Why This Series and Where Are We Going? John 3:1-18 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 What I am picking up on here is precisely the term "born again." The Barna A Profound Mistake Now I want to say loud and clear that when the Barna Group uses term "born I'm not saying their research is wrong. It appears to be appallingly right. Today we begin a series of messages about the new birth. What does the Bible Today's message will be an introductory overview of where we are going and But it always happens through the word of God. Listen to1 Peter 1:23 and 25: There are several crucial questions we will be asking. One is: What is the go to church, and those who have been there all their lives?
November 18, 2007
This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you
are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do
unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you,
unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said
to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time
into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say
to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which
is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You
must be born again.' 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its
sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is
with everyone who is born of the Spirit." 9 Nicodemus said to him, "How can
these things be?" 10 Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and
yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we
speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not
receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not
believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has
ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man
be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 "For
God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in
him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son
into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be
saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever
does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the
name of the only Son of God.
If you go to the Barna Group online-it's an organization that specializes in
religious research and statistics-you'll read things like this: "Born Again
Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians." The same kind
of statistics are given by Ron Sider in his book The Scandal of the
Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the
World? and by Mark Regnerus in his book Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in
the Lives of American Teenagers.
American Church Not Unlike the World
Group in particular uses it in reporting their research. So that report is
titled " Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are
Non-Christians." Sider uses the word "evangelicals" but points out the same
kind of thing: "Only 9 percent of evangelicals tithe. Of 12,000 teenagers
who took the pledge to wait for marriage, 80% had sex outside marriage in
the next 7 years. Twenty-six percent of traditional evangelicals do not
think premarital sex is wrong. White evangelicals are more likely than
Catholics and mainline Protestants to object to having black neighbors."
In other words, the evangelical church as a whole in America is apparently
not very unlike the world. It goes to church on Sunday and has a veneer of
religion, but its religion is basically an add-on to the same way of life
the world lives, not a radically transforming power.
again" to describe American church-goers whose lives are indistinguishable
from the world, and who sin as much as the world, and sacrifice for others
as little as the world, and embrace injustice as readily as the world, and
covet things as greedily as the world, and enjoy God-ignoring entertainment
as enthusiastically as the world-when the term "born again" is used to
describe these professing Christians, the Barna Group is making a profound
mistake. It is using the biblical term "born again" in a way that would make
it unrecognizable by Jesus and the biblical writers.
Here is the way the researchers defined "born again" in their research:
"Born again Christians" were defined in these surveys as people who said
they have made "a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still
important in their life today" and who also indicated they believe that when
they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and
had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents were not asked to
describe themselves as "born again." Being classified as "born again" is not
dependent upon church or denominational affiliation or involvement.
In other words, in this research the term "born again" refers to people who
say things. They say, "I have a personal commitment to Jesus Christ. It's
important to me." They say, "I believe that I will go to heaven when I die.
I have confessed my sins and accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior." Then the
Barna Group takes them at their word, ascribes to them the infinitely
important reality of the new birth, and then blasphemes that precious
biblical reality by saying that regenerate hearts have no more victory over
sin than unregenerate hearts.
The New Testament Moves the Opposite Direction
I am not saying that the church is not as worldly as they say it is. I am
saying that the writers of the New Testament think in exactly the opposite
direction about being born again. Instead of moving from a profession of
faith, to the label "born again," to the worldliness of these so-called born
again people, to the conclusion that the new birth does not radically change
people, the New Testament moves the other direction. It moves from the
absolute certainty that the new birth radically changes people, to the
observation that many professing Christians are indeed (as the Barna Group
says) not radically changed, to the conclusion that they are not born again.
The New Testament, unlike the Barna Group, does not defile the new birth
with the worldliness of unregenerate, professing American Christians.
For example, one of the main points of the first epistle of John is to drive
home this very truth:
everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him."
abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of
God."
whoever loves has been born of God and knows God."
is the victory that has overcome the world-our faith."
on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does
not touch him."
