We just received a letter from a dear brother who had been asked, “Where in the Bible is there authority for a Christian woman to teach a Christian man, or any man in public?” Part of my response to him was, “If a person asks a ‘fuzzy’ question, he can not expect anything but a ‘fuzzy’ answer.” First, what does he mean by “in public?” If a man sees a woman on the street corner and asks her, “What does a person need to do in order to be saved?” are they “in public” and can she properly tell him? If an unsaved neighbor moves into the community, and a Christian woman invites them over for dinner and the man asks her the same question, are they “in public” or can she talk about anything the Bible teaches? If they are in a Bible study in the church building, and both the unsaved person and the Christian woman are students in the class and the teacher asks the question, may the Christian woman answer? If they are engaged in the “worship service” and the Christian woman is obeying Colossians 3:16 which commands her to teach and admonish, and she has as her visitor her non-Christian friend, is she disobeying some other command which prohibits her from teaching “a Christian man or any man in public”?     In our judgment, the simple Bible answer to all of these questions is that all Christians are to be involved in teaching others, both

We just received a long letter with regard to the propriety of sending a young child to a conservative denominational academy in preference to sending it to a public school where it is constantly bombarded with false doctrine, both religiously and socially corrupt. Several questions were raised, among them was this: Would an enrollment in such a denominational school constitute support of false doctrine? Our answer may provide some thoughts of value to others involved in such problems. Part of our answer was that support involves showing compliance or agreement with the false doctrine. If simply being enrolled in such a school shows support of their false doctrine, then being enrolled in a public school shows support of the ungodly things that are taught and practiced there. Surely almost every person who may be able to read this would deny that being in a public school indicates support for all the things taught and practiced there. We are allowed to show our support or lack of it in various ways, and should show our disagreement in an appropriate, loving manner. A parent who tries to shield his/her child from all contamination of any kind needs to understand that the child cannot be immunized to false doctrine or false living unless he/she is exposed to it in some fashion. Many parents have been surprised and disappointed when their child has gone away to college and been exposed to various religious, social or political theories that they had never heard discussed or refuted, and

Are you liberal, conservative or in the middle of the road? Since none of these terms are in the Bible in the sense we are talking about, it depends on whose definition you use as to what you call yourself, or are classified by others. It would probably be amusing if it were not so confusing to realize that although I consider myself conservative, I am considered liberal by many. It long ago ceased to bother me very much, for Paul warned that we are not to measure ourselves by ourselves or compare ourselves with ourselves (2 Corinthians 10:12). The only standard that we need is God’s Word. We suppose that some who say they are neither liberal nor conservative, but in the middle of the road mean that they do not want to bind where God did not bind, or loose where God did not loose. However, “middle of the road” to others may mean that they feel that they can appeal to or appease both parties by compromising some things. They may find that they become like the soldier in the War Between the States who wore a Confederate coat and Union pants. The Union soldiers shot him in the torso, and the Confederates shot him in the pants, so he lost in any case. It is true that we can compromise in almost any area that involves merely an expediency. If enough persons want to have the “midweek” service on Tuesday or Thursday, or not at all,

First John 4:7 says, “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.” It is possible that some of the most liberal or radical commentators would use this passage to try to prove that homosexuals are acceptable with God, for they apparently love each other, but we have not seen that yet. It is practically impossible to conceive of an honest, sincere student of God’s Word who thinks this means that everyone who loves his wife or children, his friends, or the world is thereby made a child of God or proven to be one. The only other sensible alternative of which we can think is that he means that everyone who has the kind of love of which he is talking–the kind of love that causes a man to put God first and keep his commandments and loves the brotherhood with a sacrificial love (agape) is a child of God, for no one does that who is not a child of God. He is talking to and about children of God, not just anyone who loves anything or anybody.

In Acts 2:22, we find, “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.” It seems evident that there is some difference in those three things, or the Holy Spirit would not have used three different words to describe them. Because the Greek words that are here translated as wonders and signs are often translated as miracles, some assume that the words are synonyms. That is not so. A simple illustration may help to clarify that. Every mule is an animal, but not every animal is a mule. Every miracle was a sign and a wonder, but not every sign or wonder was a miracle. A short and incomplete indication of the difference in the meaning or implication of the words is this: A “sign” (seemeion or seemainoo) is intended to appeal to the understanding, a “wonder” (teras) appeals to the imagination, a “power” (or “miracle”–dunamis–as the word is used in Acts 2:22) indicates its source as supernatural. Perhaps a listing of some information about those three terms would be helpful. The word here translated “miracles” is used 116 times in the New Testament. It is translated by such terms as “mighty works,” “power,” etc. In Romans 1:16, “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation” the word is used. However the word is translated “power”; it always indicates special power. The

In Proverbs 3:5 we have some excellent advice that is applicable to every man who ever lived. It says, “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” It is interesting to read the comments of various commentators, almost all of whom have Calvinistic opinions. They say something like this: “The advice is especially needed because of the depraved state of mankind as a result of the sin of Adam.” Even many of those who do not teach that we are totally depraved because of Adam’s sin seem to think the admonition is given because of the depravity of mankind. They often quote in this connection 1 Corinthians 2:14 which says, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” They assume this means that an unsaved person cannot understand what God says, for he is depraved and must be regenerated before he can understand what God wants. It is therefore assumed by most of them that there must be a direct operation of the Holy Spirit in order to regenerate a person, give him a holy disposition of mind and lead him to an understanding of what God wants, and then produce in him an obedient heart. Let us examine some of those false assumptions. First the admonition in Proverbs applies to all mankind, saint and sinner, and was just as applicable to

I recently read a statement concerning the false teachers who had come down from Jerusalem teaching that one had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved. His purpose in making the statement seems to have been to prove that a person who was baptized believing false doctrine about the purpose and nature of baptism did not need to be baptized again. That is, if a person thought he was already saved and was baptized to testify to that idea, his baptism was still valid. I think the statement wrong, and perhaps dangerous, especially since it came from a source that is generally considered to be sound in the faith. The statement was, “Men who were baptized by the apostles believed that unless one was circumcised and kept the law of Moses he could not be saved. Here were people who were in error on the matter of their salvation, and yet they were not required to be reimmersed.” The man who made that statement was an outstanding Gospel preacher, but the statement is dangerous for two reasons. First, it suggests that these false teachers who came down from Jerusalem were baptized by the apostles. One could not prove that to save his life. Second, it suggests that when those persons were baptized, they believed this false doctrine. Again, that could not be proven. When they actually formulated a belief or an opinion about who could or could not be saved is not stated

Although we do not claim to be brilliant or scholarly, we think that a majority of brilliant and scholarly men have made a common and simple mistake in giving an exegesis of some of the parables of Jesus. Let us give a few examples. Perhaps the Parable of the Lost Sheep in Matthew 18 and Luke 15 are two of the most significant ones. Matthew 18:12-14 says, “How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.” Burton Coffman says, “The parable suggests the earthly mission of Christ, the Good Shepherd, who left the joys of heaven to wander amid the bleak scenes of earth to recover lost and sinful people.” Coffman is right in saying, “the parable suggests,” for a parable may “suggest” any number of things. But most commentaries interpret the parable as if the shepherd in the parable represents Christ. That is not so. The subtle difference in the parable teaching that the concern of a shepherd for his sheep is compared to the concern of God and Christ

There are few subjects, if any, that are as important as the subject of salvation is. It has been my observation that most members of the Lord’s church do not properly distinguish the meaning of various terms with regard to the context in which they are used. That is, when they arrive at a definition of a term, they think they have settled the matter. It is not so. There are at least four significant ways the term “saved” and its cognates are used in the New Testament. First, there is the generic sense of being saved from whatever circumstance confronts one. In Matthew 8:25, we find, “And they came to him, and woke him, saying, Save us, Lord, we perish.” Their lives were in danger, they thought, and they wanted Jesus to save them from dying. It had nothing to do with forgiveness of sins, or what we call the salvation of their souls. In Acts 27:31, we find Paul saying, “Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.” He had no reference to being saved from sins. There are several other such references in the New Testament of this nature. Second, there is the initial salvation that one gets when the alien sinner is saved from his sins. This is what Jesus meant in Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” The various references such as in Acts 2:21, 47; 11:14; 16:31 all relate to this salvation. Many references in the letters

Because Moses disobeyed God and failed to sanctify him in humble obedience, he was not permitted to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 20:12; 27:14). However, we find that he was allowed to enter into greater blessings than he could ever have had in Canaan (Matthew 17:4; Mark 9:5; Luke 9:33). We do not ever remember hearing or reading any logical or biblical reason why God would thus punish a person for his disobedience, and yet apparently forgive him and allow him to be saved in spite of it. We can answer very easily why God punished him for his disobedience, even if almost all denominational scholars and liberal members of the Lord’s church cannot seem to understand it. Without going into detail, it was simply because he went beyond what he was authorized to do. But we cannot answer to our complete satisfaction why repentance for that act (supposing he did repent) would not allow him to enter Canaan, supposedly a type of heaven, yet God for some reason allowed him to be saved eternally. The only answer we have at this time that makes any sense is this: God wanted them and all future generations to realize that every word and action we perform may have some consequence, either good or bad. Forgiveness for those acts or words will not remove the fleshly consequences. We can illustrate that dozens of ways. If a man strikes is wife in anger, she may forgive him, but her black eye or broken

