8/5/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" The Kingdom Of Great Value (13:44-46) by Mark Copeland

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

The Kingdom Of Great Value (13:44-46)

 INTRODUCTION 1. During His earthly ministry, the key theme of His preaching and teaching was "the kingdom of heaven"... a. He began His ministry proclaiming it was at hand - Mt 4:17,23 b. He sent His apostles on the limited commission to proclaim the same message - Mt 10:7 2. He taught many parables to illustrate great truths about this kingdom... a. Through which He revealed many things that had previously been secret - Mt 13:34-35 b. Like the parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl of great price - Mt 13:44-46 3. In these two parables, Jesus illustrated the kingdom to be one of great value... a. So great that one who stumbles upon it sells all to obtain it b. So great that one searching for it sells all to buy it 4. In this lesson, I wish to address several questions that come to mind... a. What is this "kingdom"? b. Why is it considered to be of such great value? c. Is it really worth it? d. What will it cost us? [Let's begin, then, with the first question...] I. WHAT IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN? A. IT INVOLVES FOUR INTER-RELATED IDEAS... 1. God's kingship, rule, or recognized sovereignty a. The term "kingdom" as used by the Jews often stressed the abstract idea of rule or dominion, not a geographical area surrounded by physical boundaries b. It is used this way by Jesus in Mt 6:10 - "Your KINGDOM come; Your WILL be done..." (note the connection between kingdom and will) -- Thus, the "kingdom of heaven" would involve the rule of heaven in the hearts of men 2. This rule of heaven is spiritual in nature a. It is not a physical kingdom - cf. Jn 18:36 b. But one that is spiritual - cf. Ro 14:17 3. Its visible manifestation today is in the form of the Lord's church a. For the church is that community of souls in whose hearts God is recognized as Sovereign b. That the church constitutes the kingdom of God on earth, consider: 1) How the term "church" and "kingdom" were used interchangeably - Mt 16:18 2) Comments made to those who were in the church - Col 1:13;1Th 2:12 3) The description of those in the churches of Asia - Re 1:4,6,9 4 It has a future element as well as a present one a. Its future aspect is spoken of by Jesus, Paul, Peter - Mt 25:34; 1Co 15:50; 2Ti 4:18; 2Pe 1:10-11 b. Peter described the coming of its future state in 2Pe 3:10-13 B. THE KINGDOM IS THEREFORE BOTH PRESENT AND FUTURE... 1. In the present sense... a. It is found wherever the sovereignty of God is accepted in the hearts of men b. It is a spiritual kingdom, for God rules in the hearts of men c. Its outward manifestation today is the Lord's church d. This rule or kingdom of God was "inaugurated" on the Day of Pentecost (Ac 2) 2. In the future sense... a. The rule or kingdom of God will be "culminated" with the coming of the Lord b. It will involve that "news heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells", described by Peter and John - 2 Pe 3; Re 21-22 c. It will be experienced only by those in the church who are submitting to God's will today! - cf. Mt 7:21-23; 2Pe 3:13-14 [Submitting to the rule of God so that we become part of His church is how one enters the kingdom of heaven, both present and future. This leads to our second question...] II. WHAT IS THE GREAT VALUE OF THIS KINGDOM? A. IT IS A REFUGE FROM THE POWERS OF DARKNESS - Col 1:13 1. Outside the kingdom, one is in the kingdom of Satan! - Ep 2:1-3 a. Under his influence b. Trapped in various sins 2. In the kingdom of Christ, we find deliverance and refuge a. Set free from sin to serve God - Ro 6:17-18 b. God will not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to bear - 1Co 10:12-13 B. IT IS A DOMAIN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, PEACE AND JOY - Ro 14:17 1. Righteousness which comes through faith in Christ - Php 3:8-9 2. Peace from God through prayer which surpasses understanding - Php 4:6-7 3. Abiding joy in the Lord, no matter the circumstances - Php 4:4;2:17-19 C. IT IS AN UNSHAKABLE KINGDOM - He 12:25-29 1. It will never be destroyed - Dan 2:44 2. Of this kingdom there will be no end - Lk 1:33 3. It is truly an everlasting kingdom - 2Pe 1:10-11 D. IT WILL BE PRESENTED TO GOD WHEN CHRIST RETURNS - 1Co 15:21-26 1. At that time, those who are now "sons of the kingdom" will "shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" - Mt 13:41-43 2. From then on, those in this kingdom will dwell in the presence of God - Re 21:1-7 [The value of this kingdom can be seen further as we consider our third question...] III. IS IT REALLY WORTH IT? A. IF I COULD HAVE SOME "SPECIAL GUESTS"... 1. I would ask Stephen to say if he thought it was worth it - cf. Ac 7:54-60 2. I would ask the early Christians who joyfully accepted the plundering of their goods and eventually received the promise - Ac 8:1-4; He 10:32-36 3. I would ask the apostle Paul - 2Ti 3:10-13; 4:6-8,18 4. I would ask one of your loved ones, a friend or relative, who died in Christ -- I am confident that they would all say forcefully, "Yes! It is worth giving up all!" B. IF I COULD, I WOULD HAVE JESUS... 1. Who gave up all to die on the cross - Php 2:5-8 2. Who became "poor" that we might become "rich" - 2Co 8:9 -- I am persuaded that as He showed you His pierced hands and feet, He would say with love and great urgency, "Yes! My kingdom is worth giving up all!" [But what exactly must we give up? To put it another way...] IV. WHAT WILL THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN COST US? A. WE MUST PAY THE PRICE... 1. Of repentance - cf. Mk 1:15 2. Of being born again - cf. Jn 3:3-5 a. Involving both outward and inward submission to the will of Christ b. A submission that will affect our whole life 3. Of putting the kingdom first - Mt 6:33 a. Before our riches - Mk 10:23-25 b. Before our families - Mk 10:28-31 c. Before ourselves - Lk 9:23-26 B. ARE WE WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE... 1. Consider the parable of the dinner - Lk 14:15-24 2. Are we guilty of the same? a. Putting financial concerns first? b. Putting family first? 3. Our actions demonstrate whether we are willing to pay the price; for example: a. Our devotion to the Word of God and prayer b. Our devotion to others in the church (kingdom) - He 10:24-25; Ro 15:1-3 c. Our devotion to the lost - Col 1:28-29 CONCLUSION 1. The kingdom is truly one of great value... a. It was established through its purchase by the blood of Christ - Ac 20:28 b. Can we expect the Lord to accept anything less than our utmost devotion for the privilege of being in His eternal kingdom? 1) We are admonished to walk in a manner worthy of the kingdom- 1Th 2:10-12 2) But it may cost us greatly to be considered worthy - cf. 2 Th 1:4-5 2. Our actions will demonstrate whether we value the greatness of this kingdom... a. By whether or not we obey the gospel! b. By whether or not we remain zealous and faithful in our service to the God! 3. I hope that in some way I have persuaded you that any price we pay is worthy of "The Kingdom Of Great Value" If you are convinced that it is, and desire assistance in becoming or remaining a faithful "citizen" of the kingdom, then let us know...


Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

Ruth, David, and a Moabite Mandate by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5633

Ruth, David, and a Moabite Mandate

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Ruth 4:17 marks the first time in the English Bible that David, son of Jesse and future King of Israel, is mentioned. The events in the book of Ruth took place several decades prior to David’s birth (Ruth 1:1), but the great-grandson of Ruth is mentioned twice at the end of the book (4:17,22) in order to highlight the lineage of the Messiah—from Judah’s son, Perez (Ruth 4:18; Genesis 38:29; cf. 49:10), to Obed (Ruth's son), to David (to whom God promised an heir, Who would establish an eternal kingdom—2 Samuel 7:12-13; Psalm 89:3-4; Luke 31-33).

Many skeptics question how David could be a descendant of Ruth, a Moabite, and yet also become the divinely chosen King of Israel (1 Samuel 16:1-13). After all, Moses wrote: “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord forever” (Deuteronomy 23:3). So how could King David, the great-grandson of a Moabite woman, be allowed into the assembly of God?

First, one must consider the meaning of the phrase “shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” Did Moses mean that Ammonites or Moabites (1) could not live within the borders of Israel, (2) could not become part of the Israelite community in general, (3) could not gather together and become part of an actual assembly of the Israelites (cf. Deuteronomy 5:22; 9:10; 10:4; 18:16), (4) could not become one of the elders or officials who often assembled together (cf. Deuteronomy 31:28,30), and/or (5) could not become part of the religious community (cf. Leviticus 21:17-21)—that is, were they forbidden “from participation in religious rites in the homes and at the tabernacle and later at the temple”1? While Moses and the original recipients of this command doubtlessly understood the precise meaning of Deuteronomy 23:3, those living 3,500 years this side of the giving of the Law of Moses (and who have never been accountable to that law), may never know for sure exactly what the Lord meant. And, if neither the Christian nor the skeptic can know for sure what the precise meaning of the “assembly of the Lord” is in Deuteronomy 23:3, then obviously no proven contradiction exists.

