There are five appointments in the life of a human that EVERYONE faces; four of these are required:
1. Birth (see Ecclesiastes 12:7) Our spirit, soul, and mind is created/given to us by God.
2. Death (physical death) (see Hebrews 9:27; Romans 5:12) All men die: only two are recorded in history as having bypassed death and gone to God's presence (Enoch and Elijah), if we understand Scripture right.
3. The Resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 5:12 and 19; Acts 24:15; Revelation 1:7; John 5:28-29; John 6:54; and 2 Timothy 2:18) This resurrection is yet to come, and should not be confused with those who were brought back to life such as Lazarus, Dorcas, or the others recorded in Scripture, except for the Christ Himself, who is the "First Born" (Colossians 1:18).
4. The Judgment (see Acts 17:31; Matthew 13:40-43; 1 Corinthians 15:51-58; Revelation 20:12-13) Judgment will be according to our works (John 12:48; Matthiew 7:22-23: 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8); Mark 13:31-33; 2 Peter 3:10-13; 2 Thessalonians 5:2). Mercy will be given us, however, for without His mercy our failure to be perfect condemns us (Titus 3:5; Hebrews 4:16, Romans 9:15-18). The time of that judgment is unknown (Matthew 24:44-46).
There is one other appointment which is optional: men may fail to meet this very important appointment, but will suffer the consequences of doing so. It is an appointment with the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
a. It must be met in order to obtain glory (2 Thessalonians 2:14)
b. It must be preached (1 Corinthians 9:16)
c. It must be obeyed on pain of everlasting destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9)
d. It is the Gospel of Him who is the source of eternal salvation and must be obeyed (Hebrews 5:9)
We humans were created to live forever, but to do so, we must meet these five appointments. Physical death and Judgment are only steps on the way to eternity, but where will we spend eternity? If we reject our appointment with the Gospel, we have no more mercy available from God on Judgment, and we cannot obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14).
2 Thessalonians 2:16-17: "16 May our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal encouragement and good hope by grace, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good work and word. "
13 September 2008
16 August 2008
Baker's Dozen Mediations #1 Builders
Verse: Nehemiah 4:9: “So we prayed to our God and stationed a guard because of them [furious plotters, verse 8] day and night.” (HCSB)
Throughout history, the builder has frequently also had to defend what they have built against those who do not want the building done. Sometimes it is a spiritual “building project,” and sometimes it is a physical project with a spiritual aspect. Whether it was the Anasazi defending their cliff dwellings against nomadic raiders, a contractor protecting his equipment and job-site against eco-freak “monkeywrenchers,” or an inner-city ministry defending their chapel against a street gang, they can all appreciate the situation in the rebuilding of Jerusalem 2500 years ago.
Prayer is essential; it is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the believer. But Nehemiah and his fellow builders in Jerusalem were careful to recognize that faith inspires works. As Nehemiah 4:15 records, they stood watch against their enemies “with their swords, spears, and bows.” While trusting the Lord, they were prepared and ready to fight if needed. They understood that they were not to depend on their own ability, though. They knew that “Our God will fight for us.” (4:20).
This sound Biblical principle applies to all endeavors we undertake, spiritual and physical. James tells us (2:17), “faith, if it doesn’t have works, is dead by itself.” “Watching” was clearly, to Nehemiah and his pioneers, more than just being alert and sounding an alarm. It included an active defense and required weapons. An unarmed watchman is worthless.”
Yes, they still trusted to the Lord that they were prepared enough, that He would keep them alert and ready “unto every good work,” even when that work required physical defense against those attacking them, their work, their families, and their community.
Are we able to do the same today?
Read also: James 2: 22-24, and Psalm 127: 1-3.
Baptism saves!
Most American Evangelicals reject this statement: Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals of all types. A web search will reveal more attacks on the Biblical teaching that baptism saves than supporting it. Why? Many believe that baptism is something that we do for God and for others. Ironically, most of those claiming to be Christians in the rest of the world believe this statement as well as the historic church, apostate or not.
Even the apostate “historic” churches have confessed that baptism provides for the forgiveness of sin. In the third article of the Nicene Creed, many confess “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.” This creed is confessed by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, as well as Reformed churches. They will and do reject the idea of some modern “Baptist” and “Bible” churches that the one baptism is a “Spirit baptism” and not involving water (although these “historic” churches mostly believe that sprinkling or pouring can replace immersion).
Definition of Baptism
The Greek words mean to wash, immerse, or dip. There are two: the noun, usually translated “baptism” is baptisma. The verb is baptizo, translated usually as “baptize.” Both words are used throughout the New Testament for cleaning and washing (see Mark 7:4, Luke
Why Baptize?
This starts with Jesus and John the Baptizer. While Jesus did not require baptism, he shows us that baptism is associated with the Holy Spirit as well as an action that God approves of. When John questioned Jesus’ need for baptism, Jesus replied "Allow it for now, because this is the way for us to fulfill all righteousness." (Matt
When Jesus was baptized, we see the entire Godhead. God the Father approves of what God the Son just had done; and God the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus. This marks the beginning of the Jesus “public” ministry. Fulfilled righteousness was now to be proclaimed.
When He met with Nicodemus, Jesus stated " I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
At the completion of Jesus’ earthly ministry, he returns to baptism. He makes baptism a part of making disciples. “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. “ (Matt. 28:19-20a). Baptism is part – an obviously essential part - of making disciples. Note that it is listed before teaching. If baptism is part of making a disciple, then it is more than just an action we do.
What does Baptism do?
In the Acts of the Apostles, we see baptism play an important role in the growth of the young Church. Baptism has many benefits for the believers, but certainly one is the forgiveness of sin. The first time we hear this is then Peter tells those in
When Paul was recounting his conversion, Paul stated that he was to be baptized which washed away his sins (Acts
Peter writes about baptism is his first letter. He states that the Great Flood was a symbolic form of baptism for Noah and his family since it saved them. Peter clearly teaches that baptism now saves us. Baptism is the pledge of a good conscience words God. Baptism saves us by Christ’s resurrection. This is consistent with what Paul wrote in Romans 6.
