological sciences are very limited as evidence.

Second, historical events require historical verification. Artifacts, papers, and reason all enter into the picture. So, archeological evidences are superior to those from the “creation sciences” to establish faith in the factuality of the Old Testament.

Outstanding Old Testament events include not only creation but also the Flood, Tower of Babel, Call of Abraham, the Egyptian sojourn and EXODUS, the Sinai –event, conquest, kingdom, captivity and return narratives. All these are packed with names of people, places and cultural color. Does archeology verify the Old Testament along these lines?

As a side note: First, the use of the term “verify” is used in the place of “proof” because none of us were present to actually see or witness the events (which would be “proof” for us). We are limited to just making checks at available points along the line. If a number of these checks pan out, then we have reason to believe in the factuality of the document. Hence, we verify points along the line rather than “prove the entire line”. Second, there is always some uncertainty in the “facts” we gather. This does not mean our facts are worthless, it means that everything has a specific level of certainty associated with it. Facts are just items that have a high degree of certitude to them. Third, to establish a case, we always wish that more pieces of the puzzle were available. For example, even if one had a 100 piece puzzle of the Statue of Liberty and 12 pieces were missing in a random way, one could still “get the picture” with a good degree of certainty but we naturally wish all the pieces were present. The same holds true for any type of investigation.

WHAT ARE SOME ARCHEOLOGICAL VERIFICATIONS?

First, it is important to note that faith is in the picture. It will be faith in the testimony of the archeologists that guide us. And there are three very good works in this area that any library would benefit from having. They are (1) The New Unger’s Bible Handbook, revised by G.N. Larson, (Moody Press). This is an excellent work. It surveys the Bible and gives archeological “finds” that help illuminate the text. There is much use of color photos/charts and maps. (2) Genesis and Archeology, by Howard F. Vos, (Moody). Even though it contains B/W pictures, it still is very informative and easy to read. (3) Archeology and Bible History, by Free and Vos, (Zondervan). This is an up-to-date work by noted archeologists/scholars. It follows the Bible-line of history and that makes it very useful. The work is in-depth and authoritative.

CASE STUDIES

1. Sodom and Gomorrah:
   1. Genesis 14 tells of five cities around the Salt Sea that are located close to tar pits. It is a fact that oil-based material does appear in considerable quantities around the southern end of the Dead Sea.^{1, 2a} As such, today no one wants to live there. But excavations have shown that the area was densely populated in the past.³ Further, Josephus, the Jewish historian, writing at the end of the first century, said that traces of the five cities could still be seen at that time.^2b This is independent, corroborative, testimony that verifies the Bible statement of cities being around the southern end of the Dead Sea.
   2. The area also contained lots of salt, free sulfur (“brimstone”) and oil deposits. Coupled with earthquakes common to the area, this could account for the origin of the fire and brimstone “raining down from heaven.”⁴ While there are still many details to be worked out, it is clearly seen that the Bible statements do have a factual base. Hence, faith in the story of Gen 14 and 19 are fully justified.
2. The Bitter Waters of Marah:
   In Ex 15:23 it is stated that the Israelites could not drink the water because it “was bitter.” How can water be “bitter”? Does this statement have a basis in fact? Yes, most certainly. When water is “bitter” it usually contains dissolved minerals. These are some of the same kind found in well water–calcium and magnesium. How can “bitter water” be made “sweet” (un-bitter)? Maybe the “tree” that Moses threw in had some property that could “catch” all the minerals responsible for making the water bitter. Some forms of cellulose (a constituent of wood) are able to work in this way and are used to “soften” water today.⁵ We do not know what actually occurred, but we can be confident that what is being told is not some fable. The writer of the story made true observations that are backed up by current knowledge. In short, the testimony rings true.
3. The Ark:
   Using the measurements of the ark given by the Bible and the average distance of a cubit, engineers have calculated the size, stability and design of the ark. It is now know that these are not just haphazard numbers that some story-teller might have cooked up, but that they show the sign of intelligent design.⁶
4. The Exodus:
   Here is where the story goes in a different direction. First, it is standard knowledge that the Egyptians had many “gods” and that even the Pharaoh was a “god.” Second, common sense tells us that no nation is going to build monuments that brag about how they got defeated, especially if was by a bunch of their slaves!! And this would even be more difficult to admit if the very “gods” of their nation were defeated (and they were)! Hence, one would naturally expect the Egyptians to actually “say nothing” of the Exodus. It can almost be imagined that it would be a political mistake to erect a monument or build some sort of Egyptian “billboard” (technical: stela) to that effect. Further, it would be expected that if anything was said about the Hebrews, it would be sarcastic. What is expected is actually what is observed. No monuments or discussion of the Exodus have been found. The Egyptians literally kept their mouths shut about it. However, in the context shown, their silence speaks loudly!

