6/29/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Who Will Enter The Kingdom Of Heaven? (7:21-23) by Mark Copeland

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

Who Will Enter The Kingdom Of Heaven? (7:21-23)

INTRODUCTION

1. Most people believe they will go to heaven when they die...
   a. Their hope is fostered by the comforting words of many preachers,
      priests, and rabbis
   b. Their hope is based upon the idea that heaven is for all
      believers, or for those whose good works outweigh the bad

2. But are such hopes well-founded?
   a. Will most people go to heaven when they die?
   b. Is salvation based upon good works? Is it based upon faith only?

3. In His sermon on the mount, Jesus gave some ominous warnings...
   a. Few, not many, would be saved - Mt 7:13-14
   b. Many religious people, including some believers in Jesus, will
      learn that they too will be lost! - Mt 7:21-23

4. With Mt 7:21-23 as the spring board for our study, I wish to address
   the question:  "Who will enter the kingdom of heaven?"

[Before considering this question, perhaps this is good opportunity to
answer another one first...]

I. WHAT IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN?

   A. THE TERM "KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"...
      1. Is synonymous with the "kingdom of God" - cf. Mt 4:17 with Mk 1:14-15
      2. Refers to God's kingship, or rule, from heaven
      -- The kingdom of heaven is focused in the Person of Jesus 
         Christ, and is especially manifested where He rules in the
         hearts of men - Lk 17:20-21

   B. IN BRIEF, THE "KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"...
      1. Is spiritual in nature - Jn 18:36; Ro 14:17
      2. It began when all authority (rule) was given to Jesus - 
Mt 28:18; Ac 2:36; Ep 1:20-23 3. Today, it includes the Lord's church on earth (for those who submit to the Will of Christ are added to the kingdom) - Col 1:13; Re 1:9 4. In the future, it will involve the "new heavens and new earth," where we will be with God and Jesus for eternity! - Mt 13:40-43; 2Pe 3:10-13; Re 21:1-22:5 -- The kingdom of heaven was "inaugurated" on the Day of Pentecost, and will be "culminated" when Jesus returns to deliver it back to God - cf. 1Co 15:23-28 C. THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IN OUR TEXT... 1. Appears to have the future aspect of the kingdom in view a. Note that Jesus says "in that day..." - Mt 7:22 b. An apparent reference to the day of judgment - cf. 2Ti 1:12,18; 4:8 2. Thus Jesus is talking about who will enter the kingdom in its future aspect a. Of which He spoke on other occasions - Mt 25:31-34 b. Of which Peter wrote in 2Pe 1:10-11 [What a wonderful blessing, to have an abundant entrance into "the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"! But this leads me back to our text (Mt 7:21-23), and to the main question of our study...] II. WHO WILL ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN? A. NOT EVERYONE WHO PROFESSES JESUS... 1. "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven" 2. There are some who teach that as long as one believes in Jesus, they will be saved a. That salvation is by "faith only" b. Even though the only time "faith only" is found in the Scriptures, it says: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." - Jm 2:24 3. But there is such a thing as "an unsaved believer"... a. The demons believe, but are not saved - Jm 2:19 b. There were some who believed in Jesus, but were not saved - Jn 12:42,43 c. Jesus described a true disciple as one who not only believes in Him, but does what He says - Jn 8:30-32 -- Let no one think that just because they "believe" in Jesus, they have a free ticket into heaven! B. NOT EVERYONE WHO DOES MANY GOOD WORKS... 1. "Many will say to Me in that day, `Lord, Lord, have we not..." - Mt 7:22 2. Here were people who not only believed in Jesus, but believed they had: a. Prophesied in His name! b. Cast out demons in His Name! c. Done many wonders in His Name! -- I.e., they thought they had been empowered to do such wonderful works! 3. Such good works certainly did not earn their way to heaven a. Indeed, salvation is by grace, not meritorious works - cf. Tit 3:3-7 b. Good works had not saved Cornelius, he still needed to be told what to do to be saved - Ac 10:1-5; 11:14 4. Indeed, sometimes what we may think is a good work is without any authority... a. Jesus condemns these as those "who practice lawlessness"- Mt 7:23 b. Literally, those who act without authority 1) It was not that they did something condemned by Jesus 2) It was that they did things for which they had no authority! -- We might be very religious, and do many things in the name of Jesus, yet He might still say: "I never knew you; depart from Me..." [Who then will be saved?] C. ONLY THOSE WHO DO THE FATHER'S WILL... 1. As Jesus said, "...he who does the will of My Father in heaven." - Mt 7:21 a. Here is the dividing line: those who DO the Father's will! b. As James would write later, it is the "doer of the work" who is blessed in what he does - cf. Jm 1:22-25 2. Is this legalism? a. No! Legalism is salvation by perfect law-keeping, believing that one earns salvation by the merit of what they have done b. Salvation by grace does not preclude the necessity of obedience 1) We simply need to recognize that our obedience does not earn or merit salvation 2) When all is said and done, we are still unworthy! - cf.Lk 17:10 3. The Father's will, while it offers salvation by grace, does require obedience! a. Only those who obey from the heart will be delivered from sin - Ro 6:17-18 b. Christ is the author of salvation to all who obey Him- He 5:9 c. Christ will come in judgment against those who obey not the gospel - 2Th 1:7-9 CONCLUSION 1. Who will enter the kingdom of heaven? a. Not those who profess to believe, but do not obey b. Not those who think they are doing many religious things, but without authority c. Only those who do the Father's will! 2. This is why we must take an earlier statement in Jesus' sermon so seriously... a. "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness..." - Mt 6:33 b. We must make the finding of God's will and rule the number one priority in our life! 3. What is the Father's will? It begins with... a. Repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ - Ac 20:21 b. Confessing Jesus as Lord - Ro 10:10 c. Being baptized into Christ for the remission of sins - Ac 2:38 -- Followed by a life of faithful service to Christ, confessing our sins along the way - Re 2:10; 1Jn 1:9 Are you doing the Father's will?


Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

Making Sense of Baptism by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1230

Making Sense of Baptism

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

One reason why some religious people do not feel that baptism in water is a prerequisite for salvation is because “it doesn’t make any sense.” Why would God demand that a sinner be immersed in water in order to receive the abundant amount of heavenly blessings found “in Christ” (cf. Galatians 3:27; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:34-40; 2 Timothy 2:10; Colossians 1:14)? “The necessity of baptism seems so arbitrary,” they say. “The need to confess faith in Jesus as the Son of God makes good sense. It also is logical to repent of one’s sins. But what good is baptism? What meaning does it have? And why should getting wet physically, make one clean spiritually?”

First, regardless of whether God’s instructions seem sensible to us or not, God expects His orders to be obeyed. One of the many lessons that a person learns from studying the Old Testament is that God oftentimes gave commands that seemed somewhat illogical to man. Not long after the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, God commanded Moses to strike a rock in order to receive water (Exodus 17:1-7). Although digging a well would seem to be the more reasonable thing to do, God wanted Moses to strike a rock with his rod before receiving water from the rock. Forty years later, as the Israelites began their conquest of Canaan, Jehovah instructed the Israelites to march around the city of Jericho one time a day for six days, and seven times on the seventh day in order to conquer the city (Joshua 6:1-5). God said of the Israelites: “It shall come to pass,” on the seventh day, “when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when you hear the sound of the trumpet, that all the people shall shout with a great shout; then the wall of the city will fall down flat” (6:5). The idea of an army defeating an enemy simply by walking around a city, yelling, and blowing horns, seems irrational. It makes no sense to the average person. Yet, this is what God demanded of His people if they wanted to be victorious. A few hundred years later, Elisha, a prophet from God, instructed a leprous man named Naaman to “wash in the Jordan seven times” in order to be cleansed of his disease (2 Kings 5:10). Considering the waters of the Jordan had no healing power, this command made little sense to Naaman then, and may not be very sensible to some Bible readers today. Why would God want a leper to dip himself in a river? And why seven times? What medicinal power did the river have? Why not simply have the prophet say to Naaman, “Your faith has made you well”?