It is wrong to conclude that baptism is the only way of salvation. Baptism is the way of salvation that God has given us. We find examples of those who were saved through baptism and those saved prior to baptism or with no baptism at all: but those were under the Old Covenant; under the New Covenant, we have but the one way that God has given us. Does this limit His power to save? No, of course not – but He is the Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22).
Who is doing the Work?
When you read these verses, who is acting and who is passive? God is active in baptism while we are passive. We can only receive what God gives through baptism. God is acting through the person administering the baptism, so if we were to claim that the person doing the baptism is saved by doing so, we would indeed be preaching “salvation by works,” but that isn’t the case.
In Acts 2:38, Peter states that we receive both forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism. We are the passive participants in this action: our only action is submission to the Savior.
In both passages from Romans and Titus, it is clear that we are passive in this act. Titus 3:5-6 states that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are the active players “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”. In Titus 3:6, the only part we play is passive “. . . so that having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.” An heir does not merit their inheritance, but is given to them by the generosity of another.
Who should be baptized?
Jesus states that we are to baptize all nations – plain and simple. There is no limit to sex, ancestry, nationality, or age in his command: the only limit is that it is necessary to believe (Acts
It is clear that this resolves the claims of many that John
Anyone who believes that Jesus is Lord, and like those in Jerusalem on that long-ago Pentecost, repent of their sins, may confess His name and put on His name in baptism, submitting to His will and being buried with Him in baptism to rise to a new life. Anyone.
11 December 2007
Critical Comments on a Horrible Event
It happened this weekend. Here is one of the many news stories (my comment follows):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-09-missionariesshot_N.htm
Let’s start with the good news: one woman with a gun, a church member, a volunteer with training, saved dozens of lives.
Why? Because:
(1) the leaders of that church (yes, a denominational church) faced facts (in today's society, just as in the time of Jesus, violence (sometimes random and irrational violence) was a fact of life, and no one is immune to it),
(2) fear did not drive their decisions (especially irrational fears about some of their own members carrying weapons, or about scaring away members of their church because weapons might be present in the meetinghouse),
(3) love DID drive their actions (concern for both the spiritual AND physical wellbeing of their fellow members in their church and those who visited); and
(4) they believed that self-defense was scriptural. It was taught by the Lord Himself, it is clearly a principle expressed in both the Old Testament and New Testament, and it does not mean that we do not trust in the Lord to save us or protect us.
Since
Notice: there was NO ONE armed at the
(1) “it can’t happen here,”
(2) "it is too dangerous,"
(3) "it might scare off people who would otherwise come to worship," and
(4) “we trust in God, not in evil weapons.”
Each of these excuses (and many others) can be answered simply and directly. This very incident (and dozens more across the years and around the world) show that it CAN happen here: yes, even in churches of Christ and even to faithful brethren. Just as floods, tornadoes, fires, vandalism, family violence, and other bad things can happen. Weapons are no more dangerous than any other tool: we don't ban electricity in the meeting house because there is a chance of electrocution, we don't ban baptisries in the meeting house because there is a chance of drowning (and sadly, over the years, children HAVE died from drowning in a baptisry), but too many are so fearful of "guns" that they are willing to ban them. If people are so fearful of weapons that it will keep them from worshipping God, it is THEY who are showing no trust in the Lord, nor in their fellow Christians: and the work of the church to educate them about the real dangers they should fear is obvious. Finally, if we are to trust in the Lord in the matter of self-defense and protection from attacks, why do we NOT "trust in the Lord" when it comes to fire, flood, vandalism, and car accidents: this argument makes paying for liability and auto accident insurance a sin of lack of faith in God. If we are to trust in the Lord in all physical things (an argument that has been advanced more than once to me), why do we have heaters in church buildings: do we not trust the Lord to keep us warm and safe from storms?
There are too many churches where leaders (sadly, elders and deacons) are willing to make fun of those who DO want to carry, asking “what are YOU afraid of?” and “why are you so fearful and distrustful of God?” Perhaps these needless deaths in Arvada and Colorado Springs will make a few wake up and and understand that when brethren are willing to and do carry weapons, openly or concealed, it is about LOVE and not fear: love for their brothers and sisters in Christ, love that says, in very physical terms and not just in pious words that if Christ was willing to die for us, we should be willing to put our own lives in danger to protect our brothers and sisters in Him, the visitors to our assemblies, even our neighbors and, yes, even strangers from both physical and spiritual dangers.
Reprint from Apologetics Press: Is all religion bad?
|
|
|
In logical discussions, a straw man is a weak, illogical position that is easily refuted. The more powerful, logical position is then coupled with the straw man, and both are said to fall together, yet the stronger position never actually is refuted by the opposition. For example, suppose a person stated that he owned a congenial, safe dog. The man’s neighbor argued that such was impossible. The opposing neighbor then recounted a story about a family’s pet pitbull that went berserk and killed someone. Then he stated that this incident proves that all pets are dangerous. Does his argument follow from the evidence? Of course not. He might have proven that one family’s pitbull was dangerous, but he did not prove that all pets are dangerous. In fact, it would be easy to multiply numerous examples of dangerous pets, but proving those specific pets to be dangerous could not logically be applied to all pets.
This idea must be understood when reading modern atheistic writings that purport to prove that the ideas of God and formulated religion are detrimental to society. Their argument, in a nutshell, goes like this: Since we can list examples of religions and religious fanatics that were (or are) harmful or detrimental to society, then all religions or ideas about God are harmful or detrimental to society.