We will come back to texts like these in the weeks to come as this series
develops. There are many questions to answer and we will distance ourselves
plainly from perfectionism and deal realistically with the failures of
genuine Christians. But for now, is it not true that these statements appear
to be written with the very claims of the Barna Group in mind, namely, that
born again people are morally indistinguishable from the world? The Bible is
profoundly aware of such people in the church. That is one reason why 1 John
was written. But instead of following the Barna Group, the Bible says that
the research is not finding that born again people are permeated with
worldliness; the research is finding that the church is permeated by people
who are not born again.
"Regeneration"
teach about being born again? Another word for the event of being born again
is "regeneration." It is helpful to use that word from time to time. Would
you be willing to add it to your vocabulary? Children would you help your
parents with this? They have probably never used the word "regeneration" in
talking to you. So they may not know what it is. Would you tell them when
you get home, "Mommy and Daddy, did you know that 'regeneration' means being
born again? And did you know that the word 'regenerate' is how you describe
somebody who is born again? You say, 'That person is regenerate.' That means
he's born again"? If you could coach your parents with this, it will help me
very much. Then we can all use words in the same way and not get confused.
1) The Desecration of the Term "Born Again"
why. You can already see one of the reasons I want to focus on this issue.
The term "born again" is desecrated when it is used the way the Barna Group
uses it. And, of course, that kind of misuse of the biblical term is not the
only kind. The term in our day simply means that someone or something got a
new lease on life. So the internet says that Cisco Systems, the
communications company, has been born again, and the Green Movement has been
born again, the Davie Shipyard in Montreal has been born again, the west end
in Boston has been born again, Kosher foods for Orthodox Jews have been born
again, and so on. So it's not surprising that we have to be careful when we
read that 45% of Americans say they have been religiously "born again."
This term "born again" is very precious and very crucial in the Bible. So I
hope to make sure that we know what God intends when the Bible uses this
language. What does being born again mean?
2) What Happened in Being Born Again
Another reason I am eager to focus on the new birth is to help you know what
really happened to you when you were born again. It is far more glorious
than you think it is. It is also more glorious than I think it is. It is
wonderful beyond all human comprehension. But that mystery is not because
there is little about it in the Bible. There is much about it in the Bible.
It's because when all is comprehended there is still more. So I hope that
you will know more and know better what happened to you when you were born
again.
3) What Must Happen to Be Born Again
Another reason for this series is that there are others that I want to help
be born again. I want to show them what must happen to them. And I, with
your prayers, would like to be a means of many being born again in these
weeks. The new birth, we will see, is not a work of man. You don't make the
new birth happen, and I don't make the new birth happen. God makes it
happen. It happens to us, not by us.
Being Born Again Happens Through the Gospel
"Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable,
through the living and abiding word of God. . . . And this word is the good
news that was preached to you." So even though God is the one who begets his
children, the seed by which he does it is the word of God, the gospel that
we preach. So pray with me that one of the great effects of this series will
be that miracle. And bring your friends and family who need to hear about
the necessity of the new birth. I will try to explain it clearly and show it
from the Bible so people can see it for themselves.
And the reason I want you to know what happened to you in your new birth and
others to know what must yet happen to them is threefold. 1) When you are
truly born again and grow in the grace and knowledge of what the Lord has
done for you, your fellowship with God will be sweet, and your assurance
that he is your Father will be deep. I want that for you. 2) If God would be
pleased to bring this kind of awakening to his church, then the world will
get the real deal of radical love and sacrifice and courage from the church
and not all these fake Christians that live just like the world. 3) If you
know what really happened to you in your new birth, you will treasure God
and his Spirit and his Son and his word more highly than you ever have. And
he will be glorified. So those are some of the reasons why we are focusing
on the new birth.
Crucial Questions About Being Born Again
new birth? That is, what actually happens? What is it like? What changes?
What comes into being that wasn't there before?
Another question is: How does it relate to other things that the Bible says
God does to bring us to himself and save us? For example, how does being
born again relate to:
Corinthians 5:17),
sent me draws him," John 6:44),
me," John 6:37),
what was said by Paul," Acts 16:14),
light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," 2
Corinthians 4:6),
remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh,"
Ezekiel 36:26),
us alive together with Christ," Ephesians 2:5),
as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!'" Romans 8:15).
describing what happened to us when God saved us?