   Later on, where Israel is mentioned in an Egyptian monument, it is a “put down.” For example, in the case of Merneptah,⁷ the successor of Ramesses II, he boasted of his victory over the people of Palestine (and he names Israel). The monument of this victory has a sarcastic tone to it as per Israel. After the Exodus and “overthrow” of Egyptian gods, the sarcasm toward Israel is perfectly reasonable.

   Hence, it is seen that Egyptians report and boast of victory and are silent as a graveyard about defeat! Nothing in archeology contradicts the Old Testament record as per the Exodus.

WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER?

First, Nelson Glueck, the renowned Jewish archeologist, said that “it may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference” (from Rivers in the Desert; History of Neteg. Philadelphia: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969, page 31).

Second, Wm. F. Albright, another highly respected archeologist, has this to say “. . . discovery after discovery have established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history” (from The Archeology of Palestine. Rev. ed. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican Books, 1960).

Third, the two men mentioned above are not known to be conservatives, hence their testimony carries greater weight.

So, we can have full confidence in the Old Testament as history. Faith can be founded on fact and not feeling.

REFERENCES

1. Vos, Howard F., Genesis and Archeology, Chicago: Moody
2. Whitson, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1963 (a) “Antiquities 1:9”, (b) “Wars of the Jews” 4:8.4
3. Free and Vos, Archeology and Bible History, revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992 (p. 52)
4. Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Handbook, Chicago: Moody, 1984 (pp. 23, 52)
5. Stock and Rice, Chromatographic methods, Chapman and Hall, 1967
6. Reference available on request. It contains the calculations by an engineer as per the ark and includes tests of stability for water vessels.
7. Pfeiffer, Charles ed., The Biblical World, Grand Rapids: Baker (p. 380ff)

?

Why Do Some Reject the World View of the Old Testament

Posted by John on under Articles

Why do people not accept the Old Testament world view as truth? Those who do accept the message of the Old Testament as truth, it is the very foundation for life and understanding the New Testament writings (Rom 15:4, Hebrews). But for others it is the foundation for nothing.

WHY DO SOME NOT BELIEVE?

First, many believe that the idea of God is just a human concoction. That is, God is just inferred in order to explain “mysteries.” These people point out that all religions have this one thing in common. Hence, writings, sacred books, etc., are all based on human imagination or ideas.

The above is not totally false. The idea that a God exists comes from the human mind. How else could it come about? Man sees nature, man infers, man concludes . . . that is the way man learns about the surety of God’s existence (Rom 1:19ff).

It is also true that many, like Shirley MacLaine, have written books that tell about having contact with a Someone “out there.” Plus the cults have their sacred books. The Greeks had their whole team of gods and wrote about them. So, it is also true that men have created writings to go along with their “religious” claims. Often it is not the idea that God exists that is disputed but the factuality of the Old Testament that is disputed. It is simply lumped together with all other “sacred books” and labeled “myth.”

Second, there is this thing of personal autonomy. That is, the desire to rule one’s self. In general, everyone wants to have his/her own way on a matter. It is hard to submit to authority, admit mistakes, and “line up” with how someone else sees it. Everyone has a natural desire to do things that are right in one’s own eyes. To believe in the Old Testament world view would put one into a dilemma because, in the Bible, it is an act of rebellion against God to follow one’s own self instead of submitting to God (Jer 17:15, Prov 3:7, Deut 12:8; and the case of Nadab and Abihu, Lev 10:1-3). So, to keep one’s independence, the Bible is simply rejected as are all other types of religions that are authority-based.

