"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" To Judge Or Not To Judge (7:1-6) by Mark Copeland

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

To Judge Or Not To Judge (7:1-6)

INTRODUCTION

1. A favorite saying of many people is "Judge not, that you be not judged"...
   a. Frequently quoted whenever someone is pointing out the sins or faults of another
   b. The impression is that we should never make moral judgments in 
      what we see in others

2. Is that true?  Is that what Jesus meant when He said this?
   a. Are we never to make moral judgments about the right or wrong in other?
   b. If we see wrong in others, can we never point it out?

3. I am persuaded that Jesus' statement is often misused, that Jesus taught...
   a. There are times when we must judge
   b. There are times when it is appropriate to point out the faults in others

["To Judge Or Not To Judge", that is the question before us. The proper
answer comes from a closer look at Jesus' words in Mt 7:1-6. First note
how His words are frequently misused...]

I. HIS WORDS OFTEN USED TO FORBID "ALL" MANNER OF JUDGMENT

   A. SUCH AS ADVERSE OR UNFAVORABLE CRITICISM...
      1. Like pointing out a fault in someone else
      2. Even if it be truly "constructive" criticism

   B. SUCH AS THE EXERCISE OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE...
      1. Exercising discipline of any sort does require "judging" 
         others as to their moral or spiritual condition
      2. Since such "judgment" is involved, some feel verses 1-2 rule
         out any sort of church discipline

   C. SUCH AS EXPOSING THOSE WHO TEACH ERROR...
      1. Admittedly, it requires making a judgment in order to consider
         whether someone is teaching error
      2. Therefore, some people, in light of verses 1-2, believe we
         cannot speak out against those who teach error

[Is that what Jesus means?  Must we remain silent when we see people
overtaken in a fault, bringing reproach upon the name of Christ, or 
blatantly teaching error?  Let me suggest that...]

II. JESUS DID NOT RULE OUT "ALL" FORMS OF JUDGMENT

   A. NOTE THE "IMMEDIATE" CONTEXT...
      1. Which reveals that in some cases "proper" judgment must be made
      2. Mt 7:6 implies judgment is to be made as to who are "dogs" and
         who are "hogs"
         a. Otherwise, how can we know when not to give that which is 
            holy to "dogs"?
         b. Or how can we know when not to cast our pearls before "swine"?
      3. Mt 7:15-20 implies that we must make judgments in determining
         who is a false teacher ("by their fruits you will know them")
   
   B. CONSIDER THE "REMOTE" CONTEXT...
      1. Which speak of times when judgment must be made!
      2. Elsewhere, Jesus taught people to "judge with righteous
         judgment" - Jn 7:24
      2. Christians have a responsibility to "judge those who are
         inside" the local church - 1Co 5:9-13
      3. We are taught by the apostle of love (John) to "test the 
         spirits" (which requires making judgments) - 1Jn 4:1

[There is no contradiction here, for as we continue with our text, we notice that...]

III. JESUS DEFINED WHAT "KIND" OF JUDGING HE IS CONDEMNING

   A. JUDGING WHEN ONE IS BLIND TO HIS OR HER OWN FAULTS...
      1. Read carefully Mt 7:3-5
      2. Jesus is saying "that is it wrong for anyone to concentrate
         his attention on the speck in his brother's eye, and while
         thus occupied, to ignore the beam in his own eye" (Hendriksen)
      3. Just Paul taught the necessity of proper "introspection" when
         helping others - Ga 6:1

   B. JUDGING WITHOUT MERCY AND LOVE...
      1. "The Lord is here condemning the spirit of censoriousness,
         judging harshly, self-righteously, without mercy, without 
         love, as also the parallel passage (Lk 6:36-37) clearly 
         indicates." (Hendriksen)
      2. James warned against making judgments without mercy - Jm 2:13
         a. If we make judgments without showing mercy, then no mercy
            will be shown when we are judged!
         b. Just as Jesus said in verse 2...
            1) "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged"
            2) "With the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you"

[The implication is not we should never judge, but when we do judge,
remember that we shall be judged by the same standards we use!  Let 
mercy and love temper our judgments.  Finally...]

IV. JESUS IMPLIES THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE "MUST" MAKE JUDGMENTS!

   A. IT IS "AFTER" WE HAVE CORRECTED OUR OWN FAULTS...
      1. First, we must remove the "beam" from our own eye - Mt 7:5
      2. When we have done so, we are able to see, discern (judge), and
         be of help to others who are overtaken in their faults
      3. Indeed, "the law of Christ" requires us to! - cf. Ga 6:1-2

   B. AGAIN, WE MUST JUDGE BETWEEN THOSE "WORTHY" AND THOSE WHO ARE
      "HOGS & DOGS"...
      1. Note carefully Jesus' words in Mt 7:6
         a. Some are not worthy of that which "holy"
         b. Some are like "dogs" and "swine"
         -- Determining who is which requires "judgment" upon our part!
      2. With those who are receptive, we are to be long-suffering in
         trying to help them come out of their error - cf. 2Ti 2:24-26
      3. But for those who are not, we are not to waste what is good 
         and holy on them!
         a. Cf. the instructions of Jesus to His disciples - Mt 10:12-15
         b. Cf. the example of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch of Pisidia
            - Ac 13:42-46

CONCLUSION

1. The kind of judging forbidden by Jesus is that which LENSKI calls:

      "self-righteous, hypocritical judging which is false and calls
      down God's judgment on itself."