Another question we will ask is: Why is the new birth necessary? Jesus said
to Nicodemus in John 3:7, "You must be born again." Not, "I suggest it," or,
"Your life would improve if you added this experience." Why is it that
"unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3)? This
is one of the great reasons for dealing with this. Until we realize that we
must be born again, and why we must be born again, we probably will not
realize what our condition really is without salvation. Most people do not
know what is really wrong with them. One way to help them make a true and
terrible and hopeful diagnosis is to show them the kind of remedy God has
provided, namely, the new birth. If you have a sore on your ankle and after
the doctor does his test, he comes in and says, "I have hard news: We have
to take your leg off just below the knee," that remedy would tell you more
about the sore than many fancy words. So it is with the remedy "you must be
born again."
Another question we will tackle is how the new birth happens. If it is the
work of God, which it is, how do I experience it? Is there anything I can do
to make it happen?
And a final question we must deal with is: What are the effects of being
born again? What changes? What is it like to live as a born-again person?
Millions in Church Not Born Again
Which brings us back to where we started, namely, the claim that "born
again" Christians have lifestyles of worldliness and sin that are
indistinguishable from the unregenerate. I don't think so. First John 5:4:
"Everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the
victory that has overcome the world-our faith." But my conviction is not
rosy news for the church. It implies that there are millions of church
attenders who are not born again.
Would those of you who are born again, and have the Holy Spirit in you, and
love God and care about lost people, pray with me that the effect of these
messages will be to awaken the spiritually dead - both the ones who never
Sunday, November 25, 2007
You Must Be Born Again:
Saturday, November 10, 2007
THANK YOU
A blogger placed a comment on our History Of The Church at Pongpong, Sto. Tomas, La Union. He did not reveal his name. He claims to know Bro. Buchanan. He did not reveal an address so that we could forward our reply aside from the fact that he posted the comment as an Anonymous. However, we know that he or she is sincere in posting the comments (go to the comment portion).
Brother or Sister, who ever you may be, please accept our sincerest thanks for visiting.
Indeed, we love to have songbooks for our worship and materials for children. We have classes for children every Lord's day. My wife and two (2) other members are teaching this class.
We, too, are expanding our building for worship. Below is the picture of the building under repair taken last October 28, 2007. We are now short of funds for the construction. WE welcome any help that you can extend to us.
In answer to your query, you can reach us at the following address:
THE ELDERS
c/o PABLO M. LACHICA
Pongpong Church of Christ
Pongpong. Sto. Tomas, La Union
2504 Philippines
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Very Interesting News
Senator investigating 6 TV ministries
By Erica Simons
WASHINGTON (BP)--The leading Republican on the Senate Finance Committee is
investigating prominent televangelists and their financial conduct, pursuing
reports of elaborate private jets, Rolls Royces and indulgent salaries.
"It is important that the Congress and the public have confidence that
public charities, which benefit from very significant tax breaks, are
operated in a manner that promotes continued trust," Sen. Grassley, R.-Iowa,
said in a Nov. 5 letter to the TV preachers.
Joyce Meyer and Benny Hinn are among representatives of six ministries asked
to hand over their records of expenses and compensations to Grassley.
Because of their non-profit "church status," all of the ministries are
tax-exempt and not required to submit their financial information to the
Internal Revenue Service.
"I don't want to conclude that there's a problem, but I have an obligation
to donors and the taxpayers to find out more," Grassley said. "I'm following
up on complaints from the public and news coverage regarding certain
practices at six ministries."
Other ministries that Grassley has identified for investigation are Paula
and Randy White; Gloria and Kenneth Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries
in Newark, Texas; Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in
Lithonia, Ga., and Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers International
in College Park, Ga.
Grassley requested the preachers disclose their personal and ministry-
related finances. He asked for credit card statements; lists of expenses for
second and third residences used by the ministers; the cost of hotels,
travel and entertainment used for board meetings; cash and non-cash gifts
given by the ministries, and lists of private vehicles. The media-oriented
ministries have been given one month to comply with the requests.
