8/26/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Jesus And The Children (18:1-14) by Mark Copeland

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

Jesus And The Children (18:1-14)

 
INTRODUCTION

1. One of the more touching and endearing scenes during the life of
   Jesus was when He used a little child to teach His disciples some
   lessons - Mt 18:1-14

2. For all who would be true disciples of Jesus, there are valuable
   lessons to be gleaned from  this passage

[The first thing we are taught is...]

I. THE NECESSITY OF CONVERSION (1-4)

   A. WITHOUT CONVERSION, THERE IS NO SALVATION...
      1. "Unless you are converted", Jesus said
         a. "You will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven"
         b. Without conversion, we cannot have our sins blotted out- cf. Ac 3:19
         c. And we will not enjoy "times of refreshing from the Lord"- cf. Ac 3:19
      2. Note that the process of conversion is passive: "be converted"
         a. I.e., it is something you must allow to be done to you
         b. It begins when we in faith submit to "the working of God"
            1) That is, in baptism - cf. Col 2:12
            2) Wherein by God's mercy we experience "regeneration",
               "renewal" - Tit 3:5
         c. It continues as we live the Christian life
            1) God continues His working in us - cf. Php 1:6; 2:12-13
            2) He will do so until the coming of Christ - 1Th 5:23-24
      -- Have you, indeed are you, submitting to the working of God in
         your life so as to be truly converted?

   B. A CONVERSION INVOLVING CHILDLIKE HUMILITY...
      1. This was the concern of Jesus in Mt 18:4
         a. For His disciples had asked who would be greatest in the kingdom
         b. Jesus used a child to illustrate the sort of humility one must have
      2. Paul later used Jesus as an example of humility - Php 2:3-5
      -- Those who submit to the working of God in their lives will
         produce this kind of humility necessary for salvation - cf. Col 3:12-13

[The next thing we learn from this passage is...]

II. THE SIN OF STUMBLING BLOCKS (5-7)

   A. WHO ARE THE "CHILDREN"?
      1. Some think Jesus used an infant to make his point about
         humility, and is now discussing His adult disciples
      2. But the Greek word for "child" (paidion) can refer to one as
         old as twelve years - cf. Mk 5:39-42
      -- I understand Jesus to be discussing children old enough to
         believe, old enough to sin - Mt 18:6

   B. THE TERRIBLENESS OF CAUSING CHILDREN TO SIN...
      1. It would be better to be killed by drowning - Mt 18:6
      2. "Woe to that man..." - Mt 18:7
      3. Why so terrible?  Because it is a sin against Christ Himself!
         a. Note Mt 18:5 and consider its opposite
         b. Paul learned this lesson on the road to Damascus - Ac 9:4-5
         c. He taught this truth to brethren in Corinth - 1Co 8:9-13

   C. HOW ONE CAN PUT STUMBLING BLOCKS IN A CHILD'S WAY...
      1. By doing anything to keep them from serving Christ freely
      2. Directly, by persecuting, ridiculing, opposing, or dissuading
         them from serving the Lord
      3. Indirectly, by living a life inconsistent with what we claim to be!
      -- Are we putting stumbling blocks before our children, even unwittingly?

[The next thing we can glean from these verses is...]
      
III. THE REALITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT (8-9)

   A. SOME DENY PUNISHMENT AFTER DEATH, BUT NOT JESUS...
      1. E.g., Seventh-Day Adventists and Members of the Watchtower
         Society (JWs)
      2. Yet Jesus, more than any other, taught the reality of an
         eternal, suffering place of torment!
         a. The word "Gehenna" is used twelve times in Scripture, all
            but once by Jesus!
         b. Elsewhere He mentions "everlasting fire" and "everlasting
            punishment" - Mt 25:41,46
         c. And so did His disciples - He 10:26-29; Re 21:8
      3. Consider the implication of Mt 18:6 and He 10:28-29...
         a. What could be worse than drowning in the sea or dying without mercy?
         b. Acc. to those who deny punishment after death...nothing!
      -- Dare we "water down" what Jesus and the Bible teaches about
         the destiny of the wicked?