So that the reader does not think that this author is, himself, constructing a straw man, let us consult the writings of a very popular, militant atheist by the name of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens has been critically acclaimed as “one of the most prolific, as well as brilliant, journalists of our time” according to the London Observer. The Los Angeles Times stated that he is a “political and literary journalist extraordinaire.”
One of Hitchens’ most popular recent books is titled god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Notice that his subtitle is broad enough to lump all religions into it: Islam, New Testament Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Hitchens then proceeded, in the pages of his book, to list many horrible things that people have done in the name of “religion.” He said: “Religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow” (2007, p. 6). Hitchens even titled chapter two, “Religion Kills.” In it he wrote: “Here, then, is a very brief summary of the religiously inspired cruelty I witnessed... ” (p. 18). He then recounted horror stories of several moral atrocities perpetrated in the name of “religion.” Furthermore, Hitchens stated: “If one comprehends the fallacies of any ‘revealed’ religion, one comprehends them all” (p. 126).
Can Hitchens and others document atrocities performed in the name of religion? Of course they can. Does this prove that all religion is false, and that if a person can spot a flaw or comprehend a fallacy in one religion, then he has effectively disproved the validity of all religions? Absolutely not. Can you imagine what would happen if this type of argument were used in other areas of life? Apply such thinking to food. Many foods are poisonous and kill people, thus all foods should be avoided. Apply it to electricity. It is the case that many people have died while using electricity, thus all electrical use is detrimental to society. Or apply it to activities like swimming. Many have drowned while swimming, thus all swimming leads to drowning and should be avoided. What if it were applied to surgery? Since it is true that thousands of people have died during surgery, or as a result of surgery, then all surgery should be avoided because it all leads to death or is in some way physically detrimental to society. Obviously, the ridiculous idea that all religion is detrimental to society because it can be proven that some religions are, should be quickly discarded by any honest, thoughtful observer.
New Testament Christianity does not stand or fall based on the validity of other competing religions. In fact, Hitchens and others are right to assert that many religions are detrimental to society. But they are wrong to lump true Christianity in with the rest of the useless lot. New Testament Christianity is unique, logically valid, historically documented, and philosophically flawless. It does not crumble with various other religions that are filled with “vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy
[NOTE: It should not be understood that Hitchens and others attack Christianity solely using the straw man argument. They do present other, more specific arguments that are answered in other Apologetics Press materials. It should be observed, however, that the straw man is a frequently used, favorite tactic that needs to be understood and specifically refuted.]
REFERENCES
Hitchens, Christopher (2007), god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (
Copyright © 2007 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Bible Bullets" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
230 Landmark Drive
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
14 October 2007
How important is a "quibble over a word"?
Recently, a dear friend could not understand how I could not support an effort to preach the Gospel and restore liberty in our land, just because I did not agree with the promoter and founder of the effort insisting on calling preachers or evangelists by the denominational term "pastor."
I've written this informal study in an attempt to answer that question:
Dear friend:
I am sorry that you believe I am just quibbling over a word. I am not saying that it is an insult in itself, but an insult because it is wrong. If I, an engineer, am called either an "architect" or a "technician" it is wrong: it may not be an insult, especially not an intentional insult, but none the less it is wrong because I am neither. Would you accept being called a "Doctor" when you are a nurse? Or being called a "nursing aide" when you are a nurse? When someone should or does understand the difference between one profession and the other, it is insulting to be called the wrong thing, even if unintentional.
Mr. Baldwin states that he is very much a believer in the Scriptures, and that he follows the tradition of "Sola Scriptura" - the Bible only. He states that he believes that the Bible IS the inspired Word of God, and not that it "contains" the Word (as so many people do). He wants people to follow the Bible. I applaud his effort, but fear he is not sincere in it. He has added (or accepted traditions of men) to God's Word. It is very clear in the New Testament that there is a very great difference in the role or offices of pastor and preacher.
A preacher, evangelist, or minister is an individual who publicly proclaims the Word of God to both christians and nonchristians; from the pulpit and in public places; who may also be a teacher (although that is a separate role, as well). If we accept the usual division of the mission of God's church into three parts: "evangelism, edification, and benevolence," his primary concern is the first: evangelizing. It may be done in foreign fields (a "missionary") or locally - but the primary purpose is to reach the lost. A preacher may be completely on his own (example, Phillip or Peter) or part of a team (Paul and Silas, Paul and Barnabas); he may be located in one place for years (Titus, Peter in Joppa or even Paul in Corinth) or move from one location to another frequently (Paul's missionary journeys, Phillip; what today we call itinerant preachers). There are no requirements as to age, experience, family status, education, or similar things stated in the Bible: we know that Timothy was very young, Phillip of middle age, and there are other examples. As part of their duties (Titus is one example) they are to appoint shepherds or overseers in churches. An evangelist may be full-time (that is, supported by others) or part-time (supporting himself to do the work, as Paul did by making tents). I know that some people believe that no one should be completely supported by others because this creates a "hireling" mentality and creates a temptation to "tickle people's ears" when they are paying for you to do your work.