The senator's goal is to bring transparency to the donor-funded,
billion-dollar industry of TV evangelism, according to his statement.
Most of these ministries are financed by individuals, who often receive
material gifts such as CDs and books in return for their support. Hinn also
sells keepsakes, such as desk sculptures and decorative plates, on his
website.
The practices of these types of ministries have been under scrutiny in the
last several years, mainly in the mainstream press. The Tampa Tribune
recently investigated Randy and Paula White. The Whites announced in August
they are divorcing.
These and other investigative reports weighed on Grassley's decision. Ole
Anthony of the Trinity Foundation, a watchdog of religious broadcasting,
provides a way for donors who feel victimized by pastors and teachers to
report it on his website.
Joyce Meyer, who was investigated by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 2003,
provides her ministry's financial reports online and undergoes a voluntary
financial and legal audit each year.
"We are pleased to announce that during 2006, 82 percent of total expenses
were spent on outreach and programs directed at reaching people," said a
statement released by the ministry in early August 2007.
Some leaders are concerned the investigation might blur lines between church
and state.
"This is cause for alarm that a Senate committee would presume to directly
exercise financial oversight of religious ministries," Richard John Neuhaus,
editor of the journal First Things, told Christianity Today.
Kenneth Behr, president of the Evangelical Council for Financial
Accountability, said the investigation might be unfair. "I think he's
picking a fight," he said of Grassley, according to the Tampa Tribune. "He
is not just asking them to come in and talk, he is asking them for
everything."
Behr's organization has set standards for how churches, private Christian
colleges and large ministries should handle their tax-exempt status in an
ethical way. Members are required to hold to these standards. None of the
six ministries under investigation are currently members.
"If your house is in order, you have nothing to fear and much to gain from
this process," Florida pastor Joel Hunter told Christianity Today. Hunter's
Orlando church -- Northland, A Church Distributed -- provides its members
with a financial report weekly.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
TWO CHOICES
(Email forwarded by Bro. Arturo G. Madlaing, Elder, Golden Gate Church of Christ)
What would you do?....you make the choice. Don't look for a punch line, there isn't one. Read it anyway. My question is: Would you have made the same choice?
At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves learning-disabled children, the father of one of the students delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the question: "When not interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does is done with perfection. Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand things as other children do. Where is the natural order of things in my son?" The audience was stilled by the query.
The father continued. "I believe that when a childlike Shay, physically and mentally handicapped comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes in the way other people treat that child."
Then he told the following story:
Shay and his father had walked past a park where some boys Shay knew were playing baseball. Shay asked, "Do you think they'll let me play?" Shay's father knew that most of the boys would not want someone like Shay on their team, but the father also understood that if his son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others in spite of his handicaps.
Shay's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked (not expecting much) if Shay could play. The boy looked around for guidance and said, "We're losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him in to bat in the ninth inning."
Shay struggled over to the team's bench and, with a broad smile, put on a team shirt. His Father watched with a small tear in his eye and warmth in his heart. The boys saw the father's joy at his son being accepted. In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the top of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear as his father waved to him from the stands. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shay's team scored again. Now, with two outs and the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay was scheduled to be next at bat.
At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance to win the game? Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat. Everyone knew that a hit was all but impossible because Shay didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the ball.
However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing that the other team was putting winning aside for this moment in Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shay could at least make contact. The first pitch came and Shay swung clumsily and missed. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay. As the pitch came in, Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to the pitcher.
The game would now be over. The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shay would have been out and that would have been the end of the game.
Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the first base man's head, out of reach of all team mates. Everyone from the stands and both teams started yelling, "Shay , run to first! Run to first!" Never in his life had Shay ever run that far, but he made it to first base. He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and startled.
Everyone yelled, "Run to second, run to second!" Catching his breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling to make it to the base. By the time Shay rounded towards second base, the right fielder had the ball ... the smallest guy on their team who now had his first chance to be the hero for his team. He could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but he understood the pitchers intentions so he, too, intentionally threw the ball high and far over the third-base man's head. Shay ran toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the bases toward home.