   B. WE SHOULD THEREFORE TAKE SIN SERIOUSLY...
      1. So much so, that we remove whatever is close and dear to us if
         it causes us to sin!
      2. Jesus is using hyperbole, of course, for what good would it be
         to pluck out only one eye?
      -- Sin is like cancer; sometimes "radical surgery" is the only solution!

[Finally, we are taught in this passage about...]

IV. THE PRECIOUSNESS OF GOD'S CHILDREN (10-14)

   A. THEIR ANGELS ALWAYS BEHOLD GOD'S FACE...
      1. What this may involve, one can only speculate
         a. Many think this refers to "guardian angels" - cf. Ps 91: 9-12
         b. We do know that angels are "ministering spirits sent forth
            to minister for those who will inherit salvation" - He 1:14
      2. Our text speaks of their presence before God - Mt 18:10
         a. Which some take to refer to their readiness to carry out
            the Father's wishes (Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke)
         b. At the very least we know there is joy in their presence
            when sinners repent - Lk 15:10
         c. Will they not be dismayed when one of God's children sin,
            or is made to stumble by others?
      -- Their close proximity to God in heaven suggest the honor God
         has toward those children who believe!

   B. THE SON OF MAN CAME TO SAVE THEM...
      1. Jesus came to die for them, too! - Mt 18:11
      2. Jesus illustrated His concern for them with the parable of the
         lost sheep - Mt 18:12-13
      -- If Jesus was willing to give His life for them, dare we 
         despise or neglect them?

   C. THE FATHER DOESN'T WANT TO LOSE EVEN ONE...
      1. It is not His will - Mt 18:14
      2. Notice:  He does not want to lose "one" of these little ones!
      -- If both the Father and Son think so highly of these little 
         ones, should not we?

CONCLUSION

1. The words of Jesus should motivate us to take children seriously...
   a. For parents:  how important to bring your child up in the nurture
      and admonition of the Lord!
   b. For teachers:  How serious and noble is your task of teaching our
      children!
   c. For all of us:  We are examples and role models, whether good or
      bad...and God will hold us accountable for the effect we have on them!

2. And for those who would enter the kingdom...
   a. Heed the necessity of being converted!
   b. Let the example of child-like trust and humility be a guide as to
      how we should serve God and one another!

Have you humbled yourself in obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ? 
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker


The Assumption of Mary by Moisés Pinedo

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2696

The Assumption of Mary

by  Moisés Pinedo

The “Assumption of Mary” is one of Catholicism’s newest dogmas. Proclaimed by Pope Pius XII in 1950, in the papal bull Munificentissimus Deus, it is one of the most ambiguous, changeable, and confusing teachings of Catholicism. In fact, nobody can say exactly what Mary’s condition or circumstances were prior to her “assumption.” Soon after the introduction of this new doctrine, serious disagreement arose between Mariologists and Pius XII over whether or not Mary died, was resurrected, and then ascended to heaven, or simply ascended to heaven without dying. In spite of the Catholic claim that the pope speaks with “infallibility,” there is not yet consensus concerning the details of this dogma. Therefore, its advocates have taken the liberty of adjusting the details to better fit their developing ideas and traditions, and to make it more attractive to believers.

Although you may find many versions of Mary’s alleged assumption into heaven, one common idea, supported by Catholic tradition, is represented by the following description:

One day, when Mary, according to her custom, had gone to “the holy tomb of our Lord” to burn incense and pray, the archangel Gabriel announces her approaching death, and informs her that, in answer to her request, she shall “go to the heavenly places to her Son, into the true and everlasting life.” On her return home she prays, and all the Apostles—those who are already dead and those still alive—are gathered to her bedside at Bethlehem.... [T]he Apostles, carrying the couch on which “the Lady, the mother of God,” lay, are borne on a cloud to Jerusalem. Here Christ appears to her, and in answer to her request, declares: “Rejoice and be glad, for all grace is given to thee by My Father in heaven, and by Me, and by the Holy Ghost....” Then, while the Apostles sing a hymn, Mary falls asleep. She is laid in a tomb in Gethsemane; for three days an angel-choir is heard glorifying God, and when they are silent, all know that “her spotless and precious body has been transferred to Paradise” (Hastings, 1906, 1:683).