Recently, there have been some statements made by those who would try to banish into limbo the teachings of Jesus concerning divorce, denying that what Jesus said in the Gospel records applies today. The statement was made that “Nothing that Jesus said in the Gospel records is binding unless it was repeated by the apostles after the death of Christ.” This is, in our judgment, a dangerous doctrine, and needs attention. One of the things that makes it difficult to deal properly with this insidious and dangerous concept is the fact that, without question, much of the teaching of Jesus does deal with general principles, and not with minute and specific details. If it were otherwise, we could almost say, “The world would not contain the books necessary to the Christian Way of Life.” Let us probe the problem a little more deeply, that we might suggest some solid foundational principles to guide those who want to please God. We are convinced that there are those who, through a pernicious effort to find a way to justify their “fuzzy” thinking and/or loose living, try to shade everything to a “light gray” area. It may be true that some of us have made a mistake of trying to view everything with a two-valued orientation–talking and acting as if everything were either black or white, right or wrong, long or short, hot or cold–when in reality the situation calls for a multi-valued approach. But that does not leave us a right to

Since I was a small child, I have heard my mother and all sorts of other wonderful persons admonish, “Abstain from the very appearance of evil.” In a good number of those occasions, if it were a preacher who gave the admonition, he would usually add, “1 Thessalonians 5:22.” My memory even tells me that I have read many times from the Bible, “Shun the very appearance of evil,” but I find no version that reads that way, so I conclude that my memory is faulty. Now, I am reasonably well convinced by what little logic I have, and what I know of the Bible, that it is a good idea to shun things that seem to be evil. Those things that are of a doubtful nature should not normally be practiced. It may be that some impelling reason may be given for doing something of a questionable nature under some circumstances. For example, I do not think it appropriate to go into a tavern or a house of ill repute, normally, but would do so if I thought a soul could be brought out and saved by my going. Almost every one of the persons whom I have heard quote or misquote 1 Thessalonians 5:22 did it with this thought in mind: “You should not only abstain from whatever is wrong, you should abstain from whatever seems or appears to be wrong.” This Scripture was then used to prove that contention. The trouble is, that is not what that Scripture says. The difficulty is partly brought about by the

When President Bush announced (some years ago) that if Saddam Hussein did not withdraw from Kuwait by noon, the ground war would begin when he chose, I was awake at 4 a.m. as usual, and during the day kept listening from time to dime for news updates. That caused me to wonder if I was practicing what I preached. Was I worried about what probably would take place? Did the fact that my grandson was in the Marines doing infantry training change any principles? Let me emphasize that despite the fact that I may fail to do what God says, or that my precious grandson may die in battle, the Word of God still teaches what it taught last year. What does the Word of God teach about worry? First, that it is a sin, not just a constitutional weakness. It is a sin because it is disbelief in the truth and trustworthiness of God. Second, it is destructive to the temple of the Holy Spirit. Some might reply, “Yes, I know that. That is what worries me even more! What am I going to do about it?” We will try to get to that in a moment, but first we need to be convinced that worry is a sin, for if we do not believe that, we can hardly repent and try to correct it. There is another point that may need clarification. Is concern and sorrow for a situation the same as worry and anxiety? The answer is

The prince of scholarly commentators, J. W. McGarvey, says concerning Matthew 5:48, “It is, of course, impossible for man to attain to this perfection; yet anything short of it is short of what we ought to be.” Although McGarvey may have forgotten more about the Bible than some of us will ever know, I am forced to take issue with him, and all others who have made similar comments about this passage. The implications of such a conclusion are wrong and dangerous for several reasons. First, that conclusion disregards the basic meaning of the word “perfect” and the context in which it is commanded. Second, that conclusion teaches that although God commands something, we have the right to conclude that it is too hard, yea, impossible, for us to do and thus, not only have the right to break one of God’s commandment, but must do so. This sort of conclusion is the soil from which cynicism, skepticism and frustration grows. If we have the right to say about God’s commandments, “They are too hard,” surely it takes no Solomon to see a variety of attitudes and responses that automatically follow. “God is unfair”–impugning the wisdom and righteousness of God. “I can determine which of God’s commands I need to obey”–which makes a god of ourselves and is the basis of most modernistic and denominational foolishness. Third, that conclusion teaches that although God has commanded us to do something we cannot do, we must forever feel inferior because we cannot

Recently, while reading in some “Restoration” literature, we found an article by one of the pioneers of the Restoration Movement raising some questions about the meaning of the expression in Revelation 3:14 which refers to “the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” This person took the position that “the beginning of the creation” taught that Christ was created in the beginning–that he was not co-existent with God, but was the first of God’s created beings. Although we are sure there must have been an adequate response to that position, we did not see it, and have no recollection of seeing anything written about it in recent months. The following study may be helpful to those who are faced with the problem of making some sort of exegesis of the passage, and relating it to the nature of Christ. In our judgment, one of the best ways to begin a study of any passage is to determine the possible meanings of the separate words that make up that passage. The word “arche,” translated “beginning,” seems a logical place to start. The word is used 56 times in the New Testament, and a number of times in the Septuagint. The basic meaning of the word is “a beginning,” and the word is so translated 40 times in the KJV. When the phrase is “in the beginning,” “from the beginning,” “at the beginning,” it is evident that the expression refers to a temporal beginning–it relates to time itself.

Most of our lives we have heard or done preaching on “The Good Shepherd” and have seen pictures of him as he carried the lost sheep in his loving arms and brought it back to the fold. The text used was Luke 15:4-7. Brother Burton Coffman gives what we think is the usual approach when he says, “The man with one hundred sheep = Christ the Good Shepherd. The sheep which wandered away = backsliders from the faith. Finding the lost sheep = Christ saving sinners. Elevating it to his shoulders = uplifting the fallen. The rejoicing of the shepherd = joy in heaven over the saved.” The truth of the matter is that Jesus did not give this parable, (or any other) for us to pick it apart and make up various things that we think are represented. In the story of the Prodigal Son, we do not need to try to represent the father as God waiting anxiously for the son to come home, wondering how he is spending his time, but as any father who loves his lost son, so God loves the lost. The woman who swept the house diligently looking for the coin does not have to represent the Holy Spirit or God (or some other figment of our imagination), as he sweeps away the accumulated traditions or filth of the world, so the lost coin can be found. Nor does the coin need to represent some lost soul that was lost through the carelessness

We find in Luke 11:13, “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” Have you ever asked God for the Holy Spirit? If so, did you get that gift in answer to your prayer? Since we do not recall ever having read any sound scholarly exegesis of this passage, we shall try to make some observations about it from our own limited knowledge and viewpoint. We checked more than a dozen comments from people like Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Charles Spurgeon and various others from many denominations, but none of them addressed and answered such questions as these: Who is promised the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38? Does “those who ask” include everyone, Christian and sinner? If every child of God gets the gift of the Spirit when he becomes a child of God (Romans 8:9), why does he need to pray for it? One commentator suggested that the promise was universal–to all that might ask, whether regenerate or unregenerate. He did not bother to explain how a child of the devil would receive the Holy Spirit in answer to prayer. Neither H. Leo Boles nor Burton Coffman in their commentaries on Luke give any significant insight into the passage. Coffman says something like, “It is evident that we should pray for that which was promised in Acts 2:38.” But why we should pray for

We tend to agree with our esteemed brother, David Lipscomb, when he said, “You have a pretty tough and gristly piece of meat for a babe to masticate and digest if you undertake to define the difference between soul and spirit.” However, every sincere Bible student surely wants to know whatever the Bible does teach on this and every other subject. Most of us are accustomed to picking up expressions like “the immortality of the soul” and assuming that most everyone understands what we mean by them. We presume that the average person means that after the resurrection each of us will exist somewhere. But the average person might think it would make good sense to ask, “Does the soul (psyche) of man die?” but could see no sense in the question, “Does the life (psyche) of man die?” Thayer says on page 520, with regard to the spirit: “the vital principle by which the body is animated.” We presume he means, “That which gives the body its life (psyche).” He also says, “協or the most part the words pneuma and psyche are used indiscriminately.” It is true that the words are used interchangeably in this sense: If we should say, “Remove all the furniture from this room,” then say in another context, “We said to remove all the chairs from the room,” and in another context, “We said to remove all the desks from the room,” we are using the words “chairs,” “desks” and “furniture” indiscriminately. That is, they may be practically synonymous in some contexts. That

Most of my preaching life, especially as I have been involved in personal evangelism, I have asked the question, “What is the most important thing in the world?” in order to elicit the answer, “My salvation,” or its equivalent. Or I would ask, “What is the most important question in the world?” in order to get a discussion started around the topic, “What must I do to be saved?” In my later years, I have become convinced that as important as those things are, they are actually secondary. It is my opinion that a great deal of damage may be done, when and if we substitute the good for the better and the better for the best. This is an easy thing to do when we are trying so hard to push what we think is the most important job of the church, or of the individual Christian. As a result, we have an unbalanced religion, perhaps becoming denominational or cultish in our tendencies, depending on how far we take the matter. The Crossroads and Boston movements resulted, not only from the indifference of the average congregations to the value of personal evangelism, but from the unbalanced emphasis that was given to that as THE standard by which our Christianity could be measured. The most important thing in the world is to glorify God, and one of the reasons we have done no more damage than we have by teaching that the most important thing in the world is the