All were screaming, "Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay"
Shay reached third base because the opposing shortstop ran to help him by turning him in the direction of third base, and shouted, "Run to third! Shay, run to third!"
As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams, and the spectators, were on their feet screaming, "Shay, run home! Run home!" Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as the hero who hit the grand slam and won the game for his team.
"That day", said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, "the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and humanity into this world".
Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter, having never forgotten being the hero and making his father so happy, and coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little hero of the day!
AND NOW A LITTLE FOOTNOTE TO THIS STORY: We all send thousands of jokes through the e-mail without a second thought, but when it comes to sending messages about life choices, people hesitate. The crude, vulgar, and often obscene pass freely through cyber space, but public discussion about decency is too often suppressed in our schools and workplaces.
If you're thinking about forwarding this message, chances are that you're probably sorting out the people in your address book who aren't the "appropriate" ones to receive this type of message. Well, the person who sent you this believes that we all can make a difference. We all have thousands of opportunities every single day to help realize the "natural order of things." So many seemingly trivial interactions between two people present us with a choice: Do we pass along a little spark of love and humanity or do we pass up those opportunities and leave the world a little bit colder in the process?
A wise man once said every society is judged by how it treats it's least fortunate amongst them.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
THE BIBLE
Bible View, Loose or Strict?
In 1787 representatives of each of the colonies met to revise the Articles of Confederation and make them adequate to the demands of the colonies. History tells us they decided to wipe out the Articles and adopt a Constitution for the United States of America.
Several months went bye with many different sentiments regarding the Constitution, but in the end, two major forces argued back and forth.
One idea of government was championed by Alexander Hamilton; the States should sacrifice their powers and form a strong federal government. The other was put forth by Thomas Jefferson; the States should retain their powers, not yielding too much to the central government.
After much discussion and various compromises on, September 17, 1787, the Constitution was adopted. Next was the election of a President. As we know George Washington was elected with John Adams elected Vice President. The Constitution was considered the supreme law of the land. Once elected, President Washington then selected his cabinet. They were: Alexander Hamilton to lead the Treasury Department, Thomas Jefferson to be the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, now Secretary of State, Henry Knox Secretary of War, and Edmund Randolph Attorney-General.
Soon it became generally known that the country was deeply in debt. Alexander Hamilton secured passage in Congress of a bill assuming all the State debts and all the debts incurred by the war. He devised ways and means in harmony with the Constitution. He established tariffs on foreign articles, liquors and the like. The government was launched.
Alexander Hamilton then had another proposal, and that was the government should go into the banking business. He insisted the government establish a national bank.
Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State objected and the first great fight in the new government began.
Jefferson said the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it says nothing about establishing a national bank. Alexander Hamilton contended there was nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the establishment of a national bank.
These two ideas were the foundation of two political parties the Federalists and Anti-federalists. As time went on Alexander Hamilton’s party was known as the Loose Constructionists, which is to construe loosely the Constitution, on the ground the Federal government is at liberty to do anything not specifically prohibited. Thomas Jefferson’s party was known as the Strict Constructionists that is they proposed the Federal Government be governed strictly by what was written and warned there was danger in going beyond.
The discussion became: Are we to be governed by what the Constitution says or is the government at liberty to provide any measure, establish any system, and engage in any kind of business the Constitution does not specifically prohibit?
Sound familiar?
We have the Bible which claims to be and we believe to be inspired by God. Unlike the Constitution of the United States of America the Bible is infallible and is not subject to amendments that take from or add to.
Do we look at the Bible as granting us the liberty to do anything not specifically forbidden? Are we governed by what it says or by what it does not say?
It was never a question with Hamilton and Jefferson as to whether there was anything wrong in a national bank. To Thomas Jefferson, that was not the issue. His question was: Are we going to respect the Constitution or not? That was and is the issue. Will I take God’s word strictly? Will I be governed by what God says or am I privileged to do anything just so God, in so many words, does not declare 'thou shalt not?"