2. This is the kind of judging that was also condemned by James when he wrote:

   "Do not speak evil of one another, brethren.  He who speaks evil
   of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and
   judges the law.  But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of
   the law but a judge."
   
   "There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.  Who
   are you to judge another?" 
                                           (Jm 4:11-12)

3. May God help us to refrain from such judging...
   a. To be more apt to remove the "beams" from our own eyes
   b. To then be more useful in helping others with their problems

But to say we should never judge, is to abuse what Jesus teaches, not
only in this passage but elsewhere as well!

Speaking of judging, are you preparing yourself for the day in which
you will be judged by the Lord?  - cf. Jn 12:48; 2Co 5:10

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Worship of Jesus by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1481

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Worship of Jesus

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, “Jesus is not God,” and thus should not be worshiped by Christians. The Watchtower, a magazine published twice a month by Jehovah’s Witnesses, has repeatedly made such claims through the years. In their September 15, 2005 issue, for example, they stated quite simply that the Scriptures “show that Jesus is not God Almighty.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ official Web site (jw.org), which republishes many items from The Watchtower, briefly answers the question “Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in Jesus?,” concluding, “we do not worship Jesus, as we do not believe that he is Almighty God” (2015). After all, allegedly “in his prehuman existence, Jesus was a created spirit being…. Jesus had a beginning and could never be coequal with God in power or eternity” (“What Does the Bible…?,” 2000, emp. added). The October 15, 2004 issue of The Watchtower concluded a section about Jesus not being the true God with these words: “Jehovah, and no one else, is ‘the true God and life everlasting.’ He alone is worthy to receive exclusive worship from those whom he created.—Revelation 4:11” (p. 31). Since God alone is worthy of worship, and since Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is only an angel and not God (see “The Truth About Angels,” 1995), He allegedly should not be worshiped.

God alone is worthy of worship

There is no argument over the fact that God alone is worthy of worship. Jehovah revealed His will to Moses on Mt. Sinai, saying, “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:3-5). Regarding the Gentiles who were sent to live in Samaria after the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom of Israel, the Bible says:

To this day they continue practicing the former rituals; they do not fear the Lord, nor do they follow their statutes or their ordinances, or the law and commandment which the Lord had commanded the children of Jacob, whom He named Israel, with whom the Lord had made a covenant and charged them, saying: “You shall not fear other gods, nor bow down to them nor serve them nor sacrifice to them; but the Lord, who brought you up from the land of Egypt with great power and an outstretched arm, Him you shall fear, Him you shall worship, and to Him you shall offer sacrifice” (2 Kings 17:34-36, emp. added).

The Bible reveals time and again that God alone is to be worshiped. Luke recorded that King Herod was eaten with worms because, instead of glorifying God Almighty, he allowed the people to glorify him as a god (Acts 12:21-23). Herod’s arrogant spirit stands in direct contrast to the reaction that Paul and Barnabas had when the citizens of Lystra attempted to worship them (Acts 14:8-18). After Paul healed a man who had been crippled from his birth, the people of Lystra shouted: “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men.” They even called Paul and Barnabas by the names of their gods (Hermes and Zeus), and sought to worship them with sacrifice. Had these two preachers had the same arrogant spirit as Herod, they would have accepted worship, and felt as if they deserved such honor. Instead, these Christian men “tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, ‘Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you’” (Acts 14:15). Paul recognized that it is unlawful for humans to worship other humans, and thus sought to turn the people’s attention toward God, and away from himself.

The Bible also reveals that man must refrain from worshiping angels. When the apostle John fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who had revealed to him the message of Revelation, the angel responded, saying, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God” (Revelation 22:9, emp. added; cf. 19:10). Angels, idols, and humans are all unworthy of the reverent worship that is due only to God. As Jesus reminded Satan: “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve’” (Matthew 4:10, emp. added).

Jesus Accepted Worship

The dilemma in which Jehovah’s Witnesses find themselves is that they believe Jesus was a good man and prophet, yet unlike good men and good angels who have always rejected worship from humanity, Jesus accepted worship. If worship is to be reserved only for God, and Jesus, the One “who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22), accepted worship, then the logical conclusion is that Jesus believed that He was deity. Numerous times the Bible mentions that Jesus accepted worship from mankind. Matthew 14:33 indicates that those who saw Jesus walk on water “worshiped Him.” John 9:38 reveals that the blind man whom Jesus had healed, later confessed his belief in Jesus as the Son of God and “worshiped him.” After Mary Magdalene and the other women visited the empty tomb of Jesus, and the risen Christ appeared to them, “they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him” (Matthew 28:9). When Thomas first witnessed the resurrected Christ, he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Later, when Jesus appeared to the apostles in Galilee, “they worshiped Him” on a mountain (Matthew 28:17). A few days after that, his disciples “worshiped Him” in Bethany (Luke 24:52). Time and time again Jesus accepted the kind of praise from men that is due only to God. He never sought to correct His followers and redirect the worship away from Himself as did the angel in Revelation or the apostle Paul in Acts 14. Nor did God strike Jesus with deadly worms for not redirecting the praise He received from men as He did Herod, who, when being hailed as a god, “did not give praise to God” (Acts 12:23).

Sadly, Jehovah’s Witnesses have attempted to circumvent the obvious references to Jesus accepting worship by changing the word “worship” in their New World Translation to “obeisance” every time the Greek word proskuneo (the most prominent word for worship in the New Testament) is used in reference to Jesus. Over 30 times in the New World Translation (first published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 1950) proskuneo is correctly translated “worship” when God the Father is the recipient of glory and praise. This Greek word occurs 14 times in the New Testament in reference to Jesus, yet not once do more recent editions of the New World Translationrender it “worship;” instead, every time it is translated “obeisance.” Allegedly, Mary Magdalene, the apostles, the blind man whom Jesus healed, etc., never worshiped Jesus; rather, they only paid “obeisance” to Him.

In 21^st-century English, people generally make a distinction between the verbs “worship” and “do obeisance.” Most individuals, especially monotheists, use the word worship in a positive sense when talking about God, whereas “obeisance” is used more often in reference to the general respect given to people held in high regard. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “obeisance” as “1. A gesture or movement of the body, such as a curtsy, that expresses deference or homage. 2. An attitude of deference or homage,” whereas the verb “worship” is defined as “1. To honor and love as a deity. 2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion” (2000, emp. added). The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society agrees with the distinction often made between these words in modern English: God should be “worshiped,” while Jesus (we are told) should only receive “obeisance” (i.e., the respect and submission one pays to important dignitaries and superiors).

The Greek word proskuneo, which appears in the New Testament 60 times, literally means “to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence” (Thayer, 1962, p. 548; see also Mounce, 1993, p. 398). According to Greek scholars Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, this word was used in ancient times “to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity or something holy” (1979, p. 723). Admittedly, the word “obeisance” could be used on occasions to translate proskuneo. The problem is that Jehovah’s Witnesses make an arbitrary distinction between obeisance and worship when it comes to the token of reverence that Jesus in particular was given. They translate proskuneo as “obeisance” every time Jesus is the object, yet never when God the Father is the recipient of honor and praise.

As with other words in the Bible that have multiple meanings, the context can help determine the writer’s intended meaning. Consider the circumstances surrounding some of the occasions when Jesus is mentioned as the object of man’s devotion.

• In John chapter nine, Jesus miraculously healed a man who was “blind from his birth” (vs. 1). When the man upon whom this miracle was performed appeared before various Jews in the synagogue and called Jesus a prophet (vs. 17), he was instructed to “give glory to God,” not Jesus, because allegedly Jesus “is a sinner” (vs. 24). Later, after the man born blind was cast out of the synagogue, Jesus informed him of His true identity—that He was not just a prophet, but also “the Son of God.” At that moment, the gentleman exclaimed, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped Him (vs. 38). Although the Greek word proskuneo was used in ancient times of paying respect or doing obeisance to people, no such translation is warranted in this passage. In the Gospel of John, this word is found 11 times. In every instance, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation renders it “worship,” except here in John 9:38 where it is arbitrarily translated “obeisance.”
• Following a day in which Jesus miraculously fed 5,000 men (not including women and children) with only five loaves of bread and two fish, Matthew recorded how Jesus literally walked on the water in the midst of the Sea of Galilee during a violent storm, saved Peter from drowning, and then walked onto a boat where He was met with those who “worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly You are the Son of God’” (Matthew 14:33). Jesus’ worshipers did not merely pay Him the same respect (or “obeisance”) that one pays a respected ruler, teacher, or master—people incapable of such feats. On the contrary, they recognized that Jesus had overcome the laws of nature, and that His actions warranted praise and adoration—not as a man, but as the “Son of God.” If Jesus was not worthy of such praise, why did He accept it? If Jesus was not to be adored, why did the angel of the Lord not strike Him with the same deadly worms with which he struck Herod (Acts 12:23)?
• After defeating death and rising from the grave, a sign which declared Him to be “the Son of God with power” (Romans 1:4), Jesus accepted worship (proskuneo) from Mary Magdalene and the other women who went to visit the tomb of Jesus (Matthew 28:8-9), as well as all of the apostles (Matthew 28:17). Jesus was not the only one ever to be resurrected from the dead, but He was the only resurrected individual the Bible mentions as afterwards receiving praise and adoration (i.e., worship) from man. The widow’s son of Zarephath (1 Kings 17:22), the son of a Shunammite (2 Kings 4:32-35), the daughter of Jairus (Mark 8:21-24,35-43), the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-16), Lazarus (John 11:1-45), Tabitha (Acts 9:36-43), and Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12) all were raised from the dead, but none received proskuneo. The Bible never reveals any resurrected person other than Jesus who ever received and accepted worship. Jesus’ followers recognized that His resurrection was different. It verified His claims of divinity.
• The disciples worshiped Jesus again at His ascension. After recording that Jesus was “carried up into heaven,” Luke wrote: “[T]hey worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the Temple praising and blessing God” (Luke 24:52). Notice that the word “worshiped” (proskuneo) is used in this passage along with such words as “praising” and “blessing”—words that carry a religious connotation in connection with God. This fact highlights that the use of proskuneo in this context is not merely obeisance. Also, notice that the disciples offered worship to an “absent” Savior. It would make no sense to pay obeisance to a respected individual that has departed, but makes perfect sense if, rather, the individual is God and worthy of worship. The disciples did not just bow before some earthly ruler; they worshiped their Lord Who had defeated death 40 days earlier, and had just ascended up into heaven before their eyes.