Today, if a sinner wants to receive “the victory through…Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:57), the Scriptures are clear: in addition to confessing faith in Christ and repenting of his sins (John 8:24; Romans 10:9-10; Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38), he must be baptized (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21). For people to reject the command to be immersed in water simply because they feel that baptism and eternal salvation are totally unrelated, is as wrong as it would have been for Moses, the Israelites, and Naaman to reject God’s commands years ago (cf. Isaiah 55:8-9).

The truth of the matter is, however, one’s immersion into water is not the “illogical instruction” some have made it out to be. God’s plan to save man, and the conditions upon which salvation is accepted (including baptism), were in the mind of God “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). God always has known of this plan “which He accomplished in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 3:11). To speak of baptism as some flippant, fly-by-night ritual insults the eternal plan of God. It is meaningful, first, because God says it is. And second, if one truly takes the time to observe some of the passages that discuss baptism, he will have a better understanding of its significance. God never intended for a person to think that the power to forgive sins is in the water, any more than He expected Naaman to believe the power to cleanse his leprosy was in the Jordan River. In fact, the apostle Peter was very clear about this matter when he wrote that baptism is “not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3:21).

Paul wrote to the churches of Galatia, saying, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27, emp. added). When this passage is coupled with Romans 6:3ff., one learns that by being baptized into Christ, we are baptized into His death.

Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin (Romans 6:3-7).

Rather than asking, “Why baptism?,” perhaps we should ask, “Why not?” What other act would so fitly represent the complete ending of a life of sin? In his comments on Romans 6, R.L. Whiteside observed:

In being buried in baptism there is a likeness of his death; so also there is a likeness of his resurrection in our being raised from baptism to a new life. Hence, in being baptized we are united with him in the likeness of this death and resurrection. We are therefore, partakers with him in death, and also in being raised to a new life. Jesus was buried and arose to a new life; we are buried in baptism and arise to a new life. These verses show the act of baptism, and also its spiritual value (1988, p. 132).

It is in the act of baptism that the cross is actualized for the sinner, and brought to have individual significance (Riley, 2000, p. 72). Every time a person becomes a Christian, a sinner dies (“being buried with him in baptism”—Colossians 2:12), and is raised up a saint “through faith in the working of God, who raised Him [Jesus] from the dead” (Colossians 2:12).

Truly, baptism “makes sense” (perfect sense) when we take the time to focus on the One Who gave both His life for us, and the mode of baptism to begin our new life with Him (Matthew 28:18-20). Similar to how Noah’s new life, in a new world, began after having been transported from a world of sin by water (1 Peter 3:21; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17), the sinner is carried by water into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This submissive act ushers us out of the world and into a relationship with God.

REFERENCES

Riley, Tom (2000), Dying to Live Again (Webb City, MO: Covenant Publishing).

Whiteside, Robertson L. (1988), Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation), reprint.

Lying Wonders by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=947

Lying Wonders

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One direct source of unbelief is the false promotion of Christianity (cf. Job 13:7). It is surely a great tragedy that many people have rejected the Christian religion as the true portrait of reality on the basis of the misconduct that so many who claim to be Christians have displayed. In fact, some who purport to be faithful Christians are nothing more than crackpots and religious wackos.

It is especially intriguing to take note of the so-called “miracle workers,” “tongue-speakers,” and “faith healers” moving about the religious world today. Where fifty to one hundred years ago, to witness their theatrical presentations, one would have to go to the “revival tent” set up outside of town, now one can see these pseudo-wonder workers on several television channels. Willing participants, whose emotional state has been carefully manipulated, swoon at the mere touch of the “healer’s” hand on their forehead or cheek. Prominent religious leaders—who have built financial empires on the funds they have methodically extracted from misguided followers through threats, pleadings, and cajoling—continue to have a heyday, supposing “godliness is a means of financial gain” (1 Timothy 6:5).

But notice that the “miracles” performed involve highly questionable diseases and illnesses—nebulous aches and pains—that defy medical substantiation. Even the professed “tongue-speaking” is highly subjective, and in no way parallels the New Testament practice of speaking known human languages without prior learning (see Miller, 2003).