Since the Bible has been, there have been two groups. One group takes the Bible strictly and holds closely to its teaching. This group, when questions come up asks, “What does the Bible have to say?” And they limit their practices within their understanding of the Bible. The other group interprets the Bible more loosely, and asks, “Is it forbidden or prohibited?” And what is not forbidden or prohibited is free to be practiced. One group walks by what the Bible says, while the other walks by what the Bible does not say which means they depend heavily on their own ideas. They feel free to do the things suggested by that wisdom, unless it is specifically forbidden. The practices of one group originate from God. No practice can be accepted with this group that does not come from God. God is the author of all religious service with this group. The other group looks largely to its own wisdom for authority and for guidance in religious things, and anything their wisdom approves may be used in religion unless specifically forbidden in the Bible. These paths rapidly diverge, and those on these diverging paths cannot walk together.
These diverse ways of regarding the Bible led to an early division among Christians.
In the 1530s Martin Luther was asked about infant baptism. He asked, “Where is it forbidden?” And because it was not forbidden he retained it. He taught that any religious activity is permissible unless God has specifically forbidden it in the Bible and using that logic, infant baptism is not even mentioned in the scriptures; hence, infant baptism is permissible. Later, others responded “'if infant baptism is not found in scripture we can have nothing to do with it.”, and they left it out. That is the reason why mottoes such as "Where the Bible speaks; we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent" began to be uniformly heard and became the battle cry of the restoration. Around the year 1539, Martin Luther was asked to consent to the bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse a German nobleman who was very much involved in the reformation. With that request came enormous political and social pressure. He advised Prince Philip of Hesse that bigamy is allowed because it is not specifically prohibited. Of course, Matthew recorded Jesus’ thoughts on the matter in Matthew 19:6-9 and Paul presupposed monogamy as normative for the Christian. (Rom 7:3; I Cor 7:2; Eph 5:32-33) But Martin Luther’s position was I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture
My intent is not to pick on Martin Luther but to illustrate how the way you interpret the Bible is extremely important to the decisions you will make as to what is acceptable and what is not. Realizing that what man thinks is irrelevant unless it coincides with what God thinks.
Under this rule, many destructive and harmful practices may be brought into the church because they are not specially prohibited in the Scriptures. This principle of interpretation releases people from a close adherence to the will of God as revealed in the Bible, and gives wide license to the introduction of human wisdom as the rule in the church and the life of a Christian.
.
Over time, some have forgotten that our emphasis should be on what pleases God, not on what pleases us. Some have come to the conclusion that whatever makes us happy should be alright with God. The events around the golden calf in Exodus 32 must have been exciting, but it was not pleasing to God.
The Oyster Man
In the 1827 edition of Alexander Campbell’s Christian Baptist he included an article in which he reported on what he considered the loose and careless way in which the Bible was being understood and applied by the preachers of his day. To illustrate his point he reviewed three sermons. One example was a sermon titled “The Oyster Man. Campbell wrote: A man who can neither read nor spell can preach a sermon on a text or preach a sermon from a text. A certain man took for his text
Luke 19:21-22 (KJV)
For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. [22] And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
Luke 19:21-22 (ESV)
for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.' [22] He said to him, 'I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow?
The preacher could not spell well and he made it, “thou art an oyster man, He raised his whole doctrine on the word oyster. Accordingly, his method was
To show the …resemblance between the Savior and an oyster man.
To point out how suitably sinners resembled oysters.
To demonstrate how beautifully tongs which the oyster man uses to take up oysters represented ‘ministers of the gospel’.
To prove that the oysterman’s boat was a fit emblem of the gospel and of a ‘gospel church’.
Historically, correctly interpreting the Bible has often been at the center of controversy.
Erroneous teaching and erroneous doctrine can be identified only one way. We must know what the Bible teaches well enough that when we hear some strange teaching we can compare what is said with what the Bible says. Just like the Bereans in
Acts 17:11 (ESV) Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
It is not a matter of how great a thing a person may do, how much sacrifice they may make, of how much persecution they may suffer, but rather how implicitly they put their trust in God and with what humility they give him the complete rule over their life, doing honor to the wisdom of God by the care with which they follow His teaching. The Bible has many examples of God’s dealing with man through the ages. On many occasions where man did the will of God implicitly he received God’s blessings, and on many occasions where he fell short of implicit obedience he suffered for it.