Jesus did not receive proskuneo on these occasions because He was a great teacher, or because He was viewed at these moments simply as an earthly king. Rather, all of these instances of worship were surrounded by miraculous events that were done to prove He was Heaven sent, and that “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9). There is every reason to believe that on such occasions as these, Jesus’ disciples meant to pay divine, religious honor to Him, not mere civil respect or regard that earthly rulers often receive.

Waffling on the Worship of Jesus

To the church at Philippi the apostle Paul wrote: “Therefore God also has highly exalted Him [Jesus] and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9-11, emp. added). The reference to the bowing of the knee is an obvious allusion to worship (cf. Isaiah 45:23; Romans 1:4). Such worship, Paul wrote, would not only come from those on Earth, but also from “those in heaven” (Philippians 2:10). This statement harmonizes well with Hebrews 1:6. In a section in which the writer of Hebrews exalted Jesus above the heavenly hosts, he affirmed that even the angels worship Christ. He wrote: “Let all the angels of God worship (proskuneo) Him.” The KJV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, RSVand a host of other translations render proskuneo in this verse as “worship.” How does the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translationrender this passage? Unfortunately, as with all other times in the NWT when Jesus is mentioned as being the object ofproskuneo, the word is translated “do obeisance,” not “worship.” Hebrews 1:6 reads: “Let all God’s angels do obeisance to him” (NWT).

Interestingly, however, the NWT has not always rendered proskuneo in Hebrews 1:6 as “do obeisance.” When Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Watchtower Bible and Tract Society first printed the NWT in 1950, the verse actually rendered proskuneo as “worship” instead of “do obeisance.” Even the revised 1961 edition of the NWT translated proskuneo as “worship.” But, by 1971, Jehovah’s Witnesses had changed Hebrews 1:6 to read: “Let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

The fact is, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has been very inconsistent in their teachings on whether or not Jesus should be worshiped. In the past few decades Jehovah’s Witnesses’ flagship magazine (November 1964, p. 671) has claimed that “it is unscriptural for worshipers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ” (as quoted in Rhodes, 2001, p. 26; see also The Watchtower 2004, pp. 30-31). But, “from the beginning it was not so.” Notice what Jehovah’s Witnesses used to teach in The Watchtower (called Zion’s Watch Tower in the early days) regarding whether or not Jesus should be worshiped:

• “The wise men came at His birth to worship Him. (Matt. 2) The leper worshiped Him. They in the ship worshiped Him, as did also the ruler and woman of Canaan. Yet none were ever rebuked for it…. [T]o worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong” (Allen, 1880, emp. added).
• “[A]lthough we are nowhere instructed to make petitions to him, it evidently could not be improper to do so; for such a course is nowhere prohibited, and the disciples worshiped him” (Zion’s Watch Tower, 1892, emp. added).
• “Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so” (Zion’s Watch Tower, 1898).
• “[W]hosoever should worship Him must also worship and bow down to Jehovah’s Chief One in that capital organization, namely, Christ Jesus…” (The Watchtower, 1945, p. 313).

For more than half a century, Jehovah’s Witnesses taught that it was acceptable to worship Jesus. Now, however, they claim it is unscriptural. Such inconsistency regarding the nature of Christ, which is no small matter, reveals to the honest truth seeker that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is an advocate of serious biblical error.

Sadly, Jehovah’s Witnesses not only reject the worship of Jesus because of their belief that He is not deity, they also must deny Him such religious devotion because they teach He actually is an angel. The Watchtower has taught such a notion for several years. The November 1, 1995 issue indicated, “The foremost angel, both in power and authority, is the archangel, Jesus Christ, also called Michael” (“The Truth About Angels”). More recently, an article appeared on the Jehovah’s Witnesses official Web site affirming “the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth…. [I]t is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role” (“Who Is Michael…?,” 2015). Since, according to Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, good angels do not accept worship, but rather preach the worship of God, and no other, Jehovah’s Witnesses must reject paying religious praise and devotion to Jesus. But, notice (again) how inconsistent Jehovah’s Witnesses have been. In only the fifth issue ofZion’s Watch Tower magazine (originally edited by Charles Taze Russell, the founderof The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), regular contributing writer J.H. Paton stated about Jesus: “Hence it is said, ‘let all the angels of God worship him’: (that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God)…” (1879, p. 4, emp. added). Thus, at one time Jehovah’s Witnesses’ official publication taught that Jesus is not Michael the archangel, and that Heshould be worshiped. In the 21^st century, however, Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus is Michael the archangel, and that He should not be worshiped. Clear contradictory statements like these found throughout the years in The Watchtower should compel current and potential members of this religious group to question their teachings in light ofthe Truth found in God’s Word.

“Worthy is the Lamb”

One additional passage to consider regarding the worship of Jesus is Revelation chapters four and five. In chapter four, the scene in this book of signs (cf. 1:1) is the throne room of God. The “Lord God Almighty” is described as sitting on His throne while “the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him” (4:9). Also, “the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: ‘You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created’” (4:10-11). In chapter five, the Lamb that was slain is introduced as standing “in the midst of the throne” (5:6). No one argues the fact that this Lamb is Jesus—the One Whom John the Baptizer twice called “The Lamb of God” (John 1:29,36), and Whom Peter called the “lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19). Regarding this Lamb, the apostle John recorded the following in Revelation 5:11-14:

Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom, and strength and honor and glory and blessing!” And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: “Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever!” Then the four living creatures said, “Amen!” And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped Him who lives forever and ever (emp. added).