I just finished reading two long articles written by those who once claimed membership in the Lord’s church that took the position that Romans 11:1 indicates that the physical nation of Israel is still to receive blessings as God’s people, for not only does Paul deny in verse one that God has not cast away his people, he says in verse 26 that all Israel will be saved. It is not enough to dismiss the remark with the statement that this is the same old false denominational premillennial argument (which it is) which has been disproved many times. Such statements may cause a person to accept or reject an argument or a doctrine on grounds that are prejudicial rather than scriptural. If an atheist, a liberal, a premillennialist or anyone else teaches a truth, we should accept it. Those whom we consider “giants in the faith” have the same responsibility to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” as anyone else, and to simply label a person or doctrine as premillennial or liberal has little bearing on the truthfulness or falseness of any position. Note some things that should cast light on the subject when carefully considered. First, let us notice some passages both in Old Testament and New which indicate that the physical state of Israel is no longer considered God’s chosen people, or elect nation. In Matthew 21:42, Jesus said, “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth

As we read the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20, it is our conviction that few of us get the impact of what Jesus said as the apostles did. There are at least two things in the construction of the original language that need our attention, in addition to some other lessons we may get. First, in verse 20 when the KJV says, “I am with you,” the original text has “egoo meth humon eimi.” Since “eimi” means “I am” if all Jesus meant was simply “I am with you,” he would not have used the expression he used. But when “egoo eimi” is used, it means something like this, “I, myself, the One who has all authority in heaven and on earth, the Savior who died for you and rose again and who is alive forevermore, even I am with you.” Second, we may note that he will be with them, but he uses the expression, “I am.” This is the same expression he used in John 8:58 where he says, “Before Abraham was I am.” This is the expression God used in Exodus 3:14 when he told Moses to tell Pharaoh who sent him. The Jews understood this expression for what it implied, and therefore accused Jesus of blasphemy. But to the apostles and to us, it should mean that the One who was in the beginning with God, who made us and died for us, plans to be constantly with us provided we meet the conditions he mentioned.

In Matthew 12:43-45, Jesus gives a parable that was directed toward that wicked generation. However, like most teachings of Jesus, there are principles that apply to any generation or person. The principle we want to emphasize now is one of particular value to new converts and elders. The passage reads like this: “When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.” When we have a baptism, we presume there has been a conversion and “the unclean spirit is gone out of the man.” We rejoice that the “old house” is “empty, swept and garnished.” We need to understand that getting rid of the old thoughts and sinful activities is only the beginning of the task. When our father bought an old farm that was covered with rocks, trees, briers and weeds, we spent many hours loading rocks into a wagon and many more with a grubbing hoe and axe clearing the ground. But even as little boys, we noticed a very simple thing. Having done all those things, unless we

In the ongoing discussion of the new hermeneutic, there is one aspect of the subject that I have not seen addressed. Some discussion is couched in such “scholarly” or abstruse language that my simple mind cannot comprehend the meaning of the author, or possibly the reasoning is so stupid that it really makes no sense. In either case, whether I try to understand by using the old or new hermeneutic, I gain no new insights. Part of the problem may be that no one has adequately defined how the new hermeneutic works. There apparently are two broad concepts: 1. That when Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). He meant that we can understand or interpret properly what God means for us to do. 2. The contrary concept is that since we all have a different sociological background, preconceived notions and inherent prejudices, it is certain that we will arrive at different interpretations of God’s Word. So we should accept that fact and agree to differ, as there is no way to be certain that our interpretation is the right one. That, apparently, is the meaning of the new hermeneutic. It has been my observation over the past 60 years of listening to many false doctrines that there is usually enough truth in a false doctrine to make it interesting, and enough lie to cause us to be lost if we follow it. It has been so since Adam’s time. The

What would you think if you heard a preacher say that the Bible taught that husbands should tolerate their wives? Probably your first reaction would be, “That is not what the Bible says! It says, ‘Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it’” (Ephesians 6:25). You would be right. But does the Bible teach that husbands should tolerate their wives? Does the word “love” necessarily include “tolerate,” and therefore when it says, “Love your wives,” it also teaches “Tolerate your wives?” The answer to that is, “Yes.” As we meditate on that, we should consider two things. First, if a word necessarily includes a concept, when the word is used, the concept, which is included, is taught. “Love your enemies” necessarily involves toleration of them. It does not involve condoning or approving their sins or actions against you. Second, we need to understand what toleration involves, and that one may have toleration for a person, but not tolerate certain actions of that person. Toleration has to do with the allowance of beliefs, habits or practices differing from one’s own preference. Should we be tolerant of those in denominations? Of course! This does not mean that we should refuse to teach against them or fail to point out the consequences of their disobedience. It does mean that we should not try to get national or local laws passed forbidding them. We have the right and responsibility to try to get laws passed

The average person who claims to be a Christian would probably answer that question, “The Jews crucified Jesus.” And those who are a little more familiar with the Scriptures would quote from Acts 2:36, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.” It is concluded by most of us that this settles the matter when he says, “all the house of Israel” and then “ye crucified.” It is clear that all Israelites are guilty of the crucifixion of the Lord! Is it really? That conclusion does not necessarily follow from either the language or the biblical facts! Let us suppose you were talking to the U.S. Senate and said, “Let all the Congress know assuredly that many of the bills you have passed are no good,” would that mean that “all the Congress” and “you” were the same group? Certainly not! The Supreme Court has legalized the murder of some unborn children. I say to them, “Let all the people of the United States know assuredly that these same babies you have authorized to kill are innocent.” Is the expression “people of the United States” the same as “you” who authorized the killing of babies? I deny it! I am one of the “people,” but I am not guilty of that! Note a very important point. It is true and has always been true that a whole nation or race may suffer the consequences of

The quick answer to the question is, “If you have ever been baptized with the baptism authorized by Christ, at which time you were added to the body of saved persons, the answer is in the negative.” Every Gospel preacher who has preached very long has been faced with the problem of how to advise various persons about baptism. There are young children who have been immersed, and when they get older, feel that it was not valid. There are those who were baptized just to please a nagging spouse or parent. There are those who were baptized from peer pressure. I knew a boy who wanted to be first in everything, so he was baptized so he would be the first to be baptized in the new baptistery. There are those who are baptized because their denomination required it for membership. In our judgment, there are, as in most situations, two extremes that are both in error, and some other errors in between the extremes, partly as a result of those. On the one hand there is the error espoused by the Crossroads and Boston heresies. Stated in its simplest, and therefore perhaps not completely accurate form, it is: If you were not baptized with a total commitment to their theory of operation, you must be re-baptized. It has been called “Lordship baptism” and described in various other ways, and probably started, as so many of their ideas did, in a perfectly legitimate way. That is, if your baptism

For the first several years of my preaching life, I refused to perform a marriage ceremony with one person who was a member of the body of Christ and another who was not. Second Corinthians 6:14 says, “Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness?” A more intensive study of God’s Word and an unfruitful effort to solve some intellectual or theological problems created by that position made me modify my position somewhat. Part of my problem was that it seemed unreasonable to me for a Gospel preacher to take a position that it is sinful for a person to get into a relationship, but not sinful to stay in that same relationship. Yet, I could find no Scripture authorizing persons who were in that kind of relationship to divorce. I did find one that instructed them to abide in it (1 Corinthians 7:13). It is not our purpose to deal in depth with that aspect of the question at this time. Having considered this passage for over 40 years, we suggest that many make a mistake in their exegesis of it because they apparently overlooked the force of the expression “unequally yoked.” Some say the passage had no reference to marriage at all; others say it means not to get married to an unbeliever. We believe both to be wrong, unless the first concept means, “It was not talking directly or solely about marriage.” This word heterozugountes,

Having just received a letter from a beloved brother indicating that he has slipped his anchor from the solid rock of God’s revelation to the shifting sands of subjective religion, my thoughts went to some in the Bible who started with such great promise and ended in miserable disgrace. A short study in contrasts may be helpful to give both warning to the unwary and encouragement to the feeble. Paul said, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12). First, let us look at the story of Saul, the son of Kish, who became the King of Israel. When we first find him, we note that “There was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he” (1 Samuel 9:2). He not only had a well-formed and superior physical body, he demonstrated a submissive, thoughtful obedience to his father that should commend him to all persons. He was head and shoulders higher than any of the people, but was not too big to obey his father and show concern for his possible anxiety (1 Samuel 9:3-5). He was approved of God to be king, but demonstrated honorable humility. Saul was chosen, but “when they sought him, he could not be found. Therefore, they asked Jehovah further, “Is there yet a man to come hither? And Jehovah answered, Behold, he hath hid himself among the baggage” (1 Samuel 10:21-22). He was conscious of his unworthiness, of the insignificance and smallness of the tribe

Many persons seem to have the attitude of Ananias and Sapphira as recorded in Acts 5:1-11. They would like to “eat their cake and have it too.” They want to partake of the blessings that come from evangelistic efforts that require much money, but are not willing to make any commensurate effort to see that the program succeeds. There are many congregations whose average members spent more on Christmas presents than the whole congregation plans to spend on all missionary or evangelistic programs. Yet, they expect to receive all the blessings that result from others preaching the Gospel throughout the world. There are those in the church now who seem to glory in their “soundness” as they preach eloquently about the value of restoring New Testament Christianity. However, it is one thing to talk about it and another to practice it. When there was a great need in Jerusalem for funds so the Gospel could continue to be preached to large numbers, the Christians there met that need with spontaneity, grace, liberality and power that is worthy of our emulation. That is very different from the cold chisel and wrecking bar that seems necessary today to cut people loose from their possessions. Often it does not seem to be the average church member who is unwilling to give. It is the leadership that has apparently absorbed the notion that if the congregation is told of some pressing need outside the local congregation it will detract from some project the leadership