Third, there is this tension between the wrath of God and the love of God that affects people. On a recent program of “48-Hours,” George Carlin, the cynic comic, explained to the audience the “absurdity” of God. He tells them that there is this invisible man up there that watches everything you do. And that He has 10 things you ought not do . . . because if you do them He will send you to a screaming, burning Hell forever . . . (Carlin pauses) . . . and then this God tells you He loves you!! Of course, there were rounds of laughter and applause. To believers, Carlin is a fool, but to the audience he is wise. How can Carlin’s view of God be changed? What about his audience? If they see good works being done by the church would that prove that the God of the Bible is real and that the Old Testament is factual? No. What if they hear a sermon on self-esteem? Of course not. Will seeing “vibrant worship” do it? Hardly. What about preaching about the God revealed in the Old Testament? No. Nothing will change until Carlin and others believe in the factuality of the Old Testament . . . only then can you “talk content.”

Fourth, some sincerely ask why doesn’t God just speak to us directly as He did in the Old Testament. Why does He hide Himself if He really wants us to believe? So, this “hide-and seek” stuff really frustrates people and makes them just say, “Forget it!” We understand their frustration.

Fifth, there is this thing of not being able to find the truth on a religious matter. Since everyone thinks differently, because of his/her environment it is argued, that prevents them from ever agreeing on anything. That is, one’s outlook can never be changed by facts. Hence, one world view, religion, or expression of Christianity is just as valid as another. So, the “search is off” as far as looking into the world view of the Old Testament and finding out what it really says. Islam, Samaritanism, Mormonism, Deism, Animism, etc., are all equally valid expressions of man’s search for God-based outlooks pre-determined by culture. (This whole issue is called Post-modernism, and religious Pluralism is its fruit.)

MORE REASONS TO DOUBT

Some have heard either shaky evidences to prove the truth of the Old Testament or some laughable teachings that are supposedly what the Old Testament says that have caused doubt to prevail.

example 1) Isaiah 40:22 says that God sits above the circle of the earth. Many of us have heard this quoted as “proof of inspiration” because it foretold the ball shape of the earth before its discovery. But plates are round . . . and flat. If the earth had this shape, God could still sit above the “circle of the earth” and look down. The point is that we are dealing again with picture-language and it is stretching it to make it say something about the shape of the earth. Remember, the Old Testament is to make us wise unto salvation and not wise as to how the universe goes (2 Tim 3:15).

example 2) One of the more recent and sincerely taught ideas is that before Adam sinned there was no death of any living thing on this planet. This means that in the garden nothing died. Think about this. If Adam stepped on a roly-poly bug or ant or grub or worm, it would not die. There would be no food chains where big fish eat smaller fish etc. In fact, there would be no “humus” in the garden because it is decaying organic matter! The people that teach this are those involved in the Institute for Creation Science. Dr. Henry Morris is one of the leading expositors of this view. This is another case of “stretching it” too far as per the language of Genesis.

example 3) Sincere people say that they have found Noah’s ark. Maybe. But according to Dr. Harvey Porter, a respected archeologist and Christian, no archeologist of repute is an “arkeologist” or gives credence to their claims. The fact of the flood is not being disputed . . . it is the finding of the ark that is being questioned. In fact, the recent television program “In Search of Noah’s Ark” was found out to be filled with fraud. This made national news. “Bogus facts” do not help the cause.

example 4) The local newspaper here ran a section asking local ministers to give reasons why they believe in God. Some were good but others were dreadfully shallow. One preacher used most of his space to talk of his trip to Scotland and then told us that he believed in God because he saw a rainbow and that only God could make a rainbow. Actually kids in the backyard with a water-hose can make a rainbow. And that is probably what most people came up with. So the “evidence” fell flat as a flitter. When presenting evidences to the public, we need to spend time on the topic and get to the point.

example 5) Most of us who were in college about 25 years ago probably heard about N.A.S.A. computer experts finding the “missing day of Joshua.” This writer remembers trying to locate more information on the subject. It seems like every church bulletin and preacher mentioned it. It turned out to be a hoax (probably made by the same people that cooked up the “Search Noah’s Ark” T.V. special). We’ve got to make sure that what we say can be documented and is backed by competent research.

THE CHURCH NEEDS TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN LAYING DOWN REASONS TO BELIEVE

First, the problem today is UNBELIEF. So preaching God to the lost, letting them see our good works, being a good neighbor to the community, having lectureships on the family and marriage, etc., PROVE NOTHING and DO NOTHING to lay a solid foundation for having a faith based on fact. True, the church is to be full of “good works” (Eph 2:10), but a cornerstone of the edifice has been left out . . . and that is preaching the FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE BIBLE!!