A pastor, bishop, shepherd, elder, presbyter, or overseer (all biblical terms for what is the same role or office, emphasizing the wide ranging nature and functions) is one of the leaders of a community of believers: a local community or congregation. All the examples and commands in the New Testament make it clear that there is _always_ more than one co-equal shepherds or overseers in a congregation - I believe to prevent the dangers of one-man rule. Their primary concern is the well-being, spiritual _and_ physical, of the congregation which they are among: the "edification and benevolence" parts of the church's mission. To carry out this mission, they may do it themselves or have teachers (for the edification) and deacons (for the benevolence). The qualifications of these bishops are very clearly stated in New Testament - twice in fact. Among other things, they are to be husbands of one wife and have believing children (I believe this is, among other things, because the viewpoint and wisdom of both a man and a woman are essential to performing the duties, and because properly raising a family is strong evidence that they have the wisdom (and patience)). They are, of necessity, of mature years. As part of their responsibilities, they are to resolve disputes, ensure that sound doctrine is preached and practiced, and see that things are done in good order. Most people that I know believe these should always be "part-time" - that is, not paid for their work (for the same reasons: a "hireling" mentality) but do not exclude retired men who actually do work almost full-time in this role,
Mr. Baldwin, like many many others, has confused these two very distinct offices and has a defacto clergy-laity distinction that is not found in the Bible and has led to the degraded state of "christendom" today. To call a preacher a pastor is like calling a Lieutenant a General: it is inappropriate, and when done by a civilian might be brushed off due to lack of knowledge, but when done by someone who is a military scholar or a military member, is an insult because it is so inappropriate. The development of one-man rule, the merger of individual churches into dioceses or synods or whatever, the "hireling" mentality, the splitting of churches into a privileged clergy supported by a laity; all these things have produced great evils. Worse, the word "pastor" (and for that matter, "bishop" and "elder" and even "shepherd") have been turned into titles, almost as bad as titles of nobility: together with the titles or honorifics "reverend" (reserved in the Bible for God alone) and "father" and "saint" - elevating some people over others. Bishops/overseers are not to "lord it over the flock" and there is night and day difference between "let no one despise your youth" and the way "Pastor" is fawned over in many congregations today.
I know of many men who are preaching in Wyoming and South Dakota and Nebraska who would agree with the idea of the Black Regiment who are preachers - not many "full-time" preachers but still ministers of the Word. They live in Sheridan, Rawlins, Cheyenne, Rapid City, Huron, Omaha, perhaps even Alliance and Hot Springs and Spearfish. They all preach, most of them two or three times a week in public worship services and public and private Bible classes in their communities. If someone calls them "Pastor" one time they will, to a man, correct the person gently and explain that they are not elders or bishops or pastors, just preachers or ministers. (Some of them may work in churches where there are shepherds that oversee them just like the rest of the congregation.) If someone calls them that again, and it is clearly not just a matter of habit, they will treat it as evidence that the person rejects the explanation or doesn't care enough to remember - either an implied insult, even if unintentional.
Just as I consider Mr. Baldwin's lack of any response whatsoever to my e-mail to be one of several things:
(1) he could simply be unable yet to respond due to press of time (my assumption for now)
(2) he is working on a response
(3) he knows he is wrong, ignores it, and therefore ignores any challenges
(4) he does not consider the argument to be worth considering because of who is making it
Sadly, the first two do not seem to be the case, as it has been three or four months without an answer. So I must reluctantly conclude that it is one of the two latter. He has apparently decided that he is not, after all, a believer in "Solo Scriptura" - that he can with impunity accept or add things to God's Word. Therefore, he is not in fellowship with God. I cannot participate with him in his effort, however noble or highly motivated it might be, because it is a religious effort, if he is not in fellowship with God.
I've written this informal study in an attempt to answer that question:
Dear friend:
I am sorry that you believe I am just quibbling over a word. I am not saying that it is an insult in itself, but an insult because it is wrong. If I, an engineer, am called either an "architect" or a "technician" it is wrong: it may not be an insult, especially not an intentional insult, but none the less it is wrong because I am neither. Would you accept being called a "Doctor" when you are a nurse? Or being called a "nursing aide" when you are a nurse? When someone should or does understand the difference between one profession and the other, it is insulting to be called the wrong thing, even if unintentional.
Mr. Baldwin states that he is very much a believer in the Scriptures, and that he follows the tradition of "Sola Scriptura" - the Bible only. He states that he believes that the Bible IS the inspired Word of God, and not that it "contains" the Word (as so many people do). He wants people to follow the Bible. I applaud his effort, but fear he is not sincere in it. He has added (or accepted traditions of men) to God's Word. It is very clear in the New Testament that there is a very great difference in the role or offices of pastor and preacher.
A preacher, evangelist, or minister is an individual who publicly proclaims the Word of God to both christians and nonchristians; from the pulpit and in public places; who may also be a teacher (although that is a separate role, as well). If we accept the usual division of the mission of God's church into three parts: "evangelism, edification, and benevolence," his primary concern is the first: evangelizing. It may be done in foreign fields (a "missionary") or locally - but the primary purpose is to reach the lost. A preacher may be completely on his own (example, Phillip or Peter) or part of a team (Paul and Silas, Paul and Barnabas); he may be located in one place for years (Titus, Peter in Joppa or even Paul in Corinth) or move from one location to another frequently (Paul's missionary journeys, Phillip; what today we call itinerant preachers). There are no requirements as to age, experience, family status, education, or similar things stated in the Bible: we know that Timothy was very young, Phillip of middle age, and there are other examples. As part of their duties (Titus is one example) they are to appoint shepherds or overseers in churches. An evangelist may be full-time (that is, supported by others) or part-time (supporting himself to do the work, as Paul did by making tents). I know that some people believe that no one should be completely supported by others because this creates a "hireling" mentality and creates a temptation to "tickle people's ears" when they are paying for you to do your work.