Most of you are probably aware that the custom of celebrating the birthday of Christ is not in the Bible at all, and the observance of Christmas as a Christian festival dates from the 4th century when it gradually superseded January 6th, the Epiphany, still kept as Christmas by the Armenian Church. You may also be aware that the keeping of Christmas as a religious holiday was repugnant to the Puritans and was forbidden under the Commonwealth in 1644. Although the Church of England revived the festival, the Scottish Presbyterians and English Nonconformists both refused the observance. There are still millions who still rejoice in what is known as “The Spirit of Christmas” but do it in the same spirit they do “Thanksgiving” without trying in some way to relate it to a religious activity. Probably most persons connected with the church of the Lord understand Galatians 4:10-11 to refer to religious observances of days, not things like individuals observing birthdays and holidays as a matter of rest, recreation and happiness with families. The fact that we are to give thanks at all times does not make Thanksgiving a religious holiday. Neither does the fact that we use the Christmas season to get with our families and exchange gifts make Christmas a religious observance. One may make it such. The Moravian church makes drinking coffee and eating a cookie a part of their religious ceremony. This does not mean it must be such to the rest of us. To most of us,

I read one article and heard two sermons that, if I understood them correctly, taught that all we do in life is worship, if we are Christians. It may be that the basic idea that all three of them were trying to establish is that worship does not consist of a few rituals performed in a church building, or that a person may go through the “five acts of worship” and still miss the real center of New Testament Christianity. It may be possible to go away from a “worship service,” having done very little worship and no service at all. If that is all they were trying to establish, we heartily agree with them. But all three made such statements as: “all of life is worship” and “everything a Christian does is worship,” because his body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and he is supposed to present his body a living sacrifice, and that all we do in word or deed is supposed to be done to the glory of God. We teach that we are to present our bodies a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1). We teach that we do not need to come together as a corporate body every time we worship. That is, we may worship individually, anywhere, anytime. But, we deny that all of life is worship, and that everything a Christian does is worship. God has rules for corporate worship as a body that do not apply to the individual solitary worshipper. We need to

In the congregation where I did my first fulltime preaching many years ago, I tried to encourage the members to give as they prospered. On one occasion when we needed to make an organized and concerted effort to raise a specific amount to do a job we all agreed needing doing, I suggested that we share with each other the information about how much we felt able and willing to contribute toward the job. One precious lady whom I continued to love dearly criticized the idea vehemently, saying, “What I give is nobody’s business but mine and God’s.”   That idea I have heard expressed and have seen practiced in many ways since that time. In connection with that, I should like to raise a few questions. In the last year or so, we have seen a spate of articles (whatever that is) on the eldership, raising all sorts of questions, from “Who Calls the Shots?” to “What Do They Do?” But I believe, in spite of all the varied opinions about what kind of leadership we should have, there is practically unanimous agreement in all sections of our brotherhood (which includes the “sisterhood”) that the elders are to shepherd the flock, watching after their spiritual welfare. Surely, no one would deny that whether or not a person attends the services is the elders’ business! Why? Because that relates to his spiritual welfare. It is true that a person can bring a warm body (or a cool one) to each

Not long ago in a home Bible study, a question arose about what is involved in the expression, “the age of accountability.” Since I usually try to “call Bible things by Bible names and do Bible things in Bible ways,” I first admitted that I do not find that exact expression in the Bible, and thus cannot quote a Scripture that deals directly and specifically with it. However, I do find in the Bible the idea that a child is born pure and without sin, for “Sin is a transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). Since the little child has not transgressed the law, I am sure he is not accountable for sin. Also, since Jesus said in Matthew 18:3, “Except ye become converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,” I am sure we are not to become as little sinners. James also says, “To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). Since the baby did not know to do good, I am sure he is not accountable. But since Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” I am sure there comes a time when he is accountable. Therefore, he must reach the “age of accountability” at some time, if he is a normal child. But like many of our manmade expressions that we use to explain a Bible idea, it may be

In 1 John 3:18 we find, “Let us love, not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth.” That suggests a truth that is very significant, but seldom emphasized. That is, that symbols are very important, for they point to realities that may be important. But it is dangerous and destructive to substitute the symbols for the realities. We may do this more often than we realize. The results are sometimes merely humorous, but sometimes catastrophic. For example, a boy had a confederate flag in the back of his truck. To him, it may have been no more than a symbol of a historic event–a war between the states. To some other boys, it was a statement of hatred, intolerance and slavery. So, they shot him. The boy whom they killed might have been kind, gentle, loving and a firm believer in the equality of mankind. That did not prevent his death, for we often react to symbols as if they were realities. This is the purpose of propaganda and much of the political rhetoric that sways multitudes and wins elections. If a candidate says, “I believe in family values, lower taxes and better living conditions for all,” he may hope that no one inquires about whether he cheats on his wife, appoints homosexuals to the highest offices and raises taxes. As long as he can sway people by symbols, reality is not important to him. We usually understand that words are symbols. They are important, for

If you ask the average person in the Lord’s church what is meant by the term “dispensation” in the Bible, if he is a preacher or a person who has done personal evangelism, he will probably tell you that it refers to one of the three dispensations or time periods in the Bible, called the Patriarchal Age, the Mosaic Age and the Christian Age. That probably does very little damage, but is an indication of how most of us are accustomed to hear some idea that catches our fancy, and assume that we have learned some valuable biblical truth. Many of us have done this with such words as “atonement,” “justification” and various other terms. It is said that the basic meaning of atonement is “at-one-ment” showing that we are now “at one” with God. Justification is said to mean, “just as if I had never sinned.” Neither of these statements is accurate. It is true that the result of atonement is that we are “at one” with God. If a sinner is justified from his sins, the result is that he is treated as if he had never sinned. But the word “justification” does not mean that, for one may “justify God” (Luke 7:29). To justify simply means “to reckon righteous.” These errors are not serious enough to accuse anyone of teaching false doctrine nor will they cause some soul to be lost. However, they are a symptom of a serious disease. That disease is a widespread satisfaction with mediocrity and partial truths

Most of us who are considered to be reasonably sound and conservative Gospel preachers probably have repeated the motto, “We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.” Many of us who think we observe the motto do not, but try to do what we think the motto means. The motto means to most of us that we do all we do by the authority of Christ, and do not prohibit what Christ authorizes. The thing I want to emphasize now is that we take care that we do not make our little mottoes into creedal statements and bind them upon persons as God’s Word. We may approach the situation Jesus described in Matthew 23:24, “Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!” For example, we commonly say about the Lord’s church that it is unscriptural to say “My church” or “Your church” for that implies that the church belongs to us, when it really belongs to Christ. What about “My family” or “Your family?” Does that imply that we own the family, or does everyone understand that that we are merely a part of it? Did you ever speak of “My school” or “My country?” The church is the family of God. Is it unscriptural to speak of it as “Our family” in the same sense that our earthly family is ours? Does “My country” imply that I own the country, or merely that I am a part of it?

Most of us who consider ourselves “conservatives” or “moderates” or both, have probably taught that the persons who bind where God has not bound or looses where God has not loosed are both wrong, and equally dangerous to the cause of Christ and the salvation of souls. In this article, I wish to examine that thesis in a little more detail. It can be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day made void the Word of God by their traditions by binding where God did not bind, and loosing where God did not loose. When they condemned Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, or walking through the grain fields and plucking the heads of grain and other such things, they were binding where God did not bind. When they took that which should have been used to support a needy parent and dedicated it to the Lord (as they claimed), they were loosing where God did not loose. Jimmy Carter in his book, Living Faith, mentions on page 211 visiting with a famous television evangelist in his ornate mansion. He says, “When I politely mentioned the seclusion and luxury of the place, he replied that he needed some privacy from his many admirers, and that the entire estate had been dedicated to the Lord. He and his family were just using it during their lifetime. Strangely, I did not feel that I was in the presence of Jesus.” This is the kind of thing the

In Acts 2:23, we find the following words, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” The question may be raised, “If he was delivered unto death by the determinate counsel of God, why should anyone be found guilty for doing what God had already planned must be done?” This may sound like a hard philosophical question to answer, but for one who understands and believes what the Bible teaches it seems relatively simple. God had planned before the foundation of the world that Christ should die for the sins of the world. God knew that there would be wicked men who would want him dead because of their jealousy or fear, or for other reasons. The fact that God knew that wicked men would do that does not mean that God made them do it or that he is to blame for their deed because he knew it would happen. If you see a man push another out of an airplane, you can be reasonably or 90% certain that the man will fall to his death, but no thoughtful, intelligent person would assume that you are therefore 90% guilty of his death, or contributed to it in any fashion. So, the fact that God knew that Judas was a thief and would betray Christ did not mean that Judas was any less guilty. God knew that Pilate was a coward and an immoral weakling who

In 1 Kings 20:13-43 there is an interesting story of Benhadad whom the Lord had marked for destruction. King Ahab, who cared nothing about God’s will, word, work or way, called him “brother,” made a covenant with him and let him go. God’s prophet came to him with this story, a sort of parable, similar in purpose to the one Nathan told King David. “And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king, and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and, behold a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he is missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver. And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be: thyself hath decided it.  And he hasted and took the headband away from his eyes; and the king of Israel discerned that he was of the prophets.  And he said unto him, Thus saith Jehovah, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand the man whom I had delivered to destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased, and came to Samaria” (1 Kings 20:39-43). The difference in the response of Ahab and David is significant.