Second, people will believe something. Everyone has a world view. It is an act of faith. But some world views are not EVENT-BASED as the Old Testament is. In fact, the Judeo-Christian religion is unique by having a historical base. Our God acted in real-life and things were recorded and can be looked into. Being event-based, it is an umbrella for people, places, and things. We CAN assemble facts and establish reasons for faith.

Third, the church around here has focused on ” being a good neighbor” and providing a “place where visitors see how warm we are.” We also want to preach “hope.” People need “hope.” But “hope must have its reasons.” We are hitting all these important areas to the virtual . . . abject neglect of providing REASONS TO BELIEVE! Sure, someone may “join our club” by getting wet in the water but is it BLIND FAITH that motivates them? Is it responding to “warm fuzziness” or FACTS? (Please do not misunderstand . . . congregations need to be warm and have a sense of community, but if this is the hook to get them in, then our hook is just “warmer” than the cult down the street. The issue is DO WE HAVE A FACTUAL BASIS FOR EXISTING?? People need to know!)

Fourth, someone has said that a faith unexamined is not worth having. That is true. But the current movement of the church today is to dish out to the public a teaching that they are expected to swallow without giving them any solid evidence that it is the truth. Hence, if they respond, they have an unexamined faith. And what if the “warm-fuzziness” of the congregation fizzles? Then those people are gone. They had no roots. They never were shown that what they believed is backed up by evidence as is no other religion. Church leaders need to get their head out of the “warm-fuzzy” sand and act on the reality of the present situation.

CONCLUSION

This article has tried to show why some refuse to believe in the Old Testament world view and that some still doubt because they have heard very inadequate reasons for believing. Finally, it is advised that the church here (and elsewhere) get to the task of challenging unbelief and providing reasons to believe to those who are lost.

Short Answers to 10 Common Questions

Posted by John on under Articles

1. Mode of baptism? (New Testament written in Greek) Greek words are:* rhantizo = sprinkle* cheo = pour

   * baptizo = immerse

   Which word does God specify in the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20)?

2. We follow Christ and His teachings and not the Old Testament teachings (Matt 28:20)?* OT points to Christ (Col 2:16, 17)* OT only a shadow of the true (Heb 10:1)

   * Hence, the first (OT) in order to set in place the second (NT) [Heb 10:9]

   * Apostles taught the teaching of Christ (Matt 28:20, Acts 2:42)

   * The Sabbath, special priesthood, instrumental music all were a part of the OT system and are replaced with what they pointed to.

3. Instrumental music?
   1. no one who read the NT for 500 years got the idea that God asked for it.
   2. the Greek Orthodox Church still hasn’t found it even though they read the NT in the original Greek language like we read a newspaper (this can be documented). Hence, they sing acapella.

* God specifically asked for it in the OT (2 Chron 29:25, 26).

* God never asked for it in the NT. If so, where is the passage?

* Pope Vitalian (a mere man) put it in about 500 years after the church was established and under much protest (this can be documented). This proves that:

* If God is our Father, then He would like our love and trust. Shall we trust Him and give Him just what He asked for or what we ask for and want? (see 1 Cor 4:6).

* note the CONTRAST between what God asked for in OT worship and what He asked for in NT worship as per music.

4. One-man pastor system?
   * Apostles put “elders” (plural) in churches (Acts 14:23)

   * Titus 1:5 gives qualifications for installing “elders” (plural).

   * Acts 20:17ff elders = overseers (NAS, bishops) = shepherds (Greek = pastor) therefore, all the same people = Group of pastors.

   * Church has teachers that ought to be paid (Gal 6:6). They are commonly known as “preachers.” They are not the one-man pastor of the church. Yet, a teacher may be one of the pastors (1 Tim 5:17)

   * Elders are men not women (Matt 10:2, Titus 1:6, 1 Tim 3:2)

   * Men teach the assembled church (1 Tim 2:11ff, 1 Cor 14:34ff)

   * Men and women may work together to tutor a person (Acts 18:26)

5. Lord’s Supper on the Lord’s Day is the NT practice?* LS is a memorial to the death of Christ for our sins* The first day of the week is a memorial to His Resurrection = Lord’s Day

   * The two events (death + Resurrection) are tied together (2 Cor 15:3, 4 and Rom 4:25); therefore, the memorials that reflect those events are logically tied together. And this is the practice seen in Acts 20:7. What other practice reflects the gospel like this one ? What other day would fit?