Scripture presents a very different picture. Jesus went about “healing every sickness and every disease among the people” (Matthew 9:35, emp. added). He gave the apostles these same powers “to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease” (Matthew 10:1, emp. added). Included right along with these powers was the ability to “raise the dead” (Matthew 10:8; 11:5), restore shriveled or missing body parts (Luke 6:6-10; 22:49-51), and even give sight to a person born blind (John 9:1-7)! When was the last time one of these “faith healers” raised a dead person? Does God now place a limit on certain powers? Why will the tongue-speaker not come out in the open and convince unbelievers that their action conforms to the genuine New Testament gift—especially in light of the fact that tongue-speaking was for the purpose of convincing unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22)?

But then, if John knew what he was talking about, no need for miracles exists today (John 20:30-31). The Bible declares itself to be all sufficient and capable of providing man with every spiritual need (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The divine purpose for which miracles existed (i.e., to authenticate the divine origin of the spoken Word—Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:4) has long since been served. All of which leads to this conclusion: the “wonders” being offered today are nothing more than “lying wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9, emp. added), i.e., counterfeit, false, and deceptive (pseudous—Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 900).

[NOTE: To listen to an audio sermon on this topic, click here.]

REFERENCES

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation (Extended Version),” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569.

Luke’s “Orderly Account” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1486

Luke’s “Orderly Account”

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the prologue to Luke’s gospel narrative, he informed his readers that he sought to write “an orderly account” of the life of Christ (Luke 1:3). Based upon this statement, some tend to believe that everything in Luke’s narrative must have been recorded chronologically. Others have come to the conclusion that this statement must also mean that Luke’s account avoided the omissions that the other writers made from time to time. The evidence suggests, however, that though Luke’s account should be understood as being orderly to a degree, it is erroneous to contend that everything in Luke’s narrative is arranged in a precise chronological sequence.

One indication of Luke’s “orderly account” not being a strict sequence of events is found in Luke 3. Immediately following the record of John the Baptizer teaching the Jews about the coming of the Christ, Luke wrote: “And with many other exhortations he preached to the people. But Herod the tetrarch, being rebuked by him concerning Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done, also added this, above all, that he shut John up in prison” (3:18-20, emp. added). Had Luke already covered everything that John the Baptizer accomplished before his imprisonment and subsequent death, this statement might still be considered sequentially in order with everything else in the life of Christ. The fact is, however, the very next paragraph clearly indicates that Luke sometimes strayed from a normal chronology. Luke proceeded to inform his readers of Jesus’ baptism, saying, “When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized” (3:21). John baptized Jesus prior to his imprisonment (cf. Matthew 3:1-17; 4:12; John 1:29-34), yet Luke places John’s imprisonment before Jesus’ baptism. Although Luke does not indicate why he mentioned this event earlier than one might expect, Luke’s account is still very much characterized as being “orderly” and logical. It seems clear that Luke simply wanted to move John off the stage before focusing on the ministry of Christ. Luke did mention John a few more times in his narrative (cf. 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7,9,19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:4,6), but “the story of John’s active ministry as a free man ends here” (Hendriksen, 1978, pp. 212-213).

A second indication that Luke’s “orderly” narrative should not be understood as being a strict chronological order of everything that Jesus ever did or spoke comes from Luke 4. In the first thirteen verses of this chapter, Luke recorded how Satan confronted Jesus and tempted Him three times: first, to turn stones to bread; second, to worship him; and third, to throw Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple. Interestingly, Luke’s order of the temptations is different than that found in Matthew’s gospel account. Matthew recorded that Satan’s second temptation involved him trying to persuade Jesus to throw Himself down off of the temple, while the third temptation was Satan’s attempt to get Jesus to worship him. Some might assume that because Luke had earlier professed to write an “orderly account” that his specific arrangement of the temptations of Christ must be the correct order. Most biblical scholars, however, believe that Matthew was concerned more with the order of events in this story because of his use of words like “afterward” (4:2, Greek husteron), “then” (4:5, Greek tote), “again” (4:8, Greek palin). These three adverbs strongly suggest that Matthew recorded the precise order of the temptations. Luke merely links the events by using the Greek words kai and de (4:2,5,6, translated “and”). [NOTE: The NKJV’s translation of kai as “then” in Luke 4:5 is incorrect. It should be translated simply “and” (cf. KJV, ASV, NASV, and RSV)]. Similar to the English word “and” not having specific chronological implications, neither do the Greek words kai and de (Richards, 1993, p. 230). In short, the evidence suggests that Matthew’s account of the temptations of Jesus is arranged chronologically, whereas Luke’s account is arranged in some other orderly fashion—perhaps thematically, or possibly climactically.