A pastor, bishop, shepherd, elder, presbyter, or overseer (all biblical terms for what is the same role or office, emphasizing the wide ranging nature and functions) is one of the leaders of a community of believers: a local community or congregation. All the examples and commands in the New Testament make it clear that there is _always_ more than one co-equal shepherds or overseers in a congregation - I believe to prevent the dangers of one-man rule. Their primary concern is the well-being, spiritual _and_ physical, of the congregation which they are among: the "edification and benevolence" parts of the church's mission. To carry out this mission, they may do it themselves or have teachers (for the edification) and deacons (for the benevolence). The qualifications of these bishops are very clearly stated in New Testament - twice in fact. Among other things, they are to be husbands of one wife and have believing children (I believe this is, among other things, because the viewpoint and wisdom of both a man and a woman are essential to performing the duties, and because properly raising a family is strong evidence that they have the wisdom (and patience)). They are, of necessity, of mature years. As part of their responsibilities, they are to resolve disputes, ensure that sound doctrine is preached and practiced, and see that things are done in good order. Most people that I know believe these should always be "part-time" - that is, not paid for their work (for the same reasons: a "hireling" mentality) but do not exclude retired men who actually do work almost full-time in this role,
Mr. Baldwin, like many many others, has confused these two very distinct offices and has a defacto clergy-laity distinction that is not found in the Bible and has led to the degraded state of "christendom" today. To call a preacher a pastor is like calling a Lieutenant a General: it is inappropriate, and when done by a civilian might be brushed off due to lack of knowledge, but when done by someone who is a military scholar or a military member, is an insult because it is so inappropriate. The development of one-man rule, the merger of individual churches into dioceses or synods or whatever, the "hireling" mentality, the splitting of churches into a privileged clergy supported by a laity; all these things have produced great evils. Worse, the word "pastor" (and for that matter, "bishop" and "elder" and even "shepherd") have been turned into titles, almost as bad as titles of nobility: together with the titles or honorifics "reverend" (reserved in the Bible for God alone) and "father" and "saint" - elevating some people over others. Bishops/overseers are not to "lord it over the flock" and there is night and day difference between "let no one despise your youth" and the way "Pastor" is fawned over in many congregations today.
I know of many men who are preaching in Wyoming and South Dakota and Nebraska who would agree with the idea of the Black Regiment who are preachers - not many "full-time" preachers but still ministers of the Word. They live in Sheridan, Rawlins, Cheyenne, Rapid City, Huron, Omaha, perhaps even Alliance and Hot Springs and Spearfish. They all preach, most of them two or three times a week in public worship services and public and private Bible classes in their communities. If someone calls them "Pastor" one time they will, to a man, correct the person gently and explain that they are not elders or bishops or pastors, just preachers or ministers. (Some of them may work in churches where there are shepherds that oversee them just like the rest of the congregation.) If someone calls them that again, and it is clearly not just a matter of habit, they will treat it as evidence that the person rejects the explanation or doesn't care enough to remember - either an implied insult, even if unintentional.
Just as I consider Mr. Baldwin's lack of any response whatsoever to my e-mail to be one of several things:
(1) he could simply be unable yet to respond due to press of time (my assumption for now)
(2) he is working on a response
(3) he knows he is wrong, ignores it, and therefore ignores any challenges
(4) he does not consider the argument to be worth considering because of who is making it
Sadly, the first two do not seem to be the case, as it has been three or four months without an answer. So I must reluctantly conclude that it is one of the two latter. He has apparently decided that he is not, after all, a believer in "Solo Scriptura" - that he can with impunity accept or add things to God's Word. Therefore, he is not in fellowship with God. I cannot participate with him in his effort, however noble or highly motivated it might be, because it is a religious effort, if he is not in fellowship with God.
21 November 2006
Reprint from Apologetics Press: Embryos are People
| Embryos are People by Dave Miller, Ph.D. |
| Printer version | Email this article |
The polarizing national debate over the use of embryonic stem cells for the purpose of seeking solutions to medical ailments continues to rage. The most recent development entailed the passage by the Senate of a bill to permit government funding for research using human embryonic stem cells (Babington, 2006a). President Bush vetoed the bill on the grounds that such research entails the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others (Babington, 2006b). At the formal signing of the veto, the President was surrounded by babies and young children who began life as frozen embryos that were created for in vitro fertilization, but who remained in suspension after the fertility treatments were complete.
What further proof is needed? Nothing was done after conception to change these children from embryos into humans. They became human at conception. From that point onward, they were merely allowed to grow—transferred to the womb to continue their development. No difference exists between a pre-birth infant and a post-birth infant—both are simply at different stages of human growth and development. As the children produced from “adopted” frozen embryos encircled the President with their parents, proof that embryos are people was staring the nation and the world in the face. How blind can we be? Are we of those who “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:13)?
Apart from the fact that the scientific community’s insistence that embryonic stem cells will be the panacea to cure disease remains both unproven and highly suspect, and despite the fact that adult stem cells have, in fact, shown the most promise and have been used successfully (Harrub and Thompson, 2004; Harrub, 2006), the only concern in the discussion ought to be the moral, ethical, and spiritual implication. On this basis alone, the entire matter ought to be—and can be—settled.
If the God of the Bible exists, and if the Bible is His Word, then human life begins at conception. To deliberately terminate that life—for whatever purpose—is the taking of human life, identified in Scripture as murder. David insisted that his development as a human being, his personhood, was achieved by God, prior to his birth, while he was yet in his mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13-16). Elizabeth’s pre-born baby is represented as a living human being (Luke 1:39-44). In fact, the term “baby” used in verses 41 and 44 to refer to the pre-born John is the exact same term that is used in chapter two to refer to Jesus after His birth as He laid in the manger (Luke 2:12,16). So, in God’s sight, whether a person is in his or her pre-birth developmental state, or in a post-birth developmental state, that person is still a baby! John the Baptizer is referred to as “a son” from the very moment of conception (Luke 1:36). All three phases of human life are listed in reverse order in Hosea 9:11—birth, pregnancy, and conception (see Miller, 2003).
The national discussion regarding the use of embryonic stem cells is “cut and dried” for those who believe in and respect the God of the Bible: “[D]o not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked” (Exodus 23:7). God hates “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17). The fact that we even are debating this subject demonstrates the extent to which the nation has strayed from its commitment to and reliance on the God of the Universe—yet another unmistakable manifestation of America’s downward spiral into moral and spiritual depravity.
Babington, Charles (2006a), “Senate Passes Stem Cell Bill; Bush Vows Veto,” Washington Post, July 19, A01, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/ AR2006071800182.html.
Babington, Charles (2006b), “Stem Cell Bill Gets Bush’s First Veto,” Washington Post, July 20, A04, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/ AR2006071900524.html.