   * Taking the LS each Lord’s Day, 52 times a year will cause a person to focus on what Christ has done for him on the cross and its verification by the Resurrection. This is result in true worship.

   * Records from early church history confirm that the standard practice was to take the LS each Sunday (see E. Ferguson, Early Christians Speak)

6. A “falling away” will occur. False doctrine will creep in and make changes?* Some will draw away disciples (Acts 20:30)* We must “hold fast” the traditions delivered to the early church (2 Thess 2:15). This means to contend for the faith that was once delivered (Jude 3).

   * There can be no fellowship with those who want to change the apostolic teachings (Rom 16:17-18)

   * THE CHURCH IS TO STAND FOR THE TRUTH as delivered (1 Tim 3:15)

   * Church history give dates when the above practices (1-5) were changed by human wisdom (and with much controversy).

7. Jesus is the “way, truth, and life” and exclusive way to God, the Father?* statement made (Jn 14:6)* belief in Him is necessary or one will not follow Him as the way (Jn 12:46)

   * the way is not easy (Matt 16:24)

   * but Jesus gives an invitation to come and bring your burdens (Matt 11:28)

   * discipleship involves belief, repentance and is initially declared in baptism (Matt 28:19)

8. Who is Jesus?* The true light (John 1:9)* He reveals God to us as God really is (Jn 1:18)

   * He is “one with God” (John 14:10, Col 1:19)

   * Full of grace and truth (1 Jn 1:14)

   * King of Kings, Lord of Lords (Rev 19:18)

   * Based on the above, He is ALL-AUTHORITATIVE in matters of religion (Matt 28:18)

9. True Discipleship?* thinks like Jesus thinks (Phil 2:5).* follows His teachings (Matt 28:20, Lk 6:46)

   * His teaching = the very words of God (John 8:28)

   * Our goal = Jesus’ goal = to always please God (Jn 8:29, Jn 6:38)

   * Seeks to glorify God and not self (Jn 8:50)

   * If one believes, he obeys (John 3:36)

   * But our obedience springs out from LOVE FOR JESUS (John 14:23). This is the bottom-line.

10. Human wisdom is insufficient as a guide in matters of religion?* God’s thoughts are not man’s. It is best, therefore, to hear God on a matter or learn what pleases God (Isa 55:8-9).* In fact, what seems right to man may be that which leads to death (Prov 14:12)

    * It is not in man to direct his own steps (NIV, Jer 10:23)

    * Example: water won’t cleanse leprosy but God told Namaan to dip in water to be clean (2 Ki 5: 1-4). Only faith and trust in God effected his cure. He obeyed God and the leprosy left.

11. God wants man to respect His word and not change it?
    Ex: if God specifies “baptizo,” then immerse.
    Ex: if has a design for the worship of the church that contrasts with the design of OT worship, then respect the design.
    Ex: if God makes love for Him and love for man the basic foundation for our actions, then let’s not make “mere duty” the basis.

* do not put words in God’s mouth or remove words from what He says (Deut 4:2, 5:32)

* do not go beyond what has been written . . . God has spoken! (1 Cor 4:6).

* those who speak for God expect their word to remain unaltered (Rev 22:18)

12. Jesus’ Words = Apostle’s Words?* They taught people how to do (observe) what Jesus commanded (Mt 28:18-20)* Jesus’ Word = God’s Word and He gave it to them (apostles) (John 8:28, 17:8)

    * The apostles would be guided into all truth (John 14:26, 16:13, 14)

    * Apostolic Word authority (1 Cor 2:11-13, 1 Cor 14:37, 2 Thess 2:15)

Proving a World View

Posted by John on under Articles

EVERYONE HAS A WORLD VIEW

Each and every person has a world view. This means that personal observations have been made about the world, its problems, the ultimate questions of origins, etc. And around this set of observations is wrapped a viewpoint that ties together and explains the observations. This is a world view. What are some facts about world views?