A final example indicating Luke’s “orderly account” is not as chronological and all-encompassing as some might initially think, appears near the end of his narrative. Luke began his final chapter “on the first day of the week” when Jesus rose from the grave (24:1). He concluded this chapter (and the narrative as a whole) informing the reader of Jesus’ ascension into heaven. Of interest, is that Luke never indicated that the events of chapter 24 covered any more than one day. Someone might read the entire chapter and assume that Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to His disciples, and ascended into heaven all on the same day, when actually what Luke recorded in this final chapter covered a period of more than five weeks (cf. Acts 1:3). Luke simply omitted most of what Jesus and the apostles did during this time, including the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee mentioned by both Matthew (28:16) and John (21:1ff.). Luke chose to focus most of his attention on what happened in (and around) Jerusalem on the day of Jesus’ resurrection. In order to get a more comprehensive chronological view of what occurred after Jesus’ resurrection and before His ascension, a person must consult the other gospel accounts.

Luke’s narrative certainly is an “orderly account.” It begins with the announcement, birth, and ministry of John the Baptizer—the forerunner of Christ, and then proceeds to focus on the life and teachings of Christ—from birth to death, and from resurrection to ascension. Luke’s account is not confused or haphazard, but “orderly.” Nevertheless, one must be careful not to force his orderly account into a strict arrangement in which every single detail falls into chronological order. In fact, according to Greek lexicographer Frederick Danker, the Greek word Luke used for “orderly” (kathexas) can refer to “sequence in time, space, or logic” (2000, p. 490, emp. added). Thus, similar to modern-day history books that are arranged chronologically, yet occasionally include nonsequential discussions of people, places, and events in order to accomplish a specific, intended purpose, Luke obviously wrote certain portions of his inspired account of the gospel in more of a thematic or climatic order.

REFERENCES

Danker, Fredrick William (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition of Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich.

Hendriksen, William (1978), Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).

Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).


Who Can Take the Lord's Supper? by David Vaughn Elliott


http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/who-can-take-lords-supper-by-david.html

Who Can Take the Lord's Supper?

by David Vaughn Elliott

Who can receive communion? Who can partake of the bread and the cup of the Lord's Supper? Can visitors? Can everybody, anybody? Should communion be "open" or "closed"?

On one hand, there is the practice of asking all visitors to leave, and then serving the Lord's Supper to the members who remain. On the other hand, there are those who will announce before the emblems are passed: "It is the Lord's Table. We neither invite nor debar." Which practice is correct? Or is there a better way somewhere in between these two extremes? 

Scripture nowhere directly addresses this question. But neither does it lack principles that can give us guidance. First of all, in the NT, it is always the Christians who are partaking. When first mentioned in Acts 2:42, "the breaking of bread" is one of four items that "they were continually devoting themselves to." And who are "they"? The preceding verse tells us: "Those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls." Thus, in this initial instance, the communion is something that baptized believers were doing.

The most extensive text on the Lord's Supper is 1 Cor. 11:17-34. Paul first upbraids the Corinthian brethren for not understanding what the Lord's Supper is all about. He says, "When you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper." In the context, Paul is saying that what they were doing was not at all what the Lord's Supper was to be like. He proceeded to explain the whole thing to them. But the question here is, who was he speaking to when saying, "when you meet together"? Just a couple of verses earlier it is clearer: "when you come together as a church" (vss.18-20). So it is the church that should come together to partake of the Lord's Table, to commune with Jesus, their Savior. 