Second, different kinds of “outsiders” lived in and around the Israelites. With two-and-one-half tribes of Israel inhabiting the east side of the Jordan (Numbers 32), where the Moabites and Ammonites lived and where the Israelites were currently camping (Deuteronomy 1:5; 29:1) when Moses gave the Moabite/Ammonite restriction of Deuteronomy 23:3, he was referring to the non-converted, uncircumcised “alien” or “foreign” Moabite/Ammonite who was never to be allowed into the general Israelite community. Ruth may have been a Moabite ethnically, but religiously she was a dedicated follower of the LORD (Ruth 1:16-18), who participated in and abided by Mosaic law (Ruth 3:1-18; 4:1-12; Deuteronomy 25:5-10).2 Thus, she and her faithful descendants (including David) were rightly accepted in Israel.

Another reason Deuteronomy 23:3 would not have applied to Ruth and her offspring is simply because a non-Israelite mother in Israel (especially one who was a proselyte!) did not determine the nationality of her offspring. Joseph’s Egyptian wife did not make their sons Ephraim and Manasseh Egyptians (Genesis 41:50-52). Moses’ marriage to Zipporah, a Midianite (Exodus 2:11-25), did not disqualify their sons Gershom and Eliezer from being Israelites (Exodus 2:22; 18:1-4), nor did it make them Midianites. Salmon’s marriage to Rahab (the Jerichoan harlot) did not mean their son Boaz was a recognized Gentile of Jericho (Matthew 1:5). And the Moabitess Ruth, wife of Boaz, did not make their son Obed, their grandson Jesse, their great-grandson David, or their descendants Joseph and Mary (the earthly parents of Jesus) anything other than legitimate descendants of Abraham (Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38)—according to the standard reckoning of Israelite heritage. In the eyes of all of Israel, David was an Israelite of the tribe of Judah—and was no more a Moabite than he was a Jerichoan.3

Although Boaz, Ruth, and David were imperfect people (Romans 3:23), who broke various Old Testament commandments (cf. Samuel 11-12), neither these three nor God (in appointing David as king over Israel) ignored or broke the law of Deuteronomy 23:3.

Endnotes

1 Earl Kalland (1992), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 3:140.

2 Some think that Nehemiah 13:1,25,27 contradicts this explanation of Ruth and Deuteronomy 23:3. The social situation in Ezra and Nehemiah’s day (approximately 600 years after the time of Ruth), however, was quite different than what is found in the book of Ruth. Many of the Jews who had returned from 70 years of Babylonian captivity had taken for themselves “pagan” wives from among the Moabites, Ammonites, etc. (Ezra 9:1-2,14; 10:2,10-18,44; Nehemiah 13:23-30), rather than enter into lawful marriages with Jews or faithful converts to Judaism. The Old Testament prohibitions of marrying foreigners (Exodus 34:15-16; Deuteronomy 7:1-4) applied to pagan non-converts, not faithful proselytes.

3 He was the great-great-grandson of Rahab of Jericho, but David was not Jerichoan.

Romans 14: Faith vs. Opinion by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=3498

Romans 14: Faith vs. Opinion

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

To sort out the difference between faith and opinion as it relates to the Bible, one must first define terms. By “faith” we mean those actions that are directed by God, arising from the Word of God (Romans 10:17). For example, partaking of the Lord’s Supper on Sunday is a matter of “faith,” in that it is stipulated by God (Matthew 26:26-29; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). It is an action that God requires us to perform. When we speak of “opinion,” we are referring to a viewpoint or action that God has placed within the realm of personal preference. For example, whether we have two songs before the sermon vs. three; or whether we partake of the Lord’s Supper near the beginning of the worship period, or near the end. God has left as optional a great amount of viewpoints and actions—allowing people to exercise their own personal discretion.

God did this very thing at the beginning of human history. On the one hand, Adam and Eve were placed under very specific articles of “faith.” For one, they were not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That stipulation was a matter of “faith,” i.e., God had legislated the matter. But the original pair was also given considerable latitude in exercising their own opinions. They could eat the fruit of any other tree on Monday, select another tree from which to eat on Tuesday, and still another on Wednesday. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge was a matter of “faith,” while eating any other tree was a matter of “opinion.”

Romans 14

Having defined our terms, let us turn our attention to two chapters in the New Testament that provide us with valuable information in sorting out the application of these principles in everyday life. Romans 14 has been a passage that has been used frequently in recent years to foster fellowship with denominationalism. They have contended that those denominational beliefs and practices with which churches of Christ disagree are not to be allowed to affect fellowship. For example, they have insisted that instrumental music in worship is strictly a matter of personal preference and tradition, and should be decided individually based on conscience. An appeal is made to Romans 14 to equate the use of the instrument with the eating of meat. It is then argued that those who are more spiritually mature may use the instrument in their worship to God. Those whose consciences prevent them from using the instrument are free to refrain from doing so. But they are the “weaker brother” and must not withhold fellowship from those who do use the instrument.