First, world views come in many colors. There is the theistic view, deistic view, pantheistic view, and even those who claim no world view, but to simply exist and “go with the flow,” have a “chaotic”world view.

Second, all world views have one major thing in common and that is they all are acts of faith and not results of absolute proof.

Third, world views also have one other thing in common. They all attempt to explain observables. For example, design in nature is an admitted fact. The world view of the Biblical writers and even the Islamic writers explain such design as an act of creation by a Supreme Being. The naturalistic world view explains it as a result of mere chance. Both are faiths wrapped around observations.

WHOSE VIEW IS CORRECT?

How do you “prove” a world view? First, a world view must have explanatory power to tie together a large set of observations. Does it explain why specific things happen/not happen in the world? Does it answer the ultimate questions such as a person’s origin, purpose and destiny?

Second, does it continue to touch base with accepted fact? That is, upon further examination, does it “square” with more observables? For example, is there any factual base for the “Tower of Babel” or the city of “Ur”? Is there any factual base for the Mormon view of history as presented in the Book of Mormon? How the written records of those holding specific world views check out with archeological findings could help firm up one view over another.

Third, is the view coherent? Does the whole system have internal consistency. That is, when the Bible is studied as a whole, with different writers of different backgrounds forming its content, is there is a unity in message and purpose seen? Are there internal contradictions? (This does not mean that everyone cannot use different words in describing an event or teaching or even write with differing degrees of precision.) It is a well known fact that no one has been able to show a bona fide contradiction in the Bible. Those who have tried have been ably answered. Such is not the case with the Mormon writings (cf. Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, by Gerald and Sandra Tanner).

Also, the idea of unity does not mean that there are not some “fuzzy areas” in the system. For example, our present understanding of chemistry is based on a core of accepted truths. But there are some areas that are not clear and are really “above and beyond” the ability of most chemists to understand. Chemists call this the “land of nebulosity.” More thought and research may bring out new truths that tie up the present loose ends. But none of this argues against an overall internal unity in the discipline. The same is true of any other world view. The existence of “fuzzy areas” do not argue against its overall consistency. In Christianity, the inability to comprehend the “Trinity” does not argue against it.

WHY MUST ACCEPTING A WORLD VIEW BE AN ACT OF FAITH?

First, because a person does not have the time or resources to examine each and every world view, selecting one must be an act of faith. This also means that a person could lose faith in one view and accept another that explains things better. This is exactly what happened to the Tanners listed above. They lost faith in Mormonism because they found outright cover-ups in Mormon history etc. So, after accepting by faith a specific world view, one must constantly examine it in light of known facts and its ability to explain those facts.

Second, as per the biblical world view, it tells one straight out that it is a walk of faith and not sight. For if the God of the Bible is the “true God” then this is the precise way to please Him (Heb 11). So, we sit about where Theophilus sat (Luke 1:3). Our faith must come from hearing testimony and not seeing attendant miracles (Rom 10:17).

The blessing comes by faith, not sight (John 20:29). It is faith from start to finish (Rom 1:17).

THE PROBLEM OF FAITH

Much is made by skeptics of the fact that Bible believers “walk by faith.” We all “walk by faith and not sight” in even the acceptance of “common knowledge.” For example, in everyday life most of us “goose-step” to what “they say.” You know the story . . . “they say” that eating rice with oranges will give you a headache . . . so we avoid that practice. “They say” you cannot mix motor oils so we make sure that isn’t done. “They say” oat bran helps prevent cancer . . . so, we buy oat bran. Even the most die-hard skeptic can be found at the grocery store buying corn flakes with oat bran in it. And on it goes. Another example is from the teaching of Chemistry. Most all chemistry books report that the nucleus of the atom was “discovered” by Rutherford by shooting “bullets” at gold foil. It is doubtful that the writer of the text actually observed the event. It is even doubtful that his teacher observed it. But we all believe that someone saw it and made an accurate report of the event.

Our position in chemistry is that of belief in testimony as per most of what is accepted as fact. Further, about all anyone can say that would not involve belief would be “I am a something . . . but I know not what.” This is where “walking by absolute certainty” leads a person. And you don’t find many people running out into the front of a roaring Mack Truck screaming, “It’s only a dream. It’s only a dream!!” No, most everyone tends to believe that what’s “out there” is real and not imagined. We all walk by faith and what we accept as “fact” is more than likely based on the testimony of some remote source.