In this chapter, John revealed that both God the Father and Jesus are worthy to receive worship from all of creation. In fact, Jesus is given the same praise and adoration that the Father is given. Just as God is “worthy…to receive glory and honor and power” (4:11), so Jesus is “worthy…to receive power…and honor and glory…” (5:12).  Indeed, “[b]lessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever” (5:13, emp. added). Although Jehovah’s Witnesses use Revelation 4:11 as a proof text for worshiping God the Father (see “What Does God…?,” 1996, p. 4), they reject and call unscriptural the worship that Jesus rightly deserves.

Conclusion

Jesus once stated during His earthly ministry, “[A]ll should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23). Sadly, Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to honor Jesus in the same way they honor God the Father. While on Earth, Jesus was honored on several occasions. His followers worshiped Him. They even worshiped Him after His ascension into heaven (Luke 24:52). Unlike good men and angels in Bible times who rejected worship, Jesus unhesitatingly received glory, honor, and praise from His creation. Truly, such worship is one of the powerful proofs of the deity of Christ.

References

Allen, L.A. (1880), “A Living Christ,” Zion’s Watch Tower, March,https://archive.org/stream/1880ZionsWatchTower/1880_Watch_Tower_djvu.txt.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.

“Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in Jesus?” (2015), http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/believe-in-jesus/.

Mounce, William D. (1993),Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Paton, J.H. (1879), “The Name of Jesus,”Zion’s Watch Tower, November,https://archive.org/stream/1879ZionsWatchTower/1879_Watch_Tower_djvu.txt.

Rhodes, Ron (2001), The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah’s Witness (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers).

Thayer, Joseph (1962 reprint), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

“The Truth About Angels” (1995), The Watchtower, November 1.

The Watchtower, 1945, October 15.

The Watchtower, 2004, October 15.

The Watchtower, 2005, September 15.

“What Does God Require of Us?” (1996), Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York.

“What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?” (2000), Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

“Who Is Michael the Archangel?” (2015), http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/.

Zion’s Watch Tower, 1892, May 15, https://archive.org/stream/1898ZionsWatchTower/1898_Watch_Tower_djvu.txt.

Zion’s Watch Tower, 1898, July 15, https://archive.org/stream/1892ZionsWatchTower/1892_Watch_Tower_djvu.txt.

Is There Any Evidence that Christ's Return is Imminent? by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1336

Is There Any Evidence that Christ's Return is Imminent?

by	Wayne Jackson, M.A.

Q.

A major advertisement has appeared recently in newspapers around the country. It is titled: “Christ Is Coming ‘Very, Very Soon.’ ” The piece begins: “The evidence for the soon return of Christ is overwhelming.” Several “clues” are then offered whereby one may calculate that Jesus’ return is near. Would you comment on this?

A.

I have the advertisement before me. I will review the so-called “clues” as to the time of Christ’s return.

1. It is alleged that the nation of Israel was “miraculously reborn on May 14, 1948,” and that this is “God’s time clock” indicating that the end is near. Amazingly, not one passage of scripture is cited to prove this baseless assertion—the reason being, there is none.
    
2. It is argued that 2 Timothy 3:1ff.,which describes a “plummeting morality,” reveals that Jesus’ return is imminent. First, there is not a word in this context about the Lord’s second coming. Second, the verb in verse 5, “turn away,” is, in the original language, a present, middle, imperative form. The imperative mood reveals that it is a command to Timothy. The middle voice suggests that Timothy is to personally turn himself away from the evil persons thus described. The present tense “be turning away,” reveals that Paul’s young companion was living in the time of this corruption, the “last days” (vs. 1), at that very moment. The expression does not focus, therefore, on an age 2,000 years in the future.
    
3. It is contended that the “signs” of Matthew 24:6-8 (e.g., famines, wars, and earthquakes) indicate that Jesus is coming “very, very soon.” But the “signs” of Matthew 24:6ff. had to do with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, not this modern era. Christ plainly taught that “this generation” (vs. 34)—i.e., the generation contemporary with Him (Arndt, 1967, p. 153)—would witness these signs. There is historical evidence aplenty to document the presence of such events in the forty-year interval between the time of Christ’s death and the fall of Jerusalem. There were conflicts in the administrations of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero (Josephus, Antiquities, 20.1.6). Josephus penned a work designated, The Wars of the Jews. The title itself is a commentary on these tumultuous times. It is well known that famines were frequent during these four decades (cf. Acts 11:28). Suetonius, a Roman historian, described the administration of Claudius as characterized by “continual scarcity” (Claud., c.18). As for earthquakes, they were devastating during this era. They are recorded by historians Josephus (Wars, 4.4), Tacitus (Annales xii.58; xiv.27; xv.22), and Seneca (Epistle 91). It is thus futile to apply the predictions of Matthew 24 to this current period of history (see Jackson, 1998). Is it not strange that Christ, Who gave these signs, did not know when the “end” would be (Matthew 24:36), but modern “prophets” can read them and provide us with the precise schedule?
    
4. It is suggested that Daniel 12:4 prophesies an increase in travel and education at the end of time, and that such is clearly characteristic of our age. This passage is quite ambiguous, and various views are entertained by good scholars—e.g., that “run to and fro” really means to “read thoroughly,” and thus encourages a careful study of this inspired book (Rose and Fuller, 1981, 6:392). At any rate, there is nothing in the passage that can identify a particular age. The fact is, transportation and knowledge have accelerated in every period of human history, and will continue to do so until the end of time. That is the nature of human genius. It is useless to cite Daniel 12:4 as a clue to the end of Earth’s history.
    