The first observation that is critical in making sense of this chapter is the fact that this context applies only to matters of opinion and indifference—not to matters of faith or doctrine. In his commentary on Romans, Moses Lard recognized this point when he wrote, “In matters of indifference, each man is a law to himself” (p. 412). He further stated, “it shows what liberty we have in the absence of divine command” (p. 412). In his commentary on Romans, David Lipscomb understood Romans chapter fourteen in the same fashion (1943, pp. 242ff.).

But what are “matters of indifference”? Matters of indifference refer to those practices that are indifferent to God—not to the individual. Obviously, the individual who believes he should not eat meat views his position as a serious “doctrinal” matter and, therefore, hardly “indifferent.” But we must understand that Romans 14 is speaking of those matters that are, in actuality, indifferent in the sight of God. For example, God has commanded Christians to spread the Gospel. The how of this action, whether by Internet, television, or automobile, is a matter of indifference to God. He authorizes us to use various means based upon our own good sense—our own consciences.

It is a misuse of Romans 14 to apply its teaching to any matter that is not indifferent to God. For example, God has specified that in order for a person to become a Christian, he/she must be immersed in water. Suppose a man believes that baptism can be by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring. To him, the “mode” of baptism is a matter of opinion—not faith. So he thinks that the person who limits the “mode” of baptism to strictly immersion is “narrow” and “weak in faith.” He would maintain that it is fine for his critic to be immersed if he so chooses, but this “weaker brother” should not bind his opinion on those who are “stronger” by insisting that only those who are immersed may be fellowshipped. This “stronger” fellow might even appeal to Romans 14 as support for his stance.

Yet, what this fellow would be failing to realize is that Romans 14 applies to matters of option that are indifferent to God. Where God has given His guidelines, all must conform to those specifications. Baptism, in God’s sight, is strictly immersion. Those who insist upon obeying God in this regard are not “weaker brethren.” Rather, they are faithful brethren; and those who differ are unfaithful to God.

Just as God has specified the action and design of baptism, He has been very specific with regard to the action of music in worship. If the use of the mechanical instrument in worship to God was optional, that is, if God left people free to offer musical worship in any form they so chose, then Romans 14 would be one passage that would be germane to such a discussion. But God has not left music in worship unaddressed. Neither has He left the question of the legitimacy of the denominations unaddressed. Denominationalism represents a departure from God’s simple will for His church. Romans 14 is of no help in assessing the legitimacy of either instrumental music or denominationalism.

Observe, then, that the one who is “weak in faith” in this chapter refers to the Christian whose knowledge, and therefore faith, has been insufficient in sorting out a particular issue that, in God’s sight, is a matter of opinion. Where the brother is “weak” is in the fact that he thinks that the issue under consideration is not a matter of opinion, but is, in fact, a matter of faith. The specific issues that Paul discusses pertain to the eating of certain foods and the observing of certain days. Regarding the former, one brother thinks that all foods may be eaten by Christians, while another brother thinks that Christians should be vegetarians. Regarding the latter, one brother thinks that certain days must be set aside and observed in special ways, while another brother recognizes no such requirements.

What is God’s view on this matter? Clearly, God’s view is that Christians are free to eat all foods. Jews had not been free in this regard. The Law of Moses contained numerous dietary regulations. But with the coming of Christianity, no such dietary regulations have been enjoined. Imposing such regulations on others constitutes “doctrines of demons,” as Paul explained in referring to those who were “commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Timothy 4:3-5). You remember the vision that Peter had in which he was commanded to kill and eat certain animals, to which he responded that he had never eaten anything that was “common or unclean.” The voice responded: “What God has cleansed you must not call common” (Acts 10:15). Paul states this point very emphatically in Romans 14:14—“I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself.”

So the Christian who understands that no restrictions apply to food under Christianity is the one who has grasped God’s view correctly. The Christian who thinks he should not eat certain foods is “weak in faith,” that is, his faith/belief on that particular point remains immature and uninformed by the Word of God (from whence faith arises). Due to previous beliefs and/or actions, likely learned while a non-Christian, his conscience was trained by his belief that he should not eat that particular food. A specific example would be a Jew who lived his whole life abstaining from pork which was deemed “unclean.” When he became a Christian, he might not immediately sort out the change. And even when he became aware of the correct viewpoint, it would be very difficult for him to start eating pork without his conscience bothering him. That is precisely why Paul insists that neither the stronger nor the weaker should “dispute” (vs. 1), “despise” (vs. 3), “judge” (vs. 4), or “show contempt” (vs. 10) for each other. Instead, both should want to show proper regard for each other’s consciences and spiritual well-being, and strive to encourage each other to be right with God and prepared for judgment (vss. 11-12).

The same may be said for the observance of a particular day. The context shows that the days under consideration are those that have no religious significance, i.e., they are days that are indifferent to God—like a birthday. The only day that has been legislated by God under Christianity is Sunday, the first day of the week. Christians are to assemble for worship on that day and approach God through the five avenues of worship that He, Himself, has stipulated (e.g., Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). Sunday worship, therefore, is a matter of faith—not opinion. But other days, like birthdays, or national holidays like July 4, are matters of option that the Christian is free to observe. For the Jew who had lived his life observing the Sabbath, to suddenly not be required to abstain from labor on that day, he likely would have felt both a sense of release, but also a sense of fright and uncertainty. He would have to go through a period of struggling with and re-educating his conscience to bring his “head knowledge” into harmony with his feelings and long-term, deeply ingrained habit, before his conscience would not condemn him for Sabbath activity.

Notice, then, that the context refers to the observance of days that are religiously neutral and indifferent to God. They do not involve the observer in any unscriptural religious practice. Placing in juxtaposition this admonition in Romans 14 with a similar one in Galatians 4 will help us to see the distinction:

Again, Paul is not endorsing those who create their own “holy days” which they practice religiously. Christendom has generated an entire “Christian calendar” with numerous observances linked to events that occurred in the life of Christ (e.g., Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Lent, etc.). All such observances are unscriptural since they presume to impose human thinking onto biblical precept, and dictate to God how to practice Christianity. Has God clearly indicated what event, if any, in the life of Christ He wants observed or commemorated? Absolutely—even stipulating the precise procedures to be enacted. He authorizes Christians to observe the death of Christ, every first day of the week, using bread and grape juice to symbolize the body and blood, and to think about His sacrifice while also taking an introspective look at one’s self (1 Corinthians 11:20-34). Beyond that, if God had wanted other events in Christ’s life to be commemorated, He would have said so.

But could a Jewish Christian continue to observe the Sabbath? Yes, if he did so without linking its observance to religious obligation. Since he could no longer be justified by the Old Law (Galatians 5:4), he must not observe it as if it is binding upon himself to be pleasing to God, and he must not bind it on others.

Paul issued another directive to be followed by the more mature Christians toward those Christians who had not yet assimilated proper teaching on the subject of food and days. The brother who recognizes that God permits the eating of a particular food must refrain from eating that food item under the following condition: if his eating would tempt or encourage or incite the brother who thinks it is wrong to eat it, to go ahead and eat it. The brother who thinks eating a particular food is wrong (even if, in God’s sight, it is not wrong) sins if he eats it. He has committed the sin of damaging or defiling his conscience.

1 Corinthians 8

This sin is clarified more vividly in the similar discussion that Paul directed to the Corinthian Christians regarding the eating of food that had been previously used in a pagan offering to an idol: 1 Corinthians 8. Paul insisted that no pagan gods exist (vs. 4) and, as long as a person does not intend to honor or worship a fake god, eating food that had been offered to them was optional. However, “there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled” (vs. 7). The term “conscience” in verses 7, 10, and 12 of 1 Corinthians 8 is suneidasis and refers to that inward faculty of moral/spiritual awareness that was created by God. We must not act in ways that damage (or “sear”—1 Timothy 4:2) our consciences. To do so is sin. The Christian who thinks a particular practice is wrong, when it is not wrong in God’s sight, should be about the business of re-educating his conscience, getting his thinking straight as informed by the Word of God. By that process, in time he will be able to rise above his immature assessment and feel fully “at home” with God’s view of the matter.

Furthermore, returning to Romans 14, the more mature Christian sins if his eating an authorized food prods the immature Christian to go against his conscience and consume a food that he thinks is wrong (“evil”—vs. 20) for the Christian to consume. The mature Christian is guilty of “grieving” (vs. 15), “destroying” (vss. 15,20), “offending” (vs. 21), “making weak” (vs. 21), and causing the weaker brother to “stumble” (vs. 21). In Paul’s treatment of this matter in 1 Corinthians 8, the stronger brother that so conducts himself is guilty of causing the weak brother to “perish” (vs. 11) by “wounding his weak conscience” (vs. 12).