Many Catholics believe that Mary died before going to heaven (see “Did Mary Die?,” 1997, p. 11), but others consider her death an open question (see Mischewski, 2005). They have advocated that

Concerning Mary’s death the dogma is non-committal. It only says: “when the course of her earthly life was completed.”... As it stands now both opinions are acceptable and accepted: Mary’s death, resurrection and glorification as well as glorification at the end of her life without death (Roten, 2006, emp. added).

This doctrine is so “flexible” that it can work either way. However, this produces a dilemma since it is said that

the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, clearly and repeatedly refers to the death of the Virgin Mary. In no less than seven separate paragraphs this Apostolic Constitution refers, in one way or another, to the death of the Virgin Mary (Conte, 2006).

It is interesting that, according to some Catholics, the declaration of a supposedly infallible pope can be interpreted in two completely opposite ways. So, who has the final word concerning this and other Catholic topics? Who can say, with any degree of confidence, what one should believe?

The very fact that interpretations of this doctrine are so “flexible” makes it unreliable and incredible. In contrast, the Bible is very clear about those who left behind their earthly existence without experiencing death. Enoch “was taken away so that he did not see death” (Hebrews 11:5; cf. Genesis 5:24). Of Elijah, the Bible says that a “chariot of fire” took him without him seeing death (2 Kings 2:11). Equally clear details are given about Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (1 Corinthians 15:3-4; Acts 1:9). There is neither ambiguity nor the slightest hint that these historical facts are open to various interpretations.

A second reason why we should reject this Catholic dogma is its opposition to statements of Christ Himself. Speaking to Nicodemus, Jesus said: “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man” (John 3:13, emp. added). This includes everyone who has died, as well as those who were taken by the Lord and did not taste death. Again, Jesus taught that those who die go to a place called hades—a place of waiting for the Final Judgment (Revelation 20:13-15) that is independent from heaven and hell (Luke 16:19-23). In John 14:3, Jesus promised His disciples, “And if I go [to heaven] and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” When the time comes for His return, Jesus will keep His promise and open the doors of heaven for all those who have obeyed Him (cf. Matthew 25:31-46). But, since He has not yet returned, we conclude from the Scriptures that none of His disciples have been taken to heaven, not even Mary.

A third reason why we should reject the dogma of Mary’s assumption is its opposition to other related biblical doctrines. Concerning the Second Coming of Christ, Paul wrote that the resurrection of the dead will occur “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:52, emp. added). In contrast, the doctrine of Mary’s assumption into heaven implies that she has already undergone a transformation of her body into a glorious state. It should be obvious that it is impossible to reconcile the Catholic tradition of Mary’s assumption with the biblical doctrine of resurrection.

A fourth reason to reject this doctrine is that the New Testament does not record the ascension of Mary. Some Catholics have proposed that it is implied by the Bible since Mary’s death is not recorded. This reasoning fails to acknowledge that the Bible does not record the deaths of many people, including John, Mark, Paul, and even Pilate. Does this mean that these people (and many others whose deaths are not recorded in the Bible) ascended to heaven? To argue in this way is to argue from the silence of Scripture. To establish a historical, biblical truth, we should turn our attention from what the Bible writers did not record, to what they did record.

By the time the New Testament books were written, the alleged Assumption of Mary would have occurred. However, not one New Testament writer gives even a hint of this event’s occurrence. If this doctrine is so important (as Catholicism claims), why was it excluded from the New Testament? If Jesus promised that the apostles were going to be guided into all truth and were going to declare all of the truth of God (John 16:13), why did they not record this “significant truth” about Mary? If the Bible records the “ascensions” of Enoch and Elijah, why does it not also record Mary’s? The simple answer is that the “Assumption of Mary” never occurred; it was created by minds focused on traditions, not truth.

The papal bull of 1950 further declared that “if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined [the “Assumption of Mary”—MP], let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith” (Munificentissimus Deus, 45, emp. added). But if this dogma is so important—to the point that those who do not believe it are condemned—how do Catholic clergy and theologians explain the fact that most mainstream Catholics lived for approximