Take Your Pick by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=559

Take Your Pick

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Nearly all credible historians will concede that a man by the name of Jesus lived and died in the land of Palestine about 2,000 years ago. Even most atheists accept the historicity of Jesus the Nazarene. There simply is overwhelming evidence that points to a man named Jesus who lived and died in the first century. In fact, just by acknowledging the “first century,” one is describing a time based upon the birth of Jesus. Our whole dating method is based upon this man called Christ [“B.C.” meaning “before Christ,” and “A.D.” (standing for Anno Domini) meaning “in the year of the Lord”]. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and infidels (for the most part) all accept that Jesus was an actual human being.

However, even though most people who know some world history admit that Jesus was a real person, relatively few believe He was God in the flesh (as the Bible repeatedly emphasizes). They might say He was a good man, or that He was a noted philosopher or great moral teacher, but the fact is, the majority of the people in the world do not believe He was (as Peter claimed nearly 2,000 years ago) “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).

Have you ever thought about what people actually are saying who deny the deity of Christ, yet believe He was a good man? They are saying that Jesus was not Who He claimed to be—the Son of God. They are advocating that even though Jesus accepted such claims of deity from men (cf. John 1:29,41,49; 20:28) and claimed deity Himself time and again (Mark 14:62; John 9:36-38; 10:30; et al.), what he said was not true. Yet they still hold to the assumption that Christ was a “good man.”

Realistically, there are only three explanations that one can give as to who Christ was: (1) He was the greatest liar, con man, and phony the world has ever known; (2) He was a lunatic who simply labored under the delusion that he was God; or (3) He was who He claimed to be—God. Logically speaking, no other choices exist. The view that Christ was a raving madman has rarely been entertained by anyone who is aware of Christ’s life and teachings. No lunatic could answer questions with such profound wisdom and authority (cf. Matthew 7:28-29). What madman would teach that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us? The insane do not teach that we should “turn the other cheek,” and then set an example of exactly how to do that—even unto death. Lunacy does not produce such genius. For that reason, relatively few ever have been so foolish as to call Christ a lunatic.

Furthermore, not even the most celebrated infidels have been willing to characterize Christ as a con man or charlatan. Renowned infidel Henri Rousseau once wrote: “Yes, if the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of a God” (Emile, 1.4). French humanist and staunch enemy of Christianity, Joseph Renan, called Jesus a “sublime person” and declared that in Him “is condensed all that is good and lofty in our nature” (Life of Jesus, chapters 1,28). The fact is, very few people throughout history ever have claimed that Christ was a liar or a lunatic.

But, if Jesus was not a liar or a lunatic, then logically He must have been who He claimed to be—the Son of God. One cannot profess sensibly that Christ was a good man, yet not the Son of God. Either He was both—or He was neither. Either Christ was a lunatic, or a liar, or the Lord. Take your pick, but choose wisely, for your eternal destiny is at stake.

From Mark Copeland... "CHALLENGES CONFRONTING THE CHURCH" Traditionalism

                  "CHALLENGES CONFRONTING THE CHURCH"

                              Traditionalism

INTRODUCTION

1. In previous lessons, we examined the challenges of...
   a. Denominationalism
   b. Sectarianism
   c. Factionalism

2. Another challenge that has a long history is traditionalism...
   a. Jesus often conflicted with traditions in His day
   b. Traditions have often been a major factor in causing division
      among churches

[What are traditions?  Are traditions always wrong?  If not, when does a
tradition become wrong?  How can we be guilty of traditionalism?  Let’s begin with...]

I. THE MEANING OF TRADITION

   A. TRADITION...
      1. The Greek word is paradosis, which means "giving over" or "handing down"
      2. It refers to teaching that is handed down either by word
         (orally) or in writing

   B. AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE JEWS...
      1. It applied to the oral teachings of the elders (distinguished
         elders from Moses on down)
      2. These traditions were often divided into three classes...
         a. Oral laws supposedly given by Moses in addition to the written laws
         b. Decisions of various judges which became precedents in judicial matters
         c. Interpretations of highly respected rabbis held in reverence
            along with the OT scriptures
         -- Article on "Tradition", ISBE
      3. Prior to his conversion, Paul was a staunch supporter of Jewish
         tradition - Ga 1:13-14

   C. AS UNDERSTOOD BY ROMAN AND GREEK CATHOLICS...
      1. Their views appear to be parallel to that of the Jews
      2. What they consider "Tradition" is what they believe to be the teachings:
         a. Of Jesus or His apostles, persevered orally rather than through writing
         b. Of various church councils which have left various decrees
         c. Of various church leaders (such as the pope) considered to
            be inspired with later revelations from God
      3. One is expected to take their word for it that these
         "traditions" were truly from God and have been faithfully transmitted

   D. AS FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES...
      1. The word "tradition" as such is not found in the Old Testament
      2. It is found thirteen (13) times in New Testament
         a. Three times referring to "apostolic teaching" - 1Co 11:2;2Th 2:15; 3:6
         b. Ten times referring to "the tradition of the elders" or "the
            traditions of men" in a dangerous way - 