Early this morning as we were meditating on the story of Israel going into the land of Canaan, the songs, “On Jordan’s Stormy Banks,” “To Canaan Land I’m On My Way,” and “I Am Bound For the Promised Land” came into mind. For more than 70 years we have sung those songs and assumed that the Bible indicated that Canaan was a type of heaven. We have taught, as Burton Coffman says in his commentary, “Moses was one of the great O.T. types of the Son of God, and his leadership of Israel in the wilderness is typical of Jesus’ leadership of Christians in the wilderness of their probation (in the church during this present dispensation), but great as Moses was, he could not lead the people over the Jordan (typical of death) into Canaan (typical of heaven). Only Christ could do that. Therefore, it was necessary that Moses die before Israel entered Canaan.” Every commentary of which we are aware takes a similar position with regard to Canaan as a type of heaven. The thing that occurred to me this morning is not addressed in any of the dozen or more of commentaries we have checked. It was, “If Canaan is a type of heaven, how do the cities of refuge fit into it? How does the fact that they had enemies, battles and hardships fit into it?” We believe we have found the proper solution to those problems. Stated briefly, it is: Canaan is not a type of

Most of my life, as I have read Paul’s statement in Romans 1:18-25, I have applied it in my mind to the heathen nations. Recognizing that the principles of God’s Word apply to all of us, I still did not feel any particular urgency to try to make application to the present generation or myself. Although I have been teaching from Romans for about 50 years, I feel humbled almost to the point of humiliation to realize how little I know about it. As I began to teach it again in a Wednesday evening class, some thoughts came to me as I strove to study more deeply from those verses. First, did those Gentiles know God as well as you and I know him? It should be evident without argument that they did not. They could recognize his eternal power and divinity by reasoning about the things that are made (vs. 20), but they had little concept of his law or his love. In passing, let me suggest that I think the King James rendering of “theiotes” as “Godhead” is not as accurate as it should be. The word might be better translated as “Godhood” or “divinity” for they could not understand by looking at the creation the nature of the personal God about whom he speaks. In Colossians 2:9, when he says about Christ, “In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead (theotetos) bodily,” he uses a different word. The difference in “theotetos” and “theiotes” may be as

It is a mystery that the religious world has kept hidden the real teaching of Martin Luther regarding salvation. It has been assumed that he meant by “faith only” that a person was saved the moment he believed in the facts of the Gospel without taking any other action. The sermons and writings of Luther plainly deny that. Luther had been trained in the doctrines of Roman Catholicism, and had been taught that in addition to accepting and obeying the teachings of Jesus, one had to do various manmade religious works in order to be saved. When he realized that it was by the grace of God that the blood of Christ was a sufficient payment for our sins, and it was only necessary to accept that sacrifice by faith in order to be saved, he expressed those thoughts by the expression “faith only” in contrast to “faith plus various meritorious works” in order to earn salvation. For those who doubt that this was his meaning, some of the following quotations from his sermons and his Larger Catechism may be helpful. In one of his sermons, he said: Faith and baptism, as the chief part and foundation of our salvation, must stand first. For we may never dare to boast that we merit the gift of Christ in whom we believe, or that the baptism which we receive in his name is of our own doing or has been instituted by any human being. To prove my statements, consider this:

Recently a young man read the text for the morning’s lesson from Ephesians 6. He read verse 4 this way, “And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but nurture them in the chastening and abomination of the Lord.” I do not know whether anyone else noticed the difference in the word “admonition” which Paul used, and “abomination” which the young man used, but the thought occurred to me that many parents are bringing up their children in abomination of the Lord. There are at least nine verses in the Bible that specifically use the expression “abomination unto the Lord,” but the number that are an abomination to him is too great to list here. Deuteronomy 25 mentions several things that were unlawful, then verse 16 says, “All that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.” That covers every deliberate sin. God mentions specific things in Proverbs 6:16-19: “There are six things which Jehovah hateth; yea, seven which are an abomination unto him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood; a heart that deviseth wicked purposes, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness that uttereth lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” When a parent lives or speaks in such a way that his children feel that they are superior to others, he is teaching them in the abomination of the Lord. When a child hears his parents tell a lie about anything, they are teaching what is

Some time ago while picking blackberries, I was constrained to write an article entitled “Stick with your Bush.” It was primarily an exhortation to stay with the job you begin until it is finished, not simply move on because the berries seem bigger on another bush, as some preachers seem to do. I decided to try the berry patch again. Before the bucket was full, four more lessons came to mind. First, it does not matter what kind of inspiration one may have, or whether the thoughts come in a blackberry patch or behind a desk, if there is no Scripture that deals with the subject in a definitive way, the inspiration may amount to nothing more than so much expiration or perspiration. There is little doubt that many preachers of today would do a service to mankind in general and the church in particular if they would go to a berry patch and stay there. The admonition of Paul to Timothy was, “Preach the word; be instant in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Timothy 1:4). When I hear a man with two or three degrees who can quote Shakespeare, Milton, Karl Barth or Paul Tillich, but seems to have trouble finding a Scripture that is worth noting, I am disturbed. It is even more disturbing to find those who call themselves preachers of the Gospel who actually teach that doctrine is of no value. Of course their doctrine is not,

To the superficial mind, the question might be raised, “How could a person buy something if no one sold?” But the thing of which Solomon spoke in Proverbs 23:23 is not a commercial venture. Our liberty was bought with the blood of our forefathers, and our Christian heritage was bought with the blood of the martyrs, but no person sold it to us. The importance of that precept seems increasingly important as we see a number of men who at one time seemed to exalt truth, but who have sold out for some reason or another. When Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32), he expressed a principle of the widest application. Knowledge of historic truth can make us free from having to repeat the same mistakes over and over. Knowledge of scientific truth can make us free from superstition in those areas, and free to explore in all sorts of areas heretofore inaccessible. Economic truths can make us free from poverty. Medical truth can make us free from various kinds of diseases. Moral and ethical truths can make us free from many of the social ills that plague our nation. Religious truth can make us free from the love, practice, guilt, burden, stain and the punishment of sin. But when Jesus used the word “shall,” he did not mean that it was an automatic or predetermined reality. That is, “You shall know the truth” in no way means you are

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

As I was reading James 4:1-3, I was struck again with some important lessons which need emphasis. First, there is a statement concerning wars and fighting among them. Since we have much of the same among ourselves, it is appropriate to examine the answer he gives. Is it possible that much of the fussing that goes on in the Lord’s church is a result of lusts that war in our members? We have examples in the ONE NATION UNDER GOD program of persons who are living on social security sending in a few crumpled one-dollar bills with a note saying, “This is all I have. Use it for the glory of God.” One man on social security with salary borrowed on his life insurance and that of his wife and children and said, “Here is $10,000. I will mortgage my house if I need to that I may help more.” When we contrast that with the attitude of some who claim to be interested in getting the Gospel to every person in the world, but have not contributed a dime to such programs, we are sad. It is doubtful if those who give sacrificially have the kind of lust in their members that prevents answered prayer. My primary thought in this article has to do with the statement of James, “Ye have not because ye ask not; ye ask and receive not because ye ask amiss.” While Christ was on earth, there is no record of which I am aware of anyone

There are thousands of small churches and millions of Christians throughout the land who are doing very little to spread the good news of the Gospel, not necessarily because they do not care, but partly because no one has helped them to see how, and then helped them to do it. This article is an attempt to motivate and encourage you, individually and/or collectively, to start and continue a program that will be rewarding spiritually for all those who participate, and will do more for the spiritual and numerical growth of the church than any one thing of which I know. I have been preaching from the pulpit and radio for about half a century, and involved in teacher training, personal evangelism and correspondence Bible course work for almost that long. In fact, I was involved in correspondence Bible course work in 1945. I do not know of any method of winning souls that has more potential for advancing the cause of Christ than correspondence Bible course work. Let me suggest some reasons why, and some methods by which you can do it. If you cannot get the whole congregation involved at first, start by yourself, and as good results are seen, others will help. First, any person who can be encouraged to get involved will profit in the following ways: 1. He will feel a sense of self-worth and commitment to the greatest task on earth. Do not underestimate the value and power of that. 2. He will be

It has been my conviction for the past 65 years that the church was divinely instituted. The last year or so I have seen more evidence of it in a different way than I had noted in the previous 65. The evidence to which I refer now is this fact: If it were merely a human institution, it probably would have sunk into oblivion under the weight of its apparent lack of leadership, knowledge and concern. Try to imagine the Reynolds Tobacco Company sales meeting. Visualize them gathering each week, occasionally with RJR himself present. They sing a few verses of “Winston Tastes Good, Like a Cigarette Should” and repeat in chorus, “I’d Walk a Mile for A Camel.” Then they blow a few smoke rings to show their special talents, and have a fellowship meal in the reception room and go home for the week. When the board of directors meets, most of their time is taken up with whether they should have disposable towels or automatic blowers in the rest rooms for drying hands, and such other pressing matters. If they have a sales meeting, they see a moving filmstrip of Zig Ziglar and go home. I knocked on Mr. R.J. Reynolds’ door on one occasion and discussed the Bible with him, and I know this was not the usual agenda for their meetings. Is there any preacher among us who has not had many sessions of “business meetings” and other church meetings where the leaders (?) in

Those of us who have had discussions with agnostics or others about the universe may have used the argument that every effect must have a cause sufficient to produce the effect. A watch did not simply evolve from molecules in motion, nor could it. Logically, therefore, the universe had to be produced by some cause that had the power and wisdom to bring into being that which is so vast and interconnected that no accident or human power could have done it. This is a good basic argument, and we have never seen it met with any degree of success, for it is so plain that even a little child recognizes its validity. However, there is one aspect of it that, in my judgment, may produce a blind spot that may have serious consequences. That is, when we say every effect has a cause, we are implying or stating that every effect has one cause. We know of no situation where this is true, for it is our observation and experience that every effect has a multiplicity of causes. If we were to put the matter in a mathematical formula that could easily be seen, it might be: Every effect has a cause, or E=f(C). The actual truth is: E=f(A,B,C,D, etc.), or every effect is a function of many causes. Let us examine some situations in which the awareness of the truth about this might have some serious consequences. The religious world takes the position that Salvation (An Effect) is produced by faith alone.

Jesus said in John 8:24, “Except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”  We have explained many times that the “he” to which he referred was the Messiah, the Promised One, or as verse 23 puts it, “the One from above.” All of this is true, but what Jesus actually said has a deeper meaning than most of us realize. The expression he used is “ego eimi.” Literally it is, “I, I am,” not “I am he.” Since “eimi” by itself means, “I am,” it has a special meaning and intensity when used with “ego.” In every case where “ego” is used with a verb in the New Testament, it appears that the purpose is to emphasize the personality or authority of the speaker. For example, in Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus said, “Ye heard that it was said, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery,’ but I say unto you (ego de lego humin).” The verb “lego” means “I say,” so Jesus would not have needed to say “ego lego” unless he had wanted to emphasize the fact that he is the one who is speaking with authority. There is great significance in many of the expressions in which “ego eimi” is used. In Matthew 28:20 when Jesus gives the Great Commission, he tells them that when they carry it out, “Lo I am with you (ego meth’ humon eimi) always.” The approximate meaning is, “I, even I myself, will constantly be with you.” But there is an

Every Christian has probably encountered many efforts to deny the necessity of baptism, or its importance. Those efforts range all the way from making sneering remarks about “water salvation” or a “mere ritual” to a more sophisticated, sometimes apparently scholarly attempt to remove water baptism from the plan of salvation. Recently, while knocking on doors and setting up Bible studies, I found a pastor of the Presbyterian persuasion who admitted that baptism MIGHT mean immersion, but in that case you could do it in sand or milk, but since it MIGHT mean “dye” as in Revelation 19:3 or “wash” as in Mark 7:4, one could not REALLY tell what it meant, but it was not a “water ritual,” and the basic meaning probably was “to be identified with,” however that might be done. He admitted that he had been immersed, but gave “his people” the choice of whatever they wanted. It would take a small booklet to deal with the errors he espoused in our short conversation, but let us consider only one or two of them in this article. I believe one can check at least two dozen Greek-English Lexicons and ALL of them define the basic meaning of “baptize” as “to dip, plunge, immerse, overwhelm, etc.” It is true that the word itself does not define the element used. It may be fire, water, Holy Spirit, suffering, milk, or anything else in which a person might be either literally or figuratively plunged, dipped or overwhelmed. But let us

A few days ago, I received a letter from a woman asking the following questions about some things in 1 Corinthians 11. She asked, “Does this refer to an actual hat, or does it refer to a woman’s hair as a covering? If the latter, does it mean extremely long, or does it mean longer than man’s hair? Does it refer only to women praying or prophesying, or to every female?” She had some other questions, but the following is about what I wrote her. It may be that some others are asking the same question. My guess is that an increasing number do not care what the Bible actually teaches about it, and many others are saying that practically everything the Bible teaches is directed to a particular culture, and has no bearing on us today. Both attitudes are destructive to the cause of Christ and need our attention. In 1 Corinthians 11:4, we read (literally), “Every man praying or prophesying having something down the head (kata kephalas) dishonors his head.”  This is probably a colloquial expression referring to the veil hanging down from the head. The point of the chapter is not head coverings, but the order of the headship of God, Christ, man and woman. When a man goes with his head covered, acting like a woman, he dishonors his Head, Christ. Verse 5 states, “But the woman praying or prophesying with the head UNCOVERED (akatakalupto) dishonors her head.” The word is an intensive form of the

In 1 Samuel 17, there is one of the most thrilling stories of the Bible, known and loved by both adults and children. The story of David and Goliath has many lessons in it. One that struck me with the most force as I read it again was the statement made by King Saul in verse 33, “And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.” It is a tragedy beyond expression that men through the centuries have thought and spoken about our young people in those terms, and because of this the church has been cheated and damaged, for many of our young people have had their talents buried or wasted. Even our programs for young people have often been designed with this hidden assumption, “These are but youths.” That meant, in practice, that they can do very little that is worthwhile. We have to keep them satisfied with hot dogs, hay rides and entertainment. They are not really mature enough to face the challenge of giants that confront, confound and confuse us. They are “the church of the future” and we must not allow them to be very much involved in anything mature or significant in the present. The idea of “a junior church,” with its play-acting and pretense, probably was designed to counter these wrong attitudes. It does not counter them, but simply

If we are to develop the mind of Christ, we must learn to overcome anxiety. Most of us would like to, but do not know how to start. Perhaps this article will help you learn how and then to practice developing the mind of Christ. Back during the depression, my father walked 10 miles and cracked rocks all day for about $1 per day — when he was able to get work. During the spring, I would plant peas in the corn field for five cents a day, and worked my way through elementary school as janitor — sweeping the floors and building the fires each day for $1 per month. For supper some days, if we had a piece of corn bread and a glass of milk we were thankful, and I remember once when we ate all week on a washtub full of hominy. However, when I was about eight years old, I read Matthew 6:25-34, and when I heard my mother express concern that we might starve, I said, “Mama, what about these verses? Did God mean what he said or not?” She said, “Honey, you just don’t understand.” I replied, “Then explain it to me, for it seems to me that God is saying for us not to worry.” She was not able to explain it away very well, so I just trusted that God would provide at least as well for me as he did for the birds. Some 60 years later, I weigh about

About sixty years ago, some said I was small for my age. Others thought I was young for my size. Maybe I was both. I remember seeing some pictures of Charles Atlas on the back of some magazine that pictured him as a 98-pound weakling. After he used the barbells, or whatever it was they were advertising, he had muscles all over and was attracting all the girls on the beach. Probably this “before and after” image has been used to sell cereal, shampoo and a variety of other things. It even impressed me so much that, although I could not afford barbells, I did use an old buggy axle, and eventually reached the point where I could chin myself with one arm. So, when I looked at men before and after Christ had touched them, I was impressed with what Christ can do for a man. When I see Peter in Matthew 14:30, he had a great fear of sinking. Jesus had said, “Come,” and Peter started, “But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying ‘Save me, Lord.’” Many times in home Bible studies, when I invite a person to come to Christ, he replies, “I would like to be a Christian, but I am not strong enough.” That is sad, but true. We are all in danger of sinking. The waves are really there, and the wind is really boisterous. And we cannot walk on water! Neither could Peter,

There is little doubt that thousands have sung, “Here I raise my Ebenezer” without knowing what they were raising. It is probable that many who read this article will know that it refers to the stone that Samuel raised between Mizpeh and Shen, saying, “Hitherto hath the Lord helped us” (1 Samuel 1:12). The word literally means, “A stone of help.” If God has helped you from the slavery of sin and delivered you from the bondage of Satan, you can say in grateful remembrance, “Here I raise my Ebenezer.” If he has helped you over some mountain of difficulty or out of some deep valley of sorrow, suffering or tribulation, you can sing with joy, “Here I raise my Ebenezer.” If God has straightened out some crooked pathway for you, or delivered you from some furnace of fire, you should say, “Here I raise my Ebenezer.” If there has been raised from your weary back some burden, or some thorn removed from your pathway, you can properly say, “Here I raise my Ebenezer.” If you have been given light in darkness, so you could see more clearly the right pathway, then you may say, “Here I raise my Ebenezer.” In any case, it suggests redemption or deliverance. However, before we come to verse 12 of 1 Samuel 7 and decide to raise our Ebenezer, we need to consider carefully the things suggested in verses one through six. First, we note in verse two, “All the house of Israel lamented.”

When I attend a lecture program at one of our Christian colleges and listen to a wide variety of lectures and messages of various intensity and subject matter, I am more impressed than ever with the need for balance, perspective and Christian maturity in our thinking, living and teaching. We are aware that sometimes those who write or speak about the need for a “middle of the road” approach are understood, or misunderstood, to mean that we should have a broad ecumenical spirit that really stands for nothing and falls for everything. Then those critics who claim to be “set for the defense of the gospel” may leave the impression that “the gospel” is whatever concept they have gained about any truth they think the Bible reveals. We have heard, and probably conducted “gospel meetings” that were actually just sermons or lectures on Bible subjects. The longer I live, the more convinced I am that a large number of problems in the church from the first century to this one are related to, if not caused by, a lack of BALANCE in attitude and teaching. The balance of which we speak does not demand in any way the compromising in any degree the truths of God, or even anything we THINK to be the truth, but it does demand that we have the attitude expressed by Paul in Romans 14:1-5 and Romans 15:1. Let us illustrate this balance in terms of historical events and doctrines as well as in the

There are some interesting lessons one may gain as we meditate on the story in Genesis 11 concerning the tower of Babel. First, it may be noted that the first verse tells us that the whole earth had one language and one speech. It was God’s plan from the beginning that his people speak the same language. He meant for words to mean the same thing to all those who would follow him. It has always been true. When Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:10, “Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you” he was not expressing a new idea. He never did mean for baptism to mean sprinkling to one person, pouring to another and immersion to another. He never meant for “sing” to mean “sing” to one person and “play” to another. But they had a plan that was out of harmony with God’s will. Notice some significant expressions in verse 4, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the earth.” It has been a common tendency of mankind to “build ourselves” something. How many times have we seen men who are not satisfied with finding what God wanted built and work toward that end, but rather want to “build ourselves” something. We

As we study the apostasy of the early church, we may note many characteristics or causes. Apostasy never starts full-grown. It almost always begins with a slight shift in emphasis or direction as a result of the lusts of the flesh, lust of the eyes or the pride of life (1 John 2:16). Then lust, when it is conceived brings forth sin (James 1:15). Let us notice some of these shifts, and try to do what we can to correct them as we find them in our time. First, there was a shift in emphasis from the importance and work of every individual to the importance and nature of the work of the clergy. In Acts 8:4, we find, “They therefore that were scattered abroad went about preaching the word.” They did not need to call “The Minister” to do the preaching. The radicals and false teachers among us who teach that it is wrong to have “located preachers” have done much damage to the cause of Christ with their false and divisive doctrines. That does not change the fact that there is often an improper and dangerous tendency to exalt “The Minister.” In denominations it is done by calling him “Reverend.” In the church it may be done by calling him “Brother” while others are “Mister.” We need to show proper respect for age, dignity or achievement, but when we show respect of persons simply because of a presumed position of importance in an ecclesiastical hierarchy, seeds of apostasy

In all the stories of the Bible, we can find no more repulsive characters than Ahab and Jezebel. In 1 Kings 21:25 we are told, “But there was none like unto Ahab, who did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord.” Not only do we need to look at Jesus, Paul and others to see the kind of qualities we should have, we need to look at Ahab and those like him to see the kind of qualities we should not have. We know there are persons who think that kind of negative preaching and teaching is wrong, but the Bible teaches otherwise. One of the most apparent faults he had was covetousness. This is one of the most dangerous and insidious sins known to man. Men have confessed to murder, lying, adultery and almost every sin known. I have never heard one confess to covetousness. One of the reasons is found in its definition. It is an inordinate desire for something. It is sometimes used to signify a strong desire without the implications of evil. Paul says, “Covet earnestly the best gifts” (1 Corinthians 12:31). This word is “zeloo,” not “epithumeo,” the usual word for covet. But in both Greek and English the word “covet” (epithumeo) is used in a neutral or good sense as when Jesus said, “I have desired (epithumeo) to eat this Passover with you” (Luke 22:15). The context will usually show whether the desire is improper or not. Paul says in

In Numbers 23:19, we read, “God is not a man, that he should lie, neither the son of man, that he should repent.” God apparently put these words in the mouth of Balaam. The same idea is found in 1 Samuel 15:29, “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent.” Yet, it is said in Genesis 6:6, “And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” It even says in Exodus 32:12, “And Jehovah repented of the evil which he said he would do unto his people.” As hard as it is to conceive of God repenting at all, how can it be said that he repented of evil? There are more than a dozen passages that refer to the fact that God repents, and two or three that say he will not repent. For those who are trying to find fault with the Bible, this is enough to reject the whole thing. For those who are sincerely trying to find out the truth, a little study will reveal it. There are two or three basic principles we need to understand as we study about God. Since no human language can properly describe God, if God is going to reveal anything at all about his nature to us, he must use what is termed anthropomorphism, which basically means he must speak of himself in terms that apply

Two of the basic premises upon which the premillennial concept is based are: First, that the prophecies concerning the coming and nature of the kingdom had to be literally fulfilled with a material, earthly kingdom. Second, that if the Jews had accepted Jesus as the King, he would have set up the kingdom as promised. However, since they rejected him, he postponed it and will set it up at some future time when he will reign for 1000 years. In all the literature we have read written by premillennialists, we have not seen any clear explanation of this problem: If the Jews were looking for an earthly king, and Jesus came to establish an earthly kingdom, and he was fulfilling all that they thought the prophets had spoken of him, why did they reject him? Why did Jesus say to his disciples in Luke 24:25,  “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” Why did he say in John 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” The truth is that the kingdom which he came to establish was so very different from the kingdom they envisioned that they rejected him and the kingdom. If it had been anything like the kingdom of Solomon or David, with a king that could feed multitudes

Most of the time when I have been asked, “Is a man born into the family of God, or adopted?” I have replied, “‘Born’ or ‘adopted’ are simply two different terms indicating a method of entering a family, so it does not matter.” I was simply indicating what every reference work and dictionary to which I have access says. I now believe we have overlooked some interesting, though not crucial things. The Greek term translated “adoption” is “huiothesia” about which Thayer says, “The nature and condition of the true disciples of Christ, who by receiving the Spirit of God into their souls become sons of God.” He adds, “It also includes the blessed state looked for in the future life after the visible return of Christ from heaven — i.e., the consummate condition of the sons of God which will render it evident that they are sons of God.” We wish that our readers and we were always able to differentiate between a casual opinion expressed by an “authority,” and a scholarly, definitive conclusion, arrived at and proven by the proper analytical methods. Also, we wish the authority or the student would make a proper distinction between the meaning of a term and the thing to which the term refers in a particular context. For example, “baptizo” means “dip, plunge, immerse, overwhelm, etc.” It may refer to immersion in water for the remission of sin, being overwhelmed with grief, suffering, etc., or in some denominational terminology, “a water ritual by

Practically every commentator that I remember saying anything about 1 Thessalonians 5:17 where Paul said, “Pray without ceasing,” has made a comment something like this, “Of course he does not mean that we are to be muttering prayers constantly, but that we are to be in a prayerful attitude at all times.” While my limited knowledge and ability makes me hesitate to take issue with more learned and astute brethren, I feel impelled to make some remarks about that conclusion, as innocuous as it may seem. I agree that it does not mean that we are to be muttering, or just uttering, prayers constantly, but that it means “be in a prayerful attitude at all times” I deny (although I do not have any objection to a person doing that, or teaching that it is a good thing — whatever it may mean). In order to make clearer my objection to the claim that this is the meaning, let me ask a few questions. If we had translated the positive statement into a negative form and instead of saying, “Pray without ceasing” had said, “Do not stop praying” would you agree that the meaning of those two expressions is about the same? Now suppose we said of a person, “He has stopped attending church services,” or “He has stopped giving,” or “He has stopped taking the Lord’s Supper.” Would it not be appropriate to admonish a person, “Do not stop doing those things”? If the Bible said, “Do not stop

James gives two reasons why we may not get what we need in this life. He says, “Ye have not because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that he may spend it in your pleasures” (James 4:2-3). Often we do not ask for the things we need, for what we need and what we want are two different things. We fail to get the things we need because, not realizing what they are, we do not ask for them. Another reason James gives for not getting what we need is that we ask amiss. As long as we conceive of prayer as a sort of exercise in pushing a button to call a Cosmic Bell Boy to do our bidding, we are asking amiss, regardless of the thing for which we ask. Rather, prayer should be a means of so attuning our souls to God and his will that it is a time when he molds our lives so that his will becomes ours. It is not merely a matter of tacking on some words, “Thy will, not mine be done,” but a matter of so adjusting our lives and thinking that his will actually becomes ours. As Jesus put it, “I do always the things that are pleasing to Him.” Our prayer, then, is primarily a matter of opening our hearts to God in such a fashion that we may have the wisdom and insight into what his will is in that particular situation, and

Our discussion of the types and antitypes of the Bible will be confined to those that have special relevance to the scheme of redemption and to those things that the Bible reveals as types and antitypes. Even those of us who have preached many sermons on such subjects as “The Ark As a Type of the Church” need to realize that although we can properly use the ark to illustrate many things about the church, the fact that Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21, “The like figure (antitupon) whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” does not mean that we can properly say the Bible sets forth the ark as a type of the church, but only that their salvation by water was a type of our salvation by water. The denominational quibble that it could not be a type of salvation by baptism because they were saved from the water by the ark, not saved by the water, and that they were not even touched by the water has no relevance for two reasons. First, when the Bible says a thing is a type or antitype it is, whether or not you can reason or quibble yourself around it. Second, the water saved them from the ungodly world as it washed that sinful world away. That is the type and antitype, not that the ark saved them from the flood of water. So, Peter is not talking about the ark as a type of the church, but their

Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:28, “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have whereof to give to him that hath need.” I realize that a verse taken out of context may be but a pretext, but although I feel sure that Paul was talking about stealing material things, this verse is a powerful reminder of the fact that stealing is not limited to taking a tangible object that belongs to another. Shakespeare said, “He who steals my purse steals trash. But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.” There is an old proverb that says, “A person with a bad name is already half hanged.” When a person gossips about another and causes him to lose the second most important thing in his life, he has stolen that which may never be replaced. Probably one of the most despicable kinds of thievery is that of robbing God. Malachi 3:8 is still a haunting question and the answer is as applicable today as it was then. “Will a man rob God? Yet ye rob me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.” Any time we owe God something and do not give it to him, we are robbing him. This includes our time, influence, money or any other thing we think we own. The truth is found

The phrase, “born again” has become so popular lately that we would not be too surprised to hear that Castro or Hussein had appropriated (or misappropriated) it. Members of the Lord’s church seem to be about the only ones who realize that the expression, “born again Christians” is an anomaly, for there are no other kinds. However, even among Christians, it is my judgment that the term has never been studied as it deserves. Many of those who use it in a more scriptural and proper manner do so, not because they have personally probed into its meaning and implications in the Scriptures, but because they, like their denominational counterparts, simply mouth the phrases which they hear others use. Many of us have thought we could probably tell from which school a person had come by the peculiar expressions he uses in praying. However, “Bless those who are sick of this congregation” might come from most any place, for most every place we go we find persons who are sick of the congregation or the preacher or the elders. To the average person, the expression “born again” apparently means to have a commitment to Jesus in such a fashion that one’s thinking and acting have been changed. Certainly a person who is “born again” will do that, but not every person who does that is “born again.” However, before we can study adequately the meaning of any expression, we need to know the meaning of the Greek words that make

There is an interesting expression in Psalm 119:83. It reads in the King James Version, “For I am become like a bottle in the smoke, yet do I not forget thy statues.” Probably most readers of the King James Version would not have the least idea of the meaning of the expression. The American Standard Version helps some, but not much. It says, “For I am become like a wine-skin in the smoke; Yet do I not forget thy statutes.” Even if one realized that some persons hung their wineskins in the chimney, or other places where the warmth of the fire and smoke would surround it, one might have trouble seeing any meaning in David’s words. As in all cases of serious Bible study, one should read the passage in the context. This will not always reveal the exact meaning, but will usually help to shed light on the subject. He had just asked in verse 82, “When wilt thou comfort me?” At the end of verse 83, he says, “Yet do I not forget thy statutes.” In verse 84, he mentions “them that persecute me.” Without question, the context has to do with persecution, need for comfort and difficulties of various sorts. Realizing that, we can visualize a wineskin hanging in the smoke of a chimney, growing more wrinkled, blackened and shriveled. This would suggest his feeling of distress, anxiety, grief, misfortune, adversity, sorrow, anguish, discomfort and misery. It is very similar to what he said in Psalm

Many years ago, it seemed that almost any Gospel paper one picked up had an article, “The Sin Against The Holy Spirit.” No matter how much writing or speaking was done, there always seemed to be more questions. There are at least three reasons for this. First, most writers seem to be very imprecise in their use of words. For example, most would write of “The Sin–” as if the Bible spoke of only one sin against the Holy Spirit. The truth is that “sin” refers to general transgressions, “blasphemy” to a particular one. All blasphemy may be sin, but not all sin is blasphemy. Under the Law of Moses, one could sin against God and be forgiven, but one who blasphemed him was stoned to death (Leviticus 24:16). Second, most preachers who knew enough logic to use syllogisms fell into an error in their use that I do not ever remember hearing discussed in this context. We shall deal with it in a few moments. Third, the fact that the simple correct answer left many unanswered other questions caused many to overlook or reject the simple correct one. In this article, I shall attempt to address those three problems, and give what I think to be the simplest, most scriptural and logical answer to the question, “What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?” Then I shall attempt to answer some related questions produced by that answer. The proper way to approach this, or any other question, is to

You may have heard of the woman who was so pleased when the preacher condemned drinking, gambling, fornication and various other sins that she said, “Amen” after each denunciation. When he began talking about dipping snuff and gossip, she said, “Now he has quit preaching and gone to meddling.” How long has it been since you heard a sermon on the sin of gluttony? If you did hear one, would you think the preacher had “gone to meddling?” Do you notice in the Bible that gluttons and drunkards are often classified in the same way? “And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard” (Deuteronomy 21:20). “For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags” (Proverbs 23:21). “And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares” (Luke 21:34). An excellent preacher, “sound in the faith,” was neither ashamed nor afraid to preach against unscriptural marriages, strong drink and other sinful practices. He even made snide comments about smoking. He had a friend and brother (another preacher) who weighed about 300 pounds. When he ate, he often went back to fill his plate about three times, not counting desserts. He had another brother who took a glass of wine at

In Psalm 73, which is called a Psalm of Asaph, the Psalmist says, “My feet were almost gone; my steps had well-nigh slipped.” The reason was, “I was envious of the foolish when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.” He thought (v. 5), “They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men.” Since this attitude is not an unusual one today, it is worth our attention. It is true that in many cases the wicked prosper and do not seem to be in trouble as other men. Then it is easy to think, “Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency” (v. 13). The problem of the sufferings of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked is not a new one. Similar questions about the existence of evil and bad circumstances have been raised by good men whose faith was weak, or whose knowledge of God’s Word was limited, as well as by atheists who deny the existence of God. Asaph’s problem was at least two-fold. First, he was envious when he saw the wicked prosper. He needed to know what we can know. First, “But godliness with contentment is great gain: for we brought nothing into the world, for neither can we carry anything out; but having food and covering we shall be therewith content” (1 Timothy 6:6-8). We need to know James 2:5, “Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are

The question was raised primarily in reference to applauding at a baptismal service. The one who asked it remarked that it seemed to him that it was equivalent to saying “Amen” at the end of someone’s prayer, and merely indicated approval of what was being done. If it were merely equivalent to taking his hand and saying, “I rejoice in your obedience,” I would have no objection to it. However, it involves other significant principles. Let us examine some and try to arrive at a scriptural answer to the question. When we say “scriptural answer,” we do not claim that we know a Scripture that deals directly with the question, for if there was an approved example of early Christians doing it, or a command that indicated the propriety of it, we would not need to discuss the matter. If we could find a Scripture that said, “Do not clap hands,” we would not need to discuss the matter. So, we must examine principles and Scriptures that deal with broader matters, and strive to make logical application of them. First, let us look at the assumption that the clapping of hands is no more than simply expressing agreement with a statement or action, as “Amen” might be. When an audience claps and shouts approval of Michael Jackson’s performance, would it evidence about the same thing if the audience said, “Amen?” The basic meaning of “Amen” is “May it be so.” It has various nuances in other contexts, but the basic

In Exodus 3, we find the story of God appearing to Moses in the burning bush which was not consumed. Although we do not know all the lessons Moses got from the story, we find a few that we think may be of value to you. First, if we have enough spiritual interest and willingness to turn aside from our ordinary pursuits to hear a revelation from God, we may discover that God has a greater commission for us than he did for Moses. He was to help God in delivering people from the bondage of slavery to Pharaoh in Egypt. We have been commissioned to help in the delivering people from the bondage of sin in the entire world! To all too many of us, Matthew 28:18-20 is still just a passage to be quoted regarding something that was said by someone about 2000 years ago. You need to turn aside and see the burning bush! Second, before we can be fitted for the job, we must recognize the power and purity of God. “Take off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the ground where thou standest is holy ground.” Peter tells us, “Be ye therefore holy as he who called you is holy” (1 Peter 1:15). The fact that we are to “come boldly to the throne of grace” (Hebrews 4:16) does not deny the fact that we should serve God “with reverence and Godly fear” (Hebrews 12:28). I still remember a sense of shock I had

As far back as I can remember I have heard preachers say such things as, “It must be admitted that faith and hope will terminate at the coming of Christ. Love is the greatest because it will abide forever.” It is my judgment that a deeper study of the question will convince us that the conclusion is incorrect, and based on either faulty logic or faulty exegesis, or both. I believe the song says, “faith will be lost in heavenly sight,” and the idea, no doubt, partly comes from a misuse of 2 Corinthians 5:7, “For we walk by faith, not by sight (eidos — appearance).” And Romans 8:24 says, “But hope that is seen is not hope, for who hopeth for that which he seeth?” If one takes those Scriptures and makes an improper application of them, he involves himself in some ridiculous absurdities. For example, a man may see a new car. Does the expression, “For who hopeth for that which he seeth?” negate the idea that he may yet hope for that car? Surely not! Let us examine with a little more care whether or not it must be admitted that “faith and hope will terminate at the coming of Christ.” It is true that we walk by faith, not by sight. It is true that by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, and we would not need to have faith in the truthfulness of that statement if we had

There is an interesting expression in 1 Corinthians 7:14 which may need clarification. It says, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy.” The most basic thing we need to know is the meaning of “sanctified.” It simply means, “set apart.” It does not mean sinless or saved. The vessels of the tabernacle that were set apart for God’s use were holy or sanctified. The saints (Christians) at Corinth had been called and set apart for God’s use, but committed many sins. What is meant by the statement that the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife? It is not “by the wife” as if she were the agent by whom the sanctification took place, but “in the wife” because it is the marriage relationship of which he speaks. It is noteworthy that the word “sanctified” is a perfect tense in both cases. That denotes the present state that results from a past action. Apparently, the past action to which he refers was the sanctification that took place when the couple married and still is in effect. He is simply saying that the wife who has an unbelieving husband does not need to put him away as she would if the relationship itself were wrong or unholy. Although he is an unbeliever, the marriage bond was and is still sacred, so the unbeliever is set apart in a sanctified relationship. In