HOW CAN THE BIBLICAL WORLD VIEW BE TESTED?

First, does it touch base with accepted historical fact? That means, if it mentions a city, people, king, etc., is there anything that backs up the claim? For example, Ezra 4:10 mentions the name of a “good Osnapper” (RSV). Did this person exist? Is there any “out there” stuff on him? Yes. The name itself is an Aramaic form of Ashurbanipal, the once King of Assyria. Around 1852-53, Hormuzd Rassam discovered the famous Ashurbanipal library. Here, the Old Testament writings “touched base” with reality. Another interesting example is that the river Ulai was not known except by being mentioned in the book of Daniel (8:2). Later it was found in the Assyrian inscriptions associated with Ashurbanipal.

Second, the Biblical view is that at one time in man’s early history that a great flood wiped out all except one man and his family and what animals they could save. Common sense, says that this story would have been handed down for generations to come. It is also reasonable that as men drifted away from God that the stories would become corrupted. It would be expected that records of the story would have been kept that would actually pre-date Genesis.

Within the Ashurbanipal library were found writings that describe a man who was separated from humanity by his good qualities. He was instructed to build a boat. Exact details were given to him to build the boat. Other people and animals were to enter the boat and those left outside would be destroyed. Birds were released to see if the waters had receded (doves and ravens). Finally after coming out of the boat a sacrifice was made by the man to the gods and a “sweet smell” went up to the gods (cf. Gen 8:21). This surely sounds familiar! Of course, the existence of this story in a pagan land does not prove the Bible story true, but how it originated is clearly explained by the Biblical world view. It is actually an “undesigned” coincidence that something in the Bible and in the Assyrian library would cross paths. This makes our world view firmer.

Third, another interesting item in the biblical picture is that before the flood men seemed to live much longer than those after the flood.

Does this find any verification in archeology? The Sumerian Prism is an artifact of very early civilization in Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, according to the biblical view. There is a statement on the block of rock (prism) that says that a flood swept over the earth. Then the rock is divided by a line into two sections — pre-flood and post-flood. The life spans of those kings before and after the flood are listed. And there is an obvious difference. Those before the flood lived decidedly longer. This a weighty piece of evidence that even points to a real “flood event.”

Fourth, there are many, many more places that the Bible mentions that can be verified. Interestingly, such is not the case with the world view contained in the Book of Mormon. Mormon scholar and defender of the faith, Thomas Stuart Ferguson, spent a good deal of his life trying to find something that would give credence to the history portrayed in the Book of Mormon. His conclusion? There are no artifacts, etc., “because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of dirt-archeology.” Note this contrast with the Bible.

We believe that our world view is more sure than the Mormon view because of the factual support our faith has.

CONCLUSION

So, what is the point of all this? First, to show that everyone has a personal view of things that wraps around what they have observed and continue to observe. Second, that such a view is an act of faith and not a result of absolute proof. And that those who want to say that they walk by proof and not faith should be challenged on that point. Third, that some world views are better because they rest on much surer foundations. This is the case with the biblical view compared to the Mormon view.

Jesus or the Apostles or Both?

Posted by John on under Articles

Is what Jesus said during His personal ministry all His teachings? Are the writings that follow the Gospels of any worth in spelling out the will of the Lord?

1. Matt 28:18-20
   1. Jesus has All-authority is matters pertaining to man’s relationship to God.
   2. Jesus KNOWS THE WAY (John 14:6).
   3. What He knew He gave to the Apostles (Matt 28:20, John 16:12-15).

   Therefore: Jesus teaching = Apostle’s doctrine (Acts 2:42)

2. Apostles elaborate on how to apply the foundation teachings of Christ.
   1. Jesus told the Apostles to teach the disciples how to observe all that He had said (Matt 28:20).
   2. This must have included worship (Acts 2:42).
   3. Apostles appeal to Jesus as their source of authority in their teaching (1 Thess 4:2).
3. It is false to:
   1. Elevate the teachings of Jesus during His personal ministry to the diminishing of the rest of the New Testament.
   2. Focus totally on the earthly Lord versus the RISEN LORD.
   3. See the teachings of Jesus while on earth as being all of the will of God.