Harrub, Brad (2006), “False Marketing of Embryonic Stem Cells,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2976.
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2004), “Presidential Elections, Superman, Embryonic Stem Cells, Bad Science, and False Hope,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2621.
Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1964.
Copyright © 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "In the News" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
07 September 2006
A Christian View of Islam - Part 1
This will be part of a series, looking at Islam from various points of view - the entire series will be on this blog, with other portions on other blogs or at www.thepriceofliberty.org, since the idea of the series originated with the publisher of The Price of Liberty.
FROM THE CHRISTIAN POINT OF VIEW
In many ways, the establishment of the religion of Islam (which means “Submission”) was intentionally to create a challenger, a replacement, for “Christianity.” This should come as no surprise, given the degraded state of what was called “Christian” in the 7th Century. The religious hierarchy so foreign to the New Testament was completely developed, the apostasy from the First Century nearly complete. The “church” was characterized and best known for an era in which rival bishops and archbishops used gangs of ravenous monks to attack their theological opponents, where rivals in the church assassinated each other, where the secular ruler used his troops to support one interpretation of scripture over another, and barricaded dissenting congregations in their burning buildings.
As a result, Mohammed and his Companions (as Joe Smith Jr. was to do 1200 years later) created a religion that drew on both Old and New Testament and even pagan traditions, coupled it with a “new revelation” (the Qu’ran) and created a unique religion. In many ways, what developed over the next century could be described as “Judaism on steroids” for it took much from the Old Law and created a legalistic system that put anything First-Century Pharisees attempted in a distant second place.
Much of the new religion bore the unmistakable stamp of its origin in the Arab peoples of their vast and often inhospitable peninsula, just as 19th Century Mormonism wears the unquestionable dress of its American origins. Not only were old and favored shrines incorporated into the religion (geo-oriented as much as Judaism and completely unlike pure Christianity), but many of the customs and rituals of the previously pagan or mixed-faith tribes were embedded deeply in the new faith. It should come as no surprise that Islam proved such a perfect tool for Arab, Mongol, Turkic, and Persian imperialism for the next millennium.
In contrast to the messianic hope of the Old Testament faith of Moses and the Prophets, in contrast to the fulfilled promise of the Messiah’s incarnation and His promised return in glory, Islam offers a warped view of salvation by works and a “God-given” society designed for 7th Century Arabia, created by a man with obvious hatred for both Jews and Christians.
What is wrong with Islam, from a Biblical point of view? (A Baker’s Dozen ™: What is wrong with Islam according to the Bible):
1. Islam portrays God as vindictive, cruel, and hateful, and not loving and merciful (even though they are careful to call Him that).
2. Islam denies that Jesus is the Son of God, and demotes him from Savior to a mere “Prophet” on a par with Abraham, David, Isaiah, and Moses, and less important than “The Messenger” (Mohammed).
3. Islam denies the sufficiency of the Bible, adding not just the Qu’ran but many other writings, and claims that the Bible is corrupt and evil as it presently exists.
4. Islam, while claiming to revere the Old and New Testaments, constantly contradicts both portions of the Bible – claiming, for example, that Ishmael (not Isaac) was the son of promise.
5. Islam teaches salvation by works, and not by faith: that Judgment is a weighing of good and bad deeds, and that men can atone for their own sins.
6. Islam demands perfect adherence to the same sort of rituals and ceremonial, physical actions as found in the Old Law and put away forever by Christ’s sacrifice “once and for all.” Thus, it negates His life, death, burial, and resurrection.
7. Islam preaches violence, conquest, tyranny, slavery, degradation of women, and many other moral and social evils.
8. Islam promotes looting, killing, mutilation, conflict inside and outside families, spouse and child abuse, incest, polygamy, and pedophilia.
9. Islam promotes discrimination and segregation based on ancestry and such cultural features as language (promoting Arabic as the only acceptable language for religion, for example).
10. Islam seeks to unite church and state, elevating what should be “servants” (ministers) of God into masters, and making God into the patron of tyrants.
11. Islam’s followers take into their own hands things that are reserved alone to God, in matters of judgment and punishment.
12. Islam results in civil strife, bloodletting, racial prejudice, personal vengeance, invasions, poverty, slavery, mutilation, and general destruction.
13. Islam claims to result in unity in one single religious-political-cultural system (the “Ummah” or “dar al-Islam”) but the result has been more factions and religions and religious strife, not only outside Islam but within the religion.
Although many of these things have been practiced by some claiming to be christian over the centuries, they are unable to justify their actions by the New Testament (regardless of translation) whereas the Qu’ran can be cited in support of these things readily (even though some “moderate” or “liberal” Muslim “clerics” claim to interpret these things into mere symbolism or “spiritual” understandings. Today and always this has been viewed as an aberration, and condemned as the hypocrisy it is, by virtually all of “Christendom” – but it has been common and accepted in Islam, and for the most part still is today.
What should we do?
- Remember that we are to hate the sin, not the sinner.
- Be ready to preach, not just in word, but in deed, to those followers of Islam we encounter.
- Support mission work in areas under Islamic control and threatened by that religion, including areas here in the
- Teach the truth about Islam to other christians and non-christians, countering ideas that it is “peaceful” or “just another way to God.”
- Resist the slow creep of Islamic concepts into our society and even into religion in general – an all too common process going on in
- Understand and act on the urgency to preach to those who might be attracted by this “new” thing or rejecting the evils of “mainstream Christianity”
© Nathan A. Barton, April 2006
15 May 2006
Reprint from Apologetics Press: Murderous Scientists
|
|
|
In elementary schools, it often begins with a crush. In middle schools that crush is frequently transformed to idolization. During the rebellious years of high school, we try to act as if we dislike all of them—even though we still have our favorites. Then, in college, we respect them for their education, and in graduate or professional school we oftentimes revert back to idolization. Most of us can look back through our educational years and remember teachers who really stood out—teachers that made a difference in our lives. These are the ones who made an imprint on us—and as such, we often pattern our own values, beliefs, and ideology accordingly.