Some Applications

Many churches have undergone internal disruption over an infinite variety of disagreements. These disagreements might be over what color of drapes ought to hang in front of the baptistery or what carpet should be on the floor. Dissension might occur over whether to build a new auditorium or multipurpose room, how to equip the kitchen, which songbooks or Bibles to buy for the pews, or whether a preacher ought to be hired or fired. Some attempt to derail the majority’s decision and get their own way by appealing to Romans 14. They insist that implementing the decision of the elders or the majority of the men would “offend” them. This tactic has been used far and wide to stymie the work of the church and prevent many positive actions from going forward.

In such instances, Romans 14 is misapplied in at least two ways: (1) Paul did not use the term “offend” merely to mean that a brother disagrees with or feels hurt by the decision. “Offend” is not defined as “ruffled feathers.” He used the term to refer to the weaker brother being led into sin. Specifically, Paul said the mature Christian ought to forego committing an action (like eating a particular food), if doing so would cause the immature Christian to engage in the same behavior in direct violation of his conscience. Placing red rather than beige curtains in front of the baptistery would hardly cause the dissenting brother to sin! (2) Those who use this tact would never cast themselves in the role of the weaker brother. They consider themselves the stronger brothers.

The fact is that if such individuals have scriptural grounds for objecting to a particular decision, rather than objecting solely out of personal opinion or preference, they should stake their case on scriptural grounds. Unfortunately, the church has always been plagued by some brethren whose ego, pride, and perhaps lust for power (like Diotrephes—3 John 9), drives them to attempt to control the church. In stark contrast, mature Christians will be extremely flexible, open-minded, and accommodative when it comes to matters of opinion in the church.

Another consideration regarding Romans 14 that helps us to distinguish between faith and opinion is seen in verses 22-23—

Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

To “have faith” in a viewpoint/doctrine means that we are familiar with God’s view of the matter, knowing it to be optional and a matter of opinion. To “doubt” is to lack complete awareness or knowledge of a divine doctrine and/or to have hesitation to accept and enact it in one’s life. Specifically in the context, if a brother was uncertain about (doubted) whether he should eat a particular food, he would be guilty of sin if he went ahead and ate the food, because he would not be doing so “from faith,” i.e., he would be engaging in the action without being fully informed (by God’s Word) or fully convinced that such an action was acceptable to God. Since “faith comes by…hearing the word of God” (Romans 10:17), any action that a person engages in that does not have the authority/permission of God’s Word behind it, is a sinful action.

But how may the average Christian distinguish between matters of faith and matters of opinion? When a question or issue arises in the church, how do we know whether it is optional or obligatory? The answer is that we must study God’s Word carefully in order to apply its principles to the matter at hand. Excellent books have been written by Christians over the years detailing proper exegetical procedure for ascertaining God’s will on matters that are not specifically alluded to in Scripture. These include Thomas Warren’s When Is An “Example” Binding? and Logic and the Bible, Roy Deaver’s Ascertaining Bible Authority, D.R. Dungan’s Hermeneutics, et al. Such books help the student of the Bible to think through the principles involved in understanding God’s Word and applying that Word to the multitude of circumstances that arise in our lives. God’s Word was obviously written with a view toward the average human being capable of understanding God’s will for his or her life. Of course, diligence and effort must be brought to bear on the task (2 Timothy 2:15; Acts 17:11). But with adequate effort and interest in knowing God’s will, the goal can be achieved. No one can stand before God at the end of time and legitimately maintain that he was unable to recognize matters of faith and opinion.

CONCLUSION

May God help us to “pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another” (Romans 14:19). May we never “do anything by which our brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak” (vs. 21). May God help us to grow spiritually every day, that we might be people who are “strong in faith” (Romans 4:20), well able to distinguish between matters of opinion vs. matters of faith.

REFERENCES

Lard, Moses (1875), Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing).

Lipscomb, David (1943), Romans (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Rob Bell and Eternal Hell by Kyle Butt, M.Div.




Rob Bell and Eternal Hell

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

For several years, Rob Bell, the minister of the Mars Hill Bible Church has been mulling over the idea of hell. In his latest book, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Bell contends that the “traditional” view of hell, in which those who do not believe in Christ are lost, is ill-conceived and needs re-working. Jon Meacham, column writer for TIME magazine, noted that Rob Bell “suggests that the redemptive work of Jesus may be universal—meaning that, as his book’s subtitle puts it, ‘every person who ever lived’ could have a place in heaven, whatever that turns out to be” (2011). In essence, Rob Bell is little more than a recent advocate of a modified version of universalism.

The trend to minimize hell in our emotionally-driven, sentimental society is nothing new. Behind this teaching is the idea that love and eternal punishment are incompatible and mutually exclusive. The atheistic community has repeatedly challenged belief in the God of the Bible, due to the alleged moral dilemma presented by a God of love and eternal punishment (Butt, 2010, pp. 217-227).