Both texts speak of the breaking of bread, the Lord's Supper, as being something the Christians are doing, something for the church. What if visitors are present in the assembly? That issue, as I have said, is not directly addressed. However, there are several things mentioned, especially in the well-known verses beginning with verse 23 of 1 Cor. 11, that can help answer the question.  

From among various considerations, let's zero in on what is perhaps the strongest and clearest point: "A man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (vs. 28). Self-examination. How can a person who is not a Christian come out fine in a self-examination? He and she are still in their sins. They have not sought for the blood of Christ to blot out their sins in repentance and baptism. They have not yet yielded their lives to Jesus. They have not committed themselves to following Him in the way the NT ordains. They may not realize all this, in which case they do not even know how to examine themselves. Someone will say, well, it says that each person is to examine him/herself. However, in the context we have seen that it is members of the church in Corinth who are to examine themselves. Outsiders are not being considered.

No one comes to the table without sin, of course. But is the Lord's Supper a place for the sinner to obtain forgiveness? Jesus said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Peter, baptized with the Holy Spirit, said, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38). The apostle Paul taught, "all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ" (Gal. 3:27). When a person is baptized, he/she is clothed with Christ. That same person continues at the Lord's Table week by week to remain clothed with Christ.

What Then Should Be Done About Visitors?

Without explicit Scriptural teaching or example, it seems to me we should do that which is most beneficial to the visitor. I think none of us would agree to extreme customs that historically have been practiced, such as dismissing all the non-Christians before the Lord's Supper. Should we in that way or some other way "forcefully" make sure the elements do not get in the hands of the unconverted? Dealing with visitors whom we do not know – and don't know if they are believers or not – surely we would let them make the decision.

Whatever may happen the first (and maybe only) time a person visits the assembly, many of us would agree that the main thing is to teach the unconverted that they should pass the emblems by. If we invite an unconverted person to the service, it would be well to explain to that person, before attending the first time, that it is for Christians, and they can just pass the elements on to the next person. If someone is not a Christian and it is passed to them and they partake, we do not need to get all upset. But I believe we need to reach out to them at an appropriate time and place. 

As Christians, when we know a visitor is not a Christian, do we not have a spiritual obligation to him/her? The only way a non-Christian can come out fine in a self-examination is through ignorance. It is our task to teach them the way. Someone will say that it does the unsaved person no harm to partake because they are already lost anyway, so what difference does it make?

The best example I know is what happened several decades ago. A neighbor of a Christian was attending and partaking without anyone saying anything. The Christian asked my advice. I said to make it an opportunity to teach the visitor. What happened? The visitor said she thought she was fine in taking the Lord's Supper – and she might have continued "forever" without ever being converted. But because the Christian sat down with her and explained the whole thing, the visitor began to see that she was not right with the Lord. I don't remember all the details or the length of time involved, but the end result of the explanation was to open the door for Bible studies, and the neighbor was eventually converted to Christ. Praise the Lord!

So, in the case given, by allowing the visitor to partake Lord's Day after Lord's Day, she was made to feel fine, a part of the church, in communion with the Lord. That was not good for her soul. By explaining to her why she should not partake, the door was opened for her conversion and salvation. And she is faithful to the Lord to this day. That's the outcome we want to work toward.

Male and Female - God's Plan by Eugene Perry

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Perry/Eugene/Charles/1922/Articles/roles.html

Male and Female - God's Plan

In today's society hairstyles, clothing, jewelry and oftentimes behaviour are suggestive of efforts to eradicate gender distinctions. We keep hearing and seeing the term "unisex".

This trend is of concern to thinking people because, in the judgement of many, it is a dominant cause of the ills of our time. Among these are broken and single family homes and absentee and/or non-functioning fathers. Children in such homes, all-too-frequently, in the absence of a male role model, grow up to be selfIsh, spoiled, lacking in self-discipline and unlikely to function properly as citizens and parents. Hence, the cycle repeats itself. Gender role confusion is also believed to contribute to the increasing incidence of abortions and homosexuality. The church is currently being weakened by the failure of men to exercise strong male leadership and the resulting tendency of women to challenge the concept. Thus society, the family, and the church are all being adversely affected by this problem.