That’s all well and good when teachers maintain integrity and adhere to a strong moral code. But what happens when students worship a professor who suggests that we humans are no better than bacteria? And that the world would be a better place if we had an airborne version of Ebola that would wipe out 90% of the human population—a virtual holocaust to cleanse the Earth? To make matters worse, what message are we sending when we designate such a man as the “2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist?”
What does it take to earn the title of “Distinguished Texas Scientist”? Well, obviously, it does not hurt to do research in
In describing the event, attendee Forest Sims observed:
Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away. This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us. Because of many years of experience as a writer and editor, Pianka’s strange introduction and the TV camera incident raised a red flag in my mind. Suddenly I forgot that I was a member of the Texas Academy of Science and chairman of its Environmental Science Section. Instead, I grabbed a notepad so I could take on the role of science reporter (2006).
In his recounting of the wicked speech, Sims noted that one of the first planks Pianka laid was that humans were no better than animals. Recounting the story of a neighbor who questioned his interest in lizards, Pianka responded: “What good are you?” He then felt compelled to announce: “We are no better than bacteria!” (Sims, 2006).
From there, the speech took a decisively wicked turn, as Pianka insisted the Earth would not be able to sustain life without drastic measures. He proposed the only solution was to eliminate most of the world’s population. Reflecting back on the conference, Sims noted:
Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number. He then showed solutions for reducing the world’s population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved (2006, emp. added).
If Pianka’s words do not send chills up your spine you need to check your pulse. How does it feel knowing that this man is idolized, to the point that one of his students was heard to say: “I worship Dr. Pianka” (Sims, 2006). One wonders how many young graduate students currently enrolled at various universities “worship” this man and would be more than willing to work on creating an airborne strain of Ebola.
One of the saddest parts of this story was the audiences’ reaction. Instead of being outraged or standing up against Pianka, his own colleagues gave him a standing ovation. Sims observed:
When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn’t merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause (Sims, 2006).
This account should be a sobering reminder as to why there should be restraints on scientific research. Most scientists do not want any restrictions on their research, and in many cases their research has out-paced ethical laws. They contend that they should be a “self-governing body,” and yet we find them giving a standing ovation to a man who suggests that “billions must soon die” in order to solve the “population crisis.” In an article titled “Scientists Cheer Holocaust Wish,” the World Net Daily noted:
During a question-and-answer session, the audience laughed approvingly when Pianka offered the bird flu as another vehicle toward achieving his goal. They also chuckled when he suggested it was time to sterilize everyone on Earth. “What kind of reception have you received as you have presented these ideas to other audiences that are not representative of us?” asked one member of the audience. “I speak to the converted!” Pianka replied (see “Scientists Cheer...,” 2006).
Converted from what? Sanity?! Here is a man who is willing to press atheistic evolution to its logical conclusion. This is the same man who approves of the Chinese “one-child” policy and proclaimed that smarter people have fewer kids. As a society we must quickly acknowledge the fact that our children and grandchildren are placing many professors on pedestals. It’s time we hold those professors accountable for the seeds they are planting in the hearts and minds of our young people.
REFERENCES
“Scientists Cheer Holocaust Wish” (2006), World Net Daily, [On-line], URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49555.
Sims,
Copyright © 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "In the News" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
230 Landmark Drive
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
17 April 2006
Judas' Gospel and other Fairytales
Over the past year, attacks on the historical accuracy of the Bible, and the history of both Jesus and His church, have been appearing frequently. The book (soon-to-be movie) “The DaVinci Code”, revived interest in historic revisionism and conspiracy, creating fresh interest in books like “Holy Blood, Holy Grail.” Now, with the National Geographic Society’s publication of the so-called “Gospel of Judas,” another series of attacks have appeared.
One purpose of these attacks is to weaken faith in God by discrediting the accuracy and origins of the Bible. It is therefore critical to effectively counter such attempts.
All these books are based on one or more of a series of spurious “gospels” written in the second and third centuries, a hundred years or more after Jesus’ ascension. “The DaVinci Code” and “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” are based on two forgeries called the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. These claim that Jesus married the Magdalene (some claim He married Mary and Martha of Bethany, as well), and had children. Following Jesus’ death (and presumably, His resurrection), mother and child (or children) took refuge, either in Gaul (
“The Gospel of Judas” does not claim to be written by the traitor himself, but rather purports to tell the truth about Judas – that he was really the most beloved disciple, therefore hated by the others, and selected by Jesus to “betray” Him, thus triggering the entire Passion of our Lord. Of course, the Bible clearly contradicts this. Judas (like many Jews who listened to, and even followed Jesus) expected Jesus to be a powerful, earthly king, who would make
All these (and many more writings from AD 100 to perhaps AD 500) are examples of Gnostic texts. They were written to support a faction that claimed that “secret knowledge” existed and was necessary for “true” salvation. This faction mixed magic, ancient philosophies, even demonology, with the pure Gospel of Christ Jesus. They were never considered by any real christian to be Scripture, despite the claims being circulated today. The particular group or tradition which circulated “The Gospel of Judas” are often called Cainite Gnostics, because they had a regular cottage industry of rehabilitating biblical villains such as Cain, Saul, Simon the Sorcerer, and Judas.
Catholics (and most Protestants) today will claim that the Canon (the “official” listing of books of the Bible) was established by a worldwide Catholic council (convention) in the late forth century, AD, and that until that time, such books as the Judas, Thomas, and Mary Magdalene gospels might have been acceptable as “scripture.” This makes the Bible appear to be the creation of humans, of a church. Fortunately, that is not really what happened – it is false history, even outright propaganda.
