A Proposal On November 13, 1861, a Pennsylvania preacher named M.R. Watkinson wrote to then Secretary of Treasury Salmon P. Chase, concerned that future generations might look back on their era, a time of civil unrest and bloodshed, and remember the ignominy of heathenism. In his appeal, he pleaded with Secretary Chase to add an inscription that, …would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. He then wrote these words, Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? Purportedly a Christian man, Chase concurred, and made provisions to grant the preacher’s plea. U.S. mint Director James Pollock received a letter from Chase one week later, in which he found this request, The trust of our people in God should be declared in our national coins. The Phrase From that time, mottos recognizing this national affection were debated. Among others, Chase was really taken by God, Our Trust.Supposedly, this was partially inspired from his particular affection toward a line in the national anthem. By December of 1863 however, Chase had narrowed his favorites to just two. Yet, and with slight modification, only In God We Trust was imbedded on the 1864 two-cent piece [the other saying was, Our God, Our Country]. The Process Twenty-seven years earlier, congress had enacted a law that prescribed what must be printed on the national coinage. So, in 1863, it took another act of congress to change the inscription to the pious phrase now found on our pocket change. While its tenure has been interrupted, it has appeared …

Two principal dictionary definitions of “faith” are: (1) an “unquestioning belief in God, religion, etc.,” and (2) “a religion or system of religious beliefs.” In the New Testament, when the meaning of “faith” is “an unquestioning belief in God, religion, etc.,” the word “faith” often is without the definite article “the” (Mark 11:22; Acts 6:5; 11:24; 20:21; Romans 1:17; 3:28; 5:1; 1 Corinthians 13:13; Galatians 2:20; 3:11; Ephesians 6:23; 1 Timothy 1:5; 6:11; Hebrews 10:38). In the New Testament, when the meaning of “faith” is “a religion or system of religious beliefs,” the word “faith” is often preceded by the definite article “the” (Luke 18:8; Acts 6:7; 13:8; 14:22; 15:9; 16:5; 24:24; 1 Corinthians 16:13; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Colossians 1:23; Jude 3). “Faith,” as “an unquestioning belief in God, religion, etc.,” is personal, subjective and internal, while “faith,” as “a religion or system of religious beliefs,” is impersonal, objective and external. I. “Faith” “Faith” (pistis) is “conviction,” “belief” (Thayer), “trust,” “confidence” (B-G-D). In relationship to God, faith holds “that he exists, and that he rewards those who seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). In relationship to Christ, faith says “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:37), and that “no one comes to the Father except through” him (John 14:6). Personal salvation (justification, righteousness) a sinner obtains by his “faith” (Acts 16:30-31; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38). But salvation is not by faith alone. The “worst” of sinners (Paul’s own estimate of himself, 1 Timothy 1:15-16), having seen the …

There is a belief commonly shared among both active churchgoers, and non-churchgoers alike that says, As long as a person tries to be good, to be morally upright and to treat people fairly, he will be all right eternally. Those who make this argument generally do so in defense of themselves or others who have little or no religious involvement or commitment. They often seek to bolster their position by saying that they can be just as close to God on the golf course, along the trout steam or on the ski slopes as others are in a church building. The argument is not nearly as convincing as they think it is. Is there any support for this way of thinking in the Bible? The answer to that question is an emphatic no! Before I proceed, I need to acknowledge that faithful church attendance is no guarantee of salvation either. It is possible to be a faithful churchgoer and still be a scoundrel. So, no one should jump to the false conclusion that church attendance is all that God requires. As the late Jess Nutter was often heard to say, Sitting in a church building no more makes you a Christian than sitting in a hen house makes you a chicken. Cornelius is an excellent example of the point I am making. He was a Roman centurion (a solider over 100 men) stationed at Caesarea, a city on the Mediterranean seacoast. According to the account of this man’s conversion, he was devout, generous and prayerful …

Many of us who do personal evangelism have made a basic mistake in our response when a person asks us what is the difference in the church of Christ and any denomination. We begin to point out such things as, “Your church practices sprinkling. We immerse. Your church does not take the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week. Ours does.” And so on through the line of things we think are important. We thus strengthen the concept that they assume that we think “our church” is a better denomination than “their church.” Suppose their church quit sprinkling and started immersing. Suppose they “communed” each Sunday. Does that solve anything? Suppose you knock all the rotten apples from an apple tree? Does that make it a peach tree? Let us try to make the point even clearer and more emphatic. Suppose a dozen of us decide to get together and organize a church. We call the meeting to order and raise some pertinent questions. First, what are we going to call the organization? After extended discussion about what names are better — those that signify an act, an attitude, the structure of the organization or something else, the decision is made by a vote of 7 to 5 that we call it “The Church of Christ.” Next, we must decide the terms of membership. We debate about that at some length, and the minimum requirements we can all agree on are that one must confess some sort of belief …

One of the most wondrous things about the Bible is that one can read it from beginning to end and never find even one instance of any predictive prophecy ever failing. One of the reasons, among many,  we know the Bible is the Book of God is the fact that not one single thing that God ever promised has ever failed to materialize just as God said it would. This is not true with the prophecies, predictions and prognostications of men. They have failed times innumerable, and yet good people will listen again and again to the same prophets make new prophecies, which like the old ones are doomed to fail. Take as a case in point the number of times in the last two millennia men have predicted and set a date for the “second coming of Christ.” It never happened! No less than a dozen times, or perhaps as many as twenty times, in the last sixty years times have been set for that coming. It never happened! Surely all who are at least twenty years old remember all the predictions of the end of time said to be coming at the end of the last millennium. It didn’t happen! We have lost all interest in the doomsday prophets of our time, because nothing they ever have said has come to pass. Up until the time of the fall of the Berlin wall and the subsequent crumble of the Soviet Union, there were constant prophecies made that the …