A critical analysis of the situation brings to light a number of truths. First, it is clear that the Bible teaches that hell is a reality and will be eternal (Matthew 25:46, see Lyons and Butt, 2005a). Second, the concept of hell has been shown to be in perfect harmony with the concepts of morality and justice (Lyons and Butt, 2005b). Third, the erroneous teachings of universalism and the limited duration of hell are nothing new, and advocates of these beliefs will most likely continue to present themselves (see Colley, 2007; Butt, 2004; Miller, 2003).

The apostle Peter explained that one responsibility given to Christians is that they ought always to be ready to give a defense of their beliefs (1 Peter 3:15). One of those beliefs that is continually challenged is the idea of an eternal hell to which those who have not obeyed God will be consigned forever. Let us all be aware of these challenges to the Bible’s teachings and prepare ourselves to respond to them, holding fast to the faithful Word of God.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2004), “The Reality of Eternal Hell,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&art2004icle=819.

Butt, Kyle (2010), A Christians Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Colley, Caleb (2007), “Controversy About Hell Continues,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2262.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2005a), “The Eternality of Hell, Part 1,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1474.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2005b), “The Eternality of Hell, Part 2,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1475.

Meacham, Jon (2011), “Is Hell Dead?” TIME, April 14, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065080,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-mostpopular.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Who Believes in Hell Anymore?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1204.

DOES GOD APPROVE OF MANKIND COMMUNICATING WITH THE DEAD? by steve finnell


http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/does-god-approve-of-mankind.html

DOES GOD APPROVE OF MANKIND COMMUNICATING WITH THE DEAD? by steve finnell


Does God approve of the dead communicating with the living?Does God approve of the living communicating with the dead? Does God sanction conversations with the dead through mediums? Does God give men the option of talking and petitioning the dead through prayer? Are dead saints aware of those who are alive? Can dead saints hear and answer prayers? The answer is no, no, no, no, no and no.

1. Does God approve of the dead communicating with the living? No

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, or as some believe is a fact, instead of a parable, the rich man was denied that Lazarus could return to testify to his living brothers. God does not approve of the dead communicating with the living. (Luke 16:19-31)

2. Does God approve of the living communicating with the dead? No.

1 Samuel 28:7-20......15 Now Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" And Saul answered, "I am deeply distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God has departed from me  and does not  answer me anymore, neither by prophets nor by dreams. Therefore I called you, that you may reveal to me what I should do."  .......(NKJV)

A. Saul used a medium at Endor to bring Samuel up. That was a sin.
B. Saul could not pray to Samuel to ask for advice. The dead cannot hear the living nor do they know what the living are doing. Saul could not pray and ask Samuel to intercede for him with God.

3.Does God sanction conversations with the dead through mediums? No.

Deuteronomy 18:9-12.......11"or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.12 "For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from from before you.(NKJV)

Conversations with the dead through mediums is sinful.

4. Does God give men the option of talking and petitioning the dead through prayer? Can dead saints hear and answer prayers? Are dead saints aware of the living? No, No, and No.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know they are alive; But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten. (NKJV)

Job 14:21 10-21 But a man dies and is laid away; Indeed he breathes his last and where is he?....21 His sons come to honor and he does not know it;They are brought low, and he does not perceive it.(NKJV)

The dead are not aware of the living. The dead are not Omniscient. The dead cannot answer prayer. The dead are not Omnipotent.

Samuel could not hear Saul from the grave, he had to be brought up my a medium. Saul also had no power to answer prayers.

Dead popes, the Virgin Mary, nor dead family members are aware of the living and even if they were, they have no power nor ability to grant or answer prayers. The only way to communicate with the dead is through mediums and that is a sin.

Only the living can offer prayers for the living. Even then, the living have no power to answer prayers.

Pentecost (Acts 2) The Day the Church Began by J.C. Bailey

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Bailey/John/Carlos/1903/Articles/pentecos.html

Pentecost (Acts 2) The Day the Church Began

The church was conceived in the mind of God. We read, “To the intent that now unto principalities and powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Ephesians 3:10-11).


God said that the seed of Abraham was to bless all nations (Genesis 22:18). Paul said that the promise was not to seeds but to SEED. That seed was Christ (Galatians 3:16). Isaiah said, “And it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of Jehovah's house shall be exalted above the hills and all nations shall flow unto it” (Isaiah 2:2). This would be a change from the Old Testament, for God, in giving the law to Moses, said, “Write thou these words for after the tenor of these words have I made a covenant with Israel” (Exodus 34:27-28). Isaiah said that all nations would flow into God's house (Isaiah 2:2). John the Baptist had one message. Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 3:2).