When God had made man, we are told
Genesis 2:15-17 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it. [16] And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, [17] but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
God gave a two part instruction:
Man was to work the garden and keep it and
He was not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
No where do we see any indication that Adam and Eve failed to do what God told them to do but we do have record of their failure to respect God in regard to that which they were not to do.
We all know the story of Eve’s temptation. She knew God’s instructions. She know that God had told them not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; but she was not willing to accept God’s way as best. The fact that God had spoken was not enough. She ignored His instruction and began to weigh the matter for herself. Eve resorted to her own thinking in the matter, and was soon led to ignore God’s teaching. This was her fatal mistake and one that is still being made by many today. She proposed to weigh the facts for herself. She did. She arrived at her own decision, one that removed God from ruling her life. The facts given to her in regard to the fruit were correct. It was good for food. It was delightful to the eyes. And it would make her wise to know good and evil. As she thought of these things and remembered that God knew that it would cause her to know good and evil, and surely she would not die for doing a thing like that, she seems to have come to the conclusion that her Creator and Maker would not do what he said he would. So she disrespected His teaching. She exchanged God’s instructions for her own reasoning which man has been doing ever since. How often do we hear people today justify some practice in rejecting some portion of God’s Word as “this is just a little thing,” admitting that they are not following the will of God in the strictest interpretation but reasoning that “surely this will be all right,” or “this is just as good.” What does “this is just as good” really mean? What is just as good as what? It means that man’s idea is just as good as God’s teaching on the point in question, that man’s wisdom is just as good as God’s wisdom. Eve may have thought the same thing but it was a mistake!
Have we ever fully considered what Eve really did in the light of human reasoning?
She did not repudiate God;
She did not deny that he was God;
She did not refuse to worship him as God;
She did not blaspheme his name;
She did not become moral degenerate;
She did not steal from her neighbor (whoever that may have been);
She did not kill anyone (whoever else may have been around);
She did not lie.
What did she do?
She merely took a piece of fruit and ate it and gave it to her husband and he ate. Can you think of an act less offensive? Can you think of an act that would be less degrading? Then why was this such a terrible thing to do? The magnitude of this wrong cannot be measured by our evaluation of the act itself. It can only be measured correctly when God’s Word is taken into consideration. From that standpoint what had Eve done? She had replaced God’s teaching by her own decision in the matter, and in so doing; she had dethroned God and enthroned herself or her judgment. When we exchange our reasoning for God’s we insult God. Because of that act, Adam and Eve were separated from God, driven into the world that was cursed because of them, a world in which they lost the place of honor that God had assigned to them when He set them over His creation.
The only way we can honor God is by implicit obedience to His will. The teaching God has given to us through his Son must be respected as fully and carefully as the teaching God gave to Adam in person or that which he gave to Israel through Moses.
Jesus made this point at the time of his temptation in the Wilderness. When Satan challenged Him by asking him to change stones into bread Jesus answered
Matthew 4:4 But he answered, "It is written,
“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
But by every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "
Moses had given the same teaching long before this time.
Deut. 8:3 And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.
It is true today
Adam and Eve failed to do it, so they were cut off from the tree of life and they ceased to live. God drove man out from that close association because man refused to respect God’s word. Why should we think that he will receive man back into that close relationship to live for eternity when man has not learned to respect His word? This does not imply God expects perfection but he does expect man to treat him as God, his creator.
During Moses’ final message to the people of Israel as recorded in Deuteronomy he also said;
Deut. 4:2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.
Imagine how Moses felt when he said those words and remembered what happened in the wilderness of Zin and the water of Meribah where the people complained about not having water.
Numbers 20:7-12 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, [8] "Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water. So you shall bring water out of the rock for them and give drink to the congregation and their cattle." [9] And Moses took the staff from before the Lord, as he commanded him. [10] Then Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?" [11] And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, and water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their livestock. [12] And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them."