            Mk 7:3-13; Mt 15:2-6; Col 2:8; 1Pe 1:18; Ga 1:14
      3. Jesus did not feel bound to abide by "the traditions of the
         elders"
         a. Some traditions He had no problem with keeping
            1) Such as going to a wedding feast - Jn 2:1-2
            2) Or attending the Feast Of Dedication - Jn 10:22-23
         b. He just as easily had no problem with violating other traditions
            1) Plucking grain on the Sabbath - Mk 2:23-28
            2) Eating with unwashed hands - Mk 7:1-5
      4. Jesus evidently did not subscribe to the view of "traditions" handed down orally
         a. He never appealed to the traditions of the elders
         b. He either appealed to the authority of the written Word (the
            Law of Moses), or to His own authority as the Son of God
      5. Note well:  We have seen that not all "traditions" are wrong
         a. If they are "handed down" by inspired men, they are to be heeded - 2Th 2:15
         b. If they are doctrines or interpretations handed down by
            uninspired men (like the traditions of the Jews) they are suspect
         c. But in some cases uninspired "traditions of men" might be observed

[So traditions of men can be dangerous, or they can be harmless.  How
can we distinguish between those that are dangerous and those that are
harmless?  In Mk 7:1-13, Jesus provides the answer...]

II. THE DANGER OF TRADITIONS OF MEN

   A. THEY CAN LEAD TO HYPOCRITICAL WORSHIP...
      1. Traditions of men tend toward ritualism (just look at the
         rituals found in many religions that have no scriptural basis)
      2. Such ritualism is often done repeatedly, with little thought as
         to its origin and purpose
      3. It is easy to go through such rituals, with the heart and mind
         on other things
      4. Worship without the heart (or mind) of man is hypocritical worship! - Mk 7:6

   B. THEY CAN LEAD TO VAIN WORSHIP...
      1. When traditions of men are taught on the same level as the
         commands of God, it leads to vain worship - Mk 7:7
      2. Such worship may appear to be impressive, but it in actually
         "empty, worthless"
         a. First, because God did not command it
         b. Second, because it does not accomplish the good we really
            need - cf. Col 2:18-23

   C. THEY CAN MAKE THE WORD OF GOD VOID...
      1. Jesus gave the example of honoring one’s parents - Mk 7:10-12
         a. The elders’ tradition taught giving to the temple freed one
            from giving to one’s parents
         b. Thus rendering the command of God of no effect
      2. There are traditions of men today with similar affect
         a. Such as the practice of sprinkling for baptism, a tradition of man
         b. When one keeps the tradition of sprinkling, they make the
            command of God to be baptized (immersed) of no effect!
      3. Through such traditions, one is actually rejecting the command
         of God! - Mk 7:8-9,13

[With this understanding of traditions and their dangers, let’s now summarize...]

III. TRADITIONS AND TRADITIONALISM: A SUMMARY

   A. TRADITIONS...
      1. Traditions of God, handed down by Christ and His apostles
         through the Written Word, are necessary for our salvation!
      2. Traditions of men, handed down by uninspired men, are dangerous
         and sinful, when they:
         a. Lead to hypocritical worship
         b. Lead to vain worship
         c. Make the Word of God void
      3. Traditions of men can be harmless, but they become sinful if they:
         a. Are taught as doctrines (i.e., equivalent to the Word of God) - Mk 7:7
         b. Make the commandments of God of no effect (by their observance) - Mk 7:9,13

   B. TRADITIONALISM...
      1. Defined:  the systematic emphasis on the value of tradition - Wikipedia
      2. Exemplified by Jewish, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and
         Protestant religions
      3. But can also be manifested in churches of Christ
         a. Doing things a certain way, just because that is how it has
            always been done
         b. Binding practices without scriptural basis, because we’ve
            always done it that way

CONCLUSION

1. Traditionalism can be viewed as the abuse of tradition...
   a. Where traditions of men are bound, made equivalent to the
      traditions of God
   b. Where traditions of men are kept, even if it makes the commands of
      God of no effect

2. To avoid traditionalism, we need to be well grounded in the Word of God...
   a. By which we can examine any tradition being proposed as necessary
   b. Asking as Jesus did, "From heaven, or from men?" - cf. Mt 21:25
   c. Careful not to bind where God has not bound

So many of the differences and divisions between churches today are due
to traditionalism with its abuse of traditions.  Let’s be careful not to
allow traditionalism to keep us from working together in love and
unity...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

 

From Gary... chicken

We had chickens on the farm, but I do not recall ever seeing one like this!!!  But then, why not? Taken at face value then, there are black chickens.  As soon as I put these into the post, I thought of racism and how over the past half decade, the confrontation between black and white people in this country has become almost an obsession, but mostly a tool in the hands of black racists to denigrate whites. Can anyone of sound reasoning and observation NOT think that those who occupy the WHITE HOUSE ARE RACIST?  However, all this nonsense will come to an end within the next 50 years, as the Latino portion of population gradually becomes the majority in the United States. Looking beyond this, in the following 50 years or so, I predict an ease to racial tensions as the intermarriage of the various races produces a generic slightly darker than white race.  Beyond these things, I ask the question: Does race really matter at all?

The Bible provides the answer...

Galatians, Chapter 3 (WEB)

19  What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise has been made. It was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.  20 Now a mediator is not between one, but God is one.  21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could make alive, most certainly righteousness would have been of the law.  22 But the Scriptures imprisoned all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.  23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, confined for the faith which should afterwards be revealed.  24 So that the law has become our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.  25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.  26 For you are all children of God, through faith in Christ Jesus.  27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

No, race doesn't matter. If you are a Christian, race is really unimportant. We are to love our spiritual brethren. And they exist in every single race on this planet. America, get over being preoccupied with racial division. Instead, turn to Jesus and his word for answers!!! Or, are you to "chicken" to face spiritual truth!!!