What did God intend? There are those who hold that we cannot look to the Bible to determine this because, they claim, the writers of the scriptures were prejudiced by the culture of the time and hence tended to favour the oppression of women. Such an approach to scripture is unacceptable. It leaves man to judge what is cultural and what has continuing force on this and any other subject. Thus, the will of the infallible creator is being decided by His fallible creature. It smacks of Romans 1:22,23.

God made "male and female" in His image (Genesis 1: 27). Woman was created as a "help meet" (suitable helper) for man (Genesis 2: 18) and was intended to complement him in the marriage union (Genesis 2:24). This has led one writer to observe that woman was created after, from and for the sake of man.

The sometimes heard accusation that the Christian religion has been responsible for oppressive circumstances of women in the past is unfounded. Jesus, Paul and Christianity in general have been very much responsible for improvement in the lot of woman.

In the New Testament, Galatians 3:27, 28 clearly teaches that all people have equal access to salvation regardless of race, sex or status. This does not, however, override roles or functions uniquely and specifically defined in other scriptures. Differing roles do not make people superior, inferior or unequal.

There are two areas where God has seen fit to assign definitive roles to men and women (i.e. in the family and in the church). Both involve divinely instituted unions founded on love (i.e. the union of husband and wife in marriage [Ephesians 5:25-30] and the union of believers in Christ [1 Corinthians 13]).

When we examine 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, a response to a question unknown to us, we find women forbidden to speak in the public assembly of the church.

Although some, in their zeal to support changes, have taken the position that this restriction was given because of cultural circumstances of the time and thus does not apply to our times and culture, the "as also saith the law" of verse 34 and "take knowledge of the things I write unto you that they are commandments of the Lord" of verse 37 clearly refute such a position.

When we look at 1 Timothy 2: 11-14 where woman is forbidden to teach or have authority over man, it is even more obvious that the cultural argument cannot be applied. The reason given for this restriction goes beyond culture, back to the beginning.

Eugene Perry

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






To jump for joy! by Gary Rose



Beautiful picture, but one with an obvious flaw. It looks like someone inserted a man that is leaping just above the middle of that bridge. Why would someone do that? In a way it spoils the beauty of the picture; that scenic picturesque quality that you only find when you view God’s creation. But, perhaps it adds something to it as well. It could add a little humor, for it does appear to look a little leprechaun waving at you. That’s probably it; someone decided to be “funny”. But, as I look at it more, it could just be the expression of someone so happy that they would leap for joy! Have you ever felt like that, I know I have. And when I think about that little leaping man, I am reminded of someone from the book of Acts…


Acts 3 ( World English Bible )

1 Peter and John were going up into the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. *

2 A certain man who was lame from his mother’s womb was being carried, whom they laid daily at the door of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask gifts for the needy of those who entered into the temple.

3 Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked to receive gifts for the needy.

4 Peter, fastening his eyes on him, with John, said, “Look at us.”

5 He listened to them, expecting to receive something from them.

6 But Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none, but what I have, that I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, get up and walk!”

7 He took him by the right hand, and raised him up. Immediately his feet and his ankle bones received strength.

8 Leaping up, he stood, and began to walk. He entered with them into the temple, walking, leaping, and praising God.


This man did receive money or possessions, he was given something far more important – his health. Beyond his health, he was miraculously given something he had never experienced, namely, the ability to walk and even leap. When you or I are sick, we gradually get better, but for someone who had never walked in his life, to be able to leap up and begin to walk without ever having learned how to do it, well, that is a miracle.


Even through the apostolic age of miraculous healing has passed, nonetheless, God still changing us spiritually, for when we become a Christian everything changes inside us, for as Paul said:


2 Corinthians 5 ( WEB )

17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away. Behold, * all things have become new.


We no longer live a life dedicated to sin, but rather do our very best to follow God in our entire life. And God will reward us for this, with nothing less than eternal life in heaven with him.

Now, That is something to jump for joy about!