5. The advertisement under review alleges that the current explosion of “cults and the occult” is detailed in biblical literature; we therefore can know that the end is near on this basis. Two passages are cited as proof-texts—Matthew 24:24 and 1 Timothy 4:1. Again, though, Matthew 24:24—a prediction of false Christs, prophets, etc.—has to do with that period prior to Jerusalem’s demise (cf. 34). Josephus recorded that the administration of Felix, a Roman procurator in Judea (A.D. 52-60), was known for its “impostors (Antiquities 20.8.5). Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist, said that Simon Magnus went to Rome, where he deceived many with his magic and was honored as deity. He cited an inscription that bore these words: “To Simon the holy God” (Apology, I.26).
   
   The reference in 1 Timothy 4:1ff. is a general allusion to the apostasy that would defect from the apostolic faith throughout the Christian age. The expression “latter times” likely is equivalent to “latter days” (cf. 2 Timothy 3:1), i.e., the final dispensation of time, the Christian era. Though Paul intended to warn regarding the future, he nonetheless saw the apostasy as already in operation (cf. White, 1956, 4:120). In fact, this point is made quite clear in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 where the “mystery of lawlessness” is “already at work.” This context contains no clue as to the end of time.
    
6. It is asserted that the Bible predicts the rise of a “new world order” involving a “centralization of world financial and political power” in the end times, and that these conditions are current. Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 are cited vaguely as proofs. The truth is, both of these contexts have to do with developments out of the ancient Roman empire (see Jackson, 1995, pp. 48-71). They do not refer to America!
    
7. Finally, it is claimed that just as angels announced Christ’s first coming (Luke 1:26), even so, angels recently have visited a number of folks, reporting that the end is near. This testimony is about as reliable as those who declare that they have been abducted by space aliens. There is no evidence whatever that angels are appearing to, or communicating with, people today.

There is no biblical information regarding the time of the Lord’s return. The end will occur unexpectedly (Matthew 24:36ff.).

REFERENCES

Arndt, W.F., and F.W. Gingrich (1967), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago).

Jackson, Wayne (1995), Select Studies in the Book of Revelation (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).

Jackson, Wayne (1998), At His Coming, ed. David Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University), in press.

Rose, H.J., and J.M. Fuller (1981), The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

White, N.J.D. (1956), The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Is the Pope “Infallible”? by Moisés Pinedo

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2594

Is the Pope “Infallible”?

by	Moisés Pinedo

One of the most treasured doctrines of the Roman papacy is that of infallibility. This dogma was issued by Pope Pius IX and was approved and defined by the Vatican I Council in 1870. The conciliar document declares that

when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA...he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable (“First Dogmatic...,” 1870, 4.9).

In other words, papal infallibility means that the pope makes, or should make, no mistakes in matters concerning the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Council even went so far as to state that “should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition [of papal infallibility—MP] of ours: let him be anathema [condemned—MP]” (“First Dogmatic...,” 1870, 4.9).

For more than a century, this dogma has plagued many Catholics who have worked feverishly to try to harmonize the nature of the “infallible” dogma with the declarations, teachings, and revelations of the popes who lived before and after its establishment. After all, it is claimed that the Catholic Church does not create new dogmas; rather, it proposes eternal truths already contained in the “deposit of faith” (see “Roman Catholic...,” 1892, 8:772; Dixon, 1852, p. 197). Therefore, it could be said that, before the 19th century, every pope has been subject to “infallibility” without knowing it.

History militates against papal infallibility. For example, Pope Honorius I (A.D. 625-638) was deemed a “heretic” for many years after his death for espousing the doctrine of monotheletism (the doctrine that acknowledged two distinct natures within Christ, but only one divine will). He was censured by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 (see “Honorius I,” 2001). Another pope, Eugenius IV (1431-1447), condemned Joan of Arc, considering her to be a participant of witchcraft, though Benedict XV canonized her as a “saint” in 1920 (see “Joan...,” 2001). Other popes, such as Paul III, Paul IV, Sixtus IV, Pius IX, et al., authorized, promoted, incited, and reinforced the “Holy” Inquisition for which the late Pope John Paul II had to apologize worldwide.

John Paul II himself (1978-2005) gave a fatal blow to the doctrine of infallibility. In opposition to the declarations of other popes and to Catholic doctrine itself, this pope declared:

• The Spirit of Christ uses churches and ecclesial communities other than the Catholic Church as means of salvation (1979, 4.32).
• People outside the Catholic Church and the Gospel can attain salvation by the grace of Christ (1990, 1.10).
• People can be saved by living a good moral life, without knowing anything about Christ and the Catholic Church (1993, 3).
• There is sanctification outside the Catholic Church (1995, 1.12).
• The martyrs of any religious community can find the extraordinary grace of the Holy Spirit (1995, 3.84).

Furthermore, concerning the erroneous concept of organic evolution, on October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II declared that “new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis” (see John Paul II, 1996). But if evolution is to be considered more than merely a hypothesis, Adam disappears! Ultimately, then, how can it be, as Catholics allege, that humanity carries the sin of the first man? Should they not say, instead, that humanity carries the “sin” of the last primate from which we “descended” (as if primates could sin!)?