What history shows is, that just as men inspired by God wrote the books that make up the Bible, so the Spirit inspired the assembling of those various books into a single collection, not later than AD 150 and likely even sooner, perhaps while John the Apostle was still alive. This agrees with Scripture itself. After that time, there were many challenges to specific books (as late as Martin Luther’s challenge of James’ letter), and these challenges were mostly put to rest by a series of these councils – which amounted to man presumptuously “ratifying” what God had done.
The bizarre and pernicious doctrine of Gnosticism first rose in New Testament times, as discussed in Titus 3:18, 2 Peter 2:1, 2 John 10-11, and perhaps 2 Corinthians 11:3-4. It was not a “competitor” to “orthodox” Christianity, as some would charge, but rather, a departure from the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (like so many other ideas). Its key aspects are strongly condemned in Scripture, and are incompatible with God’s revealed religion. Gnosticism is internally inconsistent and its writings, like all false teachings, contain many obvious errors.
Gnosticism is sometimes thought (in tradition) to be traced to Simon (Acts 9). It would create an inner “elite” or “initiate” church like most religions have – a system completely opposed to God’s will for the church. Sadly, Gnosticism is still a threat to the faith of members of the church today, in many different ways: the blending of pagan philosophies (such as “new age Christianity” or the modern Roman Catholic Church), the blending of science and religion, and such. The very idea that only an elite (priests, scientists, school-trained preachers, etc.) can understand God’s will, and other errors, are exactly the kind of Gnostic concepts that plagued the church 1700 years ago. The christian must be ever vigilant to deal with such issues as “The DaVinci Code” and “The Gospel of Judas.”
© Nathan A. Barton, 9 APR 2006, used by permission
[1] It is interesting, that as recently as this week, I have heard that John 13:26-27 is “proof” that the Gospel of Judas is true, because Jesus clearly commanded Judas to do the deed – rather than simply Jesus knowing what he would do. As with many other claims, this is based on the assumption that Jesus is human, not divine.
How to be saved
It is, despite so many people’s claims, very simple. Let us look at five very basic points, which will help you understand both yourself and the Lord.
God is the Lawmaker, and just as He made universal natural laws that govern the very elements of the Universe, He also created universal spiritual laws that govern our relationship with Him. Man can no more change these spiritual laws than Congress can change the law of gravity.
Point One
God LOVES you very much. He offers a wonderful future for your life.
God's Love: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
“Believe” as generally used in the Bible means much more than “thinking this is so,” as so many people would define it today. Here, it means more than recognizing that Christ Jesus exists; it means taking action to commit to His service. (Remember even Satan believes in God, "Thou believe that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." James 2:19)
True Biblical belief requires that we act on it by commiting our lives to Him.
God's Future: Jesus said, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (that is, full and complete) (John 10:10)
But few people HAVE that “abundant life.” Why?
Point Two
All people are SINFUL. Sin separates us from God. Separate from God, we cannot understand or experience God's love and future. "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) "For the [result] of sin is death" –not just physical death, but spiritual separation from God (Romans
God created Man to be in fellowship with Him. But our stubbornness has caused us to become willful, go our own way, and therefore, we break that fellowship with God. Whether our stubbornness is an active rebellion against God, or a passive apathy towards Him, it is sin, and separates us from our future and His love.
How do we end that separation?
Point Three
God provided just one solution for Man’s sin: Jesus Christ. Only through the Son of God can you can know and have God's love and future.
He Died in Our Stead: "But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8)
He Defeated Death: "... Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures ... he was buried ... he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1st Corinthians 15:3-6)
He is The Way to God ~ "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by
We must do more than “know” what God’s provision for us is; we must understand more...
Point Four
We must each RECEIVE and ACCEPT Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord; otherwise we can neither know nor have a future through God's love.
We Must Accept Jesus as the Christ (the Anointed): "But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John
We Can Have Christ Only through Faith ~ "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
We Must Be Born into Christ: "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the
We Are Personally Invited to Receive Him: Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come to him" (Revelation
Receiving Christ involves turning to God from self and sin (repentance) and trusting Christ to come into our lives to forgive our sins and to make us the kind of people He wants us to be. Just to agree intellectually that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died on the cross for our sins is not enough. Nor is it enough to have an emotional experience. We receive Jesus Christ by faith, as an act of will... and we must demonstrate that faith. True belief requires action.
Point Five
Once you have believed and rejected sin and self, you must accept Christ; you must become a born-again Christian by confessing His Name before men and being baptized INTO Jesus Christ.
We Must Have A Living Faith: "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works (deeds or service) is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" (James 2:20-22)
We Must Submit to His Will: “And they said, ‘Men and brethren, what must we do to be saved?’ And Peter answered and said, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts
A New Change ~ "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2nd Corinthians 5:17)
Yes it is true that works, service or good deeds do not save us; God alone can save us. But we must submit to Him and we do this through publicly confessing He is Lord and being buried with Him in the waters of baptism, “that we might rise to walk in newness of life.” (Romans )
Are you ready?
You can receive Christ right now very simply. First, you must by faith through prayer (that is, talking with God); show that you believe in God and His Son, and tell Him you repent of your past life of sin. God knows your heart, so don’t be as concerned with your words as with your attitude. You can then tell others, even if it is only one person (to start with) that you accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, your Lord and Savior. Then you can submit to Christ, in faith, in the waters of baptism (immersion in water), just as those thousands at Pentecost, the Ethiopian Eunich, the Philippian Jailer, and so many more from that day to this; “Arise, and be baptized, washing away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” (Acts 22:16) “This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you-not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.(1 Peter 3:21).
IF you are willing to submit, Jesus Christ will come into your life, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, just as He promised. We are very excited if you want to receive Jesus Christ as your Lord, and if you decide to follow Him. We would love to help you become and grow as a Christian. Please let me know if you need any further assistance, or if you need assistance in study or to be baptized into Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)