John was cast into prison and beheaded, and Jesus began His earthly ministry. His message was: “Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand” (Matthew 4:17). Jesus used the terms kingdom and church together (Matthew 16:18,19). In Mark 9:1 Jesus said that the kingdom would come in the lifetime of those to whom He spoke, and He said that it would come with power.


After Jesus arose from the dead, the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost with power. Jesus said that His chosen men would carry the message of the gospel into the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8). Paul says that Christ, “was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4). Paul further declares that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to the believer (Romans 1:16). He further tells us that the gospel is the facts of the death, burial and resurrection (I Corinthians 15:3-5).


Jesus summarized all this by saying, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned”: (Mark 16:15, 16). The apostles were to wait in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49). The Holy Spirit was to come to them there. Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, declared that God had made Him Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified (Acts 2:36). This Jesus was at the right hand of God (Acts 2:32.33). The effect of this sermon was immediate. “Now when they heard this they were pricked to the hearts and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Brethren, what shall we do?'” There can be no mistake in the answer. Those who gave the answer were guided by the Holy Spirit.


“And Peter said unto them, 'Repent ye and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'” (Acts 2:38).


This was not a limited command, for the next verse says, “For to you is the promise and to your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39).


One of the most popular doctrines in the world today is the doctrine of justification by faith alone. If that doctrine is true, then Acts 2:38 is not true. To say it is not true is to charge God with folly. Jesus saves those who obey (Hebrews 5:9). Yes, we are saved by faith but we are saved by an obedient faith (James 2:14, 24). Peter, by the Holy Spirit, said they were to save themselves (Acts 2:40). Now note that they that received his word were baptized (Acts 2:41). Now, what did they do? “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:41). Our duty is revealed in that verse. If we would restore New Testament Christianity, we must return to the pattern as revealed in this chapter. Jude tells us that the faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).


We pass under judgment when we reject the words of Jesus (John 12:48). Here are the words of Jesus, “Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine and doeth them shall be likened unto a wise man who built his house upon the rock and the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon the house; it fell not for it was founded on the rock. And every one that heareth these words of mine and doeth them not shall be likened unto a foolish man who built his house on the sand and the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew, and smote upon that house and it fell and great was the fall thereof” (Matthew 7:24-27).


All life comes from a seed. Each seed produces after its kind. Wheat produces wheat; it does not produce oats. Jesus said that the seed of the kingdom is the word of God. He was talking about the church. That seed never produced anything but a church of Christ in the New Testament.


Let us see what happened the day the church was born. “And Peter said to them, 'Repent ye, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise and to your children and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him.' And with many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, 'Save yourselves from this crooked generation.' They then that received his word were baptized; and there were added unto them in that day, about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:38-42).


“Wherefore, putting away all filthiness and overflowing of wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21). Then he adds this warning, “But be ye doers of the Word and not hearers only deluding your own selves” (James 1:22).


J. C. Bailey, 1992, Weyburn, Saskatchewan

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

I wonder... by Gary Rose


I slept in today and I enjoyed every minute of it. Sleeping late is one of the perks of being retired. People call the later years in one’s life “The Golden Years”, but I think that calling them “The Wonder Years” is far better. Truth is: I do forget things – more than I would like to admit. But, that’s OK – its just part of my “New Normal” and I just have to accept it and get on with whatever is next.


And I have wondered about “What is Next” too, for quite a number of people I have known throughout my life are no longer living. Questions like: “How will I die”? and “Will I linger on in pain and disability for a long time”? Are unpleasant to think about, but normal questions for someone in their 70’s.


All these things are important, for whether we like it or not, everyone of us will die “someday”. Now, during my working years, I tried to something away for retirement and I was only marginally successful, but I have enough to get by and for that I am very thankful. But, what happens after I die? Will my estate be enough for my wife to live on? Will my last wishes be fulfilled? More important than all these things- what will happen to me? The following chart will answer this…



In short, I believe I have obeyed the Gospel correctly and have done my best to live as a Christian should. I would have liked to have been a “perfect Christian”, but I have fallen far short of that, but I thank God for HIS GRACE and trust that someday I will live eternally.


Question: what about you? Study the chart! Which half applies to you; the top half of it or the bottom? If its the bottom, I pray that you will do something about it right now, before its too late!


Jesus says…

Matthew 7 ( World English Bible )

21 "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. "

22 "Many will tell me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?’ "

23 "Then I will tell them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.’"

24 "“Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock. "

25 "The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn’t fall, for it was founded on the rock. "

26 "Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn’t do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. "

27 "The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”"


It is not enough to just be religious, one has to obey the Gospel of Jesus and live faithfully. These things lead us back to the chart and I wonder


Will you study, obey and live???