Due to this obvious failure to satisfy the demands of infallibility, Catholicism has to explain, reformulate, and justify the dogma. Innumerable “clarifications” have been offered to calm Catholics and other religious people who question its veracity. Concerning the possibility that the pope could fall into heresy, Cardinal Cajetan, one of the most outspoken supporters of papal infallibility, maintained that “this only applies to the pope as a private individual, for then he is as fallible as any other person” (quoted in Fernhout, 1994, p. 106).

In a Web site devoted to Catholic apologetics, the following is said about the pope:

And if he is a heretic, at least he is not going to declare his heresies as part of the doctrine of the profession, that is, things which we are required to believe and observe. It was never permitted by the Holy Spirit (see Toth, et al., n.d).

Other apologists even have gone so far as to declare that

it is true that certain popes have contradicted other popes, in their private opinions or concerning disciplinary dogmas; but there was never a Pope who would officially contradict what a previous Pope officially taught about faith and moral matters. The same could be said about ecumenical councils, which also teach with infallibility. There was not an ecumenical council that would contradict the teaching of a previous ecumenical council concerning faith and morals (Keating, n.d., emp. added).

Now Catholicism proposes that, in reality, the pope can make mistakes in religious matters, but he never will do it officially. [This is very convenient, since Catholicism itself defines what is “official.”] In the same way, we are told that the councils invoked by the popes teach with infallibility and never contradict each other. But are these statements true? We are going to let the two last official councils of the Catholic Church answer this question.

In its Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Vatican I Council expressed the following:

The abandonment and rejection of the Christian religion, and the denial of God and his Christ, has plunged the minds of many into the abyss of pantheism, materialism and atheism, and the consequence is that they strive to destroy rational nature itself, to deny any criterion of what is right and just.... And so we, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, in accordance with our supreme apostolic office, have never left off teaching and defending Catholic truth and condemning erroneous doctrines (1870, 7,10, emp. added).

While Vatican I condemned erroneous doctrines such as the denial of Christ, Vatican II declares:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth.... Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet (“Declaration Nostra Aetate...,” 1965, 3, emp. added).

But Muslims’ refusal to acknowledge Jesus as God is a denial of God and His Christ, and thus the heresy condemned by Vatican I.

In its canonic sentence on written revelation, Vatican I states:

If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired: let him be anathema [condemned—MP] (“Canons,” 1870, 2.4, emp. added).

However, Vatican II, in speaking about Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions that discard much of canonical Scripture, declared that these religions

try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men (“Declaration Nostra Aetate...,” 1965, 2, emp. added).

On the permanence of the Petrine primacy of the Roman pontiffs, Vatican I, in its Pastor Aeternus, declares:

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema (“First Dogmatic...,” 1870, 2.5, parenthetical item in orig., emp. added).

However, Vatican II claims:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter [that is to say, they do not accept the papal hierarchy—MP]. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ (“Dogmatic Constitution...,” 1964, 2.15, emp. added).

Now Vatican II has “united to Christ” the same people who, for refusing Petrine hierarchy, were condemned as anathema by Vatican I. Truth be told, the Vatican II Council, invoked by John XXIII, cannot coexist with Vatican I Council, invoked by Pius IX (the father of the dogma of infallibility). These two councils stand as permanent historical evidence of papal fallibility.

Upon analyzing the allegedly infallible history of the popes, we can arrive only at the same conclusion to which Adrian VI (another supposedly infallible pope) arrived in the 16th century: “The pope may err even in what belongs to the faith” (McClintock and Strong, 1867-1880, 1:83).

Certainly, the doctrine of papal infallibility has caused, and continues to cause, many people to accept false doctrines such as original sin, the assumption of Mary, the canonization of saints, the “factuality” of evolution, and even papal “infallibility” itself—doctrines that are completely lacking biblical foundation. Christians must understand that there is only one infallible truth—the Word of God (John 17:17). It is this truth from which we need to obtain the salvation of our souls. It will keep us away from error and apostasy. In the end, when our Savior returns in the clouds to reward and punish in a universal Judgment, it will not be the words of men’s fallible councils, but the Word of God, that will be open; then the Lord will give the “canonical” sentence.

REFERENCES

“Canons” (1870), First Vatican Council [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#5.

“Declaration Nostra Aetate on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions” (1965), Second Vatican Council [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_ vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028 _nostra-aetate_en.html.

Dixon, Joseph (1852), A General Introduction to the Sacred Scriptures (Baltimore: John Murphy).

“Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith” (1870), First Vatican Council [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4.

“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” (1964), Second Vatican Council [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_const_19641121_ lumen-gentium_en.html.

Fernhout Rein (1994), Canonical Texts: Bearers of Absolute Authority (Atlanta, GA: Editions Rodopi).

“First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ” (1870), First Vatican Council [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6.

“Honorius I” (2001), Encarta Encyclopedia 2002 (Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation).

John Paul II (1979), “Catechesi Tradendae,” [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/ john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_16101979_ catechesi-tradendae_en.html.

John Paul II (1990), “Redemptoris Missio,” [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/ holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_ redemptoris-missio_en.html.

John Paul II (1993), “Veritatis Splendor,” [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/ john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis- splendor_en.html.

John Paul II (1995), “Ut Unum Sint,” [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/ john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ ut-unum-sint_en.html.

John Paul II (1996), “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth,” [On-line], URL: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm.

“Joan of Arc, Saint” (2001), Encarta Encyclopedia 2002 (Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation).