Moses reminded the people of this experience and told them that he had asked God to let him enter the land on the other side of the Jordan but had been told he must die in the land of Moab. Why should Moses who had led the people of Israel for nearly forty years and Aaron be refused admission to the land of Canaan? God answered in:
Numbers 20:12
And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them."
Numbers 20:24 “Let Aaron be gathered to his people, for he shall not enter the land that I have given to the people of Israel, because you rebelled against my command at the waters of Meribah.
Numbers 27:12-14
The Lord said to Moses, "Go up into this mountain of Abarim and see the land that I have given to the people of Israel. [13] When you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was, [14] because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin when the congregation quarreled, failing to uphold me as holy at the waters before their eyes." (These are the waters of Meribah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin.)
Remember when Israel came to Samuel with the request that he give them a king. They knew that was not God’s order of things and Samuel tried to get them to change their mind.
1 Samuel 8:7 And the Lord said to Samuel, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.
This was not an announcement by the people that they would no longer worship God. They were not discarding the Tabernacle worship. They were not saying they no longer believed in God. They had not set aside one item in God’s arrangement.
But God said “they have rejected me from being king over them.
They had done the same thing that Eve had done: they had replaced God’s teaching by their own decision in the matter, and in so doing; they had dethroned God and enthroned themselves or their judgment.
Studying God’s Word is the most natural way to show our love and respect.
Luke 10:38-42 Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. [39] And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching. [40] But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me." [41] But the Lord answered her, "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, [42] but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her."
On the Day of Pentecost
Acts 2:14 (ESV) … Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.
Acts 2:37-47 (ESV)
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" [38] And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." [40] And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." [41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. [42] And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. [43] And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. [44] And all who believed were together and had all things in common. [45] And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. [46] And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, [47] praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
How can we “devote ourselves to the apostle’s teaching? The Bible! We can devote ourselves to the apostle’s teaching by reading what they wrote as God inspired them. Picture this:
A group gathered on the Day of Pentecost.
Peter and the other Apostles taught those who gathered on that day.
Some of those received the Apostle’s teaching and were baptized.
They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching.
They devoted themselves to other people who had been baptized.
They devoted themselves to the Lord’s Supper as they remembered Jesus’ sacrifice.
They devoted themselves to praying, communication with God.
As needs of others who had been baptized became evident they distributed their possessions.
Day by day they attended the temple.
Those who owned houses in the area opened those houses and shared their food with others who believed.
At what point did this group of people decide that they should:
Decide that since Jesus was not on earthy they needed to elect someone to be the earthly head of the church?
Make a distinction between the “clergy” and the “laity”
Elect a pastor to lead the church?
Call the Apostles “reverend”?
Begin baptizing babies?
Since it was difficult to baptize a soldier with all of that armor they should substitute sprinkling or pouring for immersion?
This chanting just doesn’t do it for me so let’s add instrumental music to their worship?
Weekly is just to much so how about observing the Lord’s Supper monthly or quarterly or annually?
Substitute bake sales, garage sales, car washes and bingo games instead of giving their own money and possessions?
Even though they had been baptized it really wasn’t necessary to they should teach that people were saved by faith only?
Although we were baptized they would let people pray “the sinner’s prayer” to be saved?
The command that really tests our faith in God is one in which we see no logical connection between God’s command and the promised blessing
Our obligation toward the Bible is the obligation Thomas Jefferson felt toward the Constitution, It is the supreme law of the land…I must do what the Constitution says and not presume to go beyond it.
The Bible is the supreme law of the land and we must do what the Bible says and not presume to go beyond it.
We should take God at his word, believe what he says, become what he requires, live as he directs; worship according to his decree; practice those things for which there is authority in his word.
Acts 2:42-47 (ESV)
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. [43] And awe came upon every soul… [44] And all who believed were together and had all things in common. [45] And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. [46] And day by day, … they received their food with glad and generous hearts, [47] praising God and having favor with all the people. …
We need to sit at Jesus’ feet and hear his word and the Bible is the only way we have to do that.
A person who does not read has no advantage over a person who cannot. A person who does not read their Bible has no advantage over the millions of people who don’t have a Bible and cannot get one.
(by: Great Smokey Mountain Church)