As part of my job, I go into various production workshops and hold week long “events” that focus on eliminating waste and attempt to make the operation more efficient through a series of exercises and applying certain manufacturing principles. Just as with any aspect of life, the introduction of change can be an uncomfortable experience, especially in the workplace. The shop I was working with this week was no different than any other group I had worked with in the past, but after a couple days of grumbling, complaining, pointed remarks and verbal stabs, it was hard not to get a little frustrated. During one of these moments I must confess that I was to the point where I could have pinched a few heads off, but then I had a brilliant idea. As I passed through one of the supervisor’s offices, I said, “Doug, I’ve got it figured out. We take the whole group, teach them the Gospel, load them all up and take them to the lake and baptize them all! That would solve lot of your problems and this would be one of the best shops around.” He agreed. Think about the amount of time we spend at our jobs. If you work a 40-hour week, 30% of your time is spent on the job; that means you spend a third of your time “performing” in front of those who are not Christians, and believe me they’re watching you! I listened to a conversation this week in …

Luke, the inspired historian, records the conversion of Saul in Acts chapter nine. In chapters 22 and 26, Paul reviews his conversion while making a defense of his character and work. When someone is asked when Saul was saved, they usually respond, “When he saw the Lord on the road to Damascus.” A famous country singer released a song during his life entitled, “I Saw the Light.” No doubt, many have claimed to have ‘seen the light’ while asserting that they were saved at that moment in time. But, was Saul really saved when he saw a light on the road to Damascus? You are urged to read again these three chapters in the book of Acts to learn the truth of the matter. Please study carefully the following observations: If Saul was saved on the road to Damascus, he did not know it because he asked, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” (Acts 9:6). There is no denial that Saul, at this time, became a believer in Jesus Christ. But, was he saved? If so, what was the significance of the question, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” If Saul was saved when he saw the Lord on the Damascus road, the Lord himself did not know it because he told Saul to “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” Certainly, this would have been the opportune time for the Lord to inform Saul of his salvation …

As the apostle Paul closed his letter to the churches in Galatia, he said, “From now on let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks [stigmata] of the Lord Jesus”(Galatians 6:17). The word “stigmata” (translated “marks”) means, “a mark incised or punched (for recognition of ownership), i.e. (figuratively) scar of service” (Strong’s Concordance). The “marks” or “scars” in Paul’s body evidently were due to 195 stripes he received from the Jews, the 3 times he was beaten with rods and the many other abuses he received (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:24ff), all because he preached the Gospel of the crucified and risen Christ. Although these were literal marks or scars in Paul’s body, which were evidence of his being owned by the Lord Jesus and his being a faithful servant, yet they also reflected the “stigma,” i.e., the “mark, label, or the like” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary) that he bore because of his deviation from the norm of that day’s religious and philosophical thought. The Gospel that Paul preached, the Gospel predicated upon the crucifixion, resurrection and coronation of Jesus Christ, incited great physical opposition from the Jews who rejected Jesus of Nazareth as being their expected Messiah. The Gospel had hardly begun to be preached when the Jewish leaders tried by physical violence to stop its spread (cf. Acts 4 & 5), and the persecution became so severe “…against the church which was at Jerusalem; that they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea …

[Bible Light 19.1 (2000):3, 7.] Every human being desires to be happy and at peace. Men abhor misery, suffering, unpleasantness and unhappiness. It was this sentiment that caused Ella Wheeler Wilcox to write: Laugh and the world laughs with you:Weep and you weep alone.For the sad old earthMust borrow its mirth;But has trouble enough of its own. Not only does man long for happiness, but God intended that his creatures should be happy. It is safe to say that the pursuits and endeavors of men through the ages have been in quest of true and lasting happiness, but frequently to no avail. This is not due to the failure of God who has done his part, but the failure of men to do theirs. This human failure is twofold, to recognize that happiness is of two kinds and to seek for genuine happiness where it may be found. The kind of happiness for which most men seek is purely animalistic pleasure. It consists in eating, drinking, sleeping, lusting and conquering — the same kind of happiness that an animal might seek and find. A Gospel preacher during a meeting heard two couples in the hotel room next to his drinking, fighting, arguing, laughing and cursing throughout the night. The next day he heard them exclaim in voices of jubilation, “Didn’t we have a wonderful time last night!” They had a pale, pathetic idea of happiness, a cheap imitation, a fading fancy, fitting well into the statement of Paul, “But she that …

The story could be repeated in just about any congregation. A young man grows up in the church. Following his baptism, he takes an active role in leading singing and waiting on the Lord’s Table. Everyone that is familiar with this young man says the same thing: “He is a strong Christian.” And yet, within months after entering college, this “strong Christian” is on the path to becoming an unbeliever. His decision to leave the church was not sudden. Rather, it occurred over several weeks as this young man wrestled with questions tossed out by his newfound friends. The problem was this young man never developed a foundation for his faith. In fact, a great deal of his belief system was built around the beliefs of his parents. And to compound the problem, on occasions when this young man sought out answers on which to solidify his faith, he commonly received the same answer: “Well son, we don’t know the answer for everything. Sometimes you just have to believe — you have to take a blind leap of faith.” In other words, this young man “believed” but he did not know why he believed. He was living an “inherited” religion. So picture an eighteen-year-old who suddenly finds his faith challenged. His friends (and professors) confront him with questions and information that directly conflicts with his belief in the God of the Bible. And sadly, all this young man has to defend himself with is the notion that he had taken a “blind …