Keating, Karl (no date), Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” [On-line], URL: http://apologetica.org/infalibilidad-keating.htm.

McClintock, John and James Strong (1867-1880), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1968-1970 reprint.

“Roman Catholic Church” (1892), Chambers’ Encyclopædia (London: J.B. Lippincott).

Toth, T. A. Hillaire, and A.L. Rascón (no date), “Reflections about the Church’s Infallibility” [“Reflexiones en Torno a la Infalibilidad de la Iglesia”], [On-line], URL: http://apologetica.org/infalibilidad.htm.

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS by steve finnell

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/perseverance-of-saints-by-steve-finnell.html

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS by steve finnell

When is it ok to disagree with a teaching of your church? It is permissible to disagree with church doctrine if it is contrary to the doctrine of God? 

Church Doctrine: Christians never die in disobedience, because they are once saved always saved.

God's Word: Ananias and Sapphira were Christians who lied to God and were struck dead by God. They died in disobedience. They were not once saved always saved. (Act 5:1-11)

Acts 5:11 So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.

If all Christians in the church are once saved always saved, then why were they fearful? If it is possible to lie to God and be struck dead and then go to heaven, would not many in the church have gladly taken that deal?

The doctrine of perseverance of the saints, aka "once saved always saved" was invented by ignorant and confused men and is perpetuated by professional deceivers.

Teaching Our Children And Grandchildren by B. Johnson

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Johnson/Edna/Elizabeth/1939/teachingchildren.html

Teaching Our Children And Grandchildren

Many have asked the question: Should grandparents as well as parents teach the children in the home? Let us listen to the Lord as He describes His will for these matters.

There is no doubt whether parents were to teach their children even under the Old Law. "And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes" (Deut 6:6-8).

In the Psalms, the Lord used King David to give counsel for teaching future generations. "Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, shewing to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done. For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children: That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children: That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments: And might not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God" (Ps 78:1-8).

Every aspect of the Law was to be taught to the children and grandchildren. "Thou shalt not eat it (blood or any unclean thing-BJ); that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD. Only thy holy things which thou hast, and thy vows, thou shalt take, and go unto the place which the LORD shall choose: And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the LORD thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh. Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God" (Deut 12:25-28).

The Israelites were to constantly affirm the things they had seen and heard so that their children and grandchildren would have true witnesses to God's work. "Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons" (Deut 4:9).

Continuing the tradition of teaching children and grandchildren, we see that Timothy was the product of a faithful mother and grandmother. If they were justified in teaching Timothy, and if his faith came from them, then who could question their authorization to teach him? If Lois and Eunice could instill their faith in Timothy, who would question grandparents today following the scripturally approved example? Was there anyone superior to Timothy among Paul's fellow workers? We need more men like Timothy, but we also need more grandmothers and mothers who have faith and will teach the children.

"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with a pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day; Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy; When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded, in thee also" (2 Tim 1:1-5).

A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just (Pro 13:22).

Beth Johnson

 

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Today by Gary Rose

I awoke today, thinking of this old “Little Church Mouse” and the thought of Isaiah 6 running through my mind. Isaiah says…

Isaiah 6 ( World English Bible )

1 In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple.

2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each one had six wings. With two he covered his face. With two he covered his feet. With two he flew.

3 One called to another, and said,

“Holy, holy, holy, is Yahweh of Armies!

The whole earth is full of his glory!”

4 The foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.

5 Then I said, “Woe is me! For I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for my eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of Armies!”

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar.

7 He touched my mouth with it, and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin forgiven.”

8 I heard the Lord’s voice, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

Then I said, “Here I am. Send me!”

9 He said, “Go, and tell this people,

‘You hear indeed,

but don’t understand;

and you see indeed,

but don’t perceive.’

10 Make the heart of this people fat.

Make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes;

lest they see with their eyes,

and hear with their ears,

and understand with their heart,

and turn again, and be healed.”

And, as I sat down to write today’s blog, I thought of the following…

Matthew 28 ( WEB )

16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had sent them.

17 When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted.

18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, "“All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. "

19 "Go," * "and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, "

20 "teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”" Amen.

Along with these things, one more passage came to mind….

1 Thessalonians 5 ( WEB )

1 But concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need that anything be written to you.

2 For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night.

3 For when they are saying, “Peace and safety,” then sudden destruction will come on them, like birth pains on a pregnant woman; and they will in no way escape.

4 But you, brothers, aren’t in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief.

5 You are all children of light, and children of the day. We don’t belong to the night, nor to darkness,

6 so then let’s not sleep, as the rest do, but let’s watch and be sober.

7 For those who sleep, sleep in the night, and those who are drunk are drunk in the night.

8 But let us, since we belong to the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and, for a helmet, the hope of salvation.

9 For God didn’t appoint us to wrath, but to the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

10 who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

11 Therefore exhort one another, and build each other up, even as you also do.

Note: See also Hebrews 3:13-15 and 1 Peter 3:15

Christianity is not meant to be a “keep it to yourself” religion; if we are to be faithful – we must do everything we can to share what God has done for us. Since the beginnings of Christianity, there has been a sense of urgency, for who knows what today may bring; The Lord may come or we may die. If you can not say with certainty that you have faithfully obeyed God in both becoming a Christian and faithfully living as one- then, right now is the time to change your situation and do something about your condition.

TODAY, NOT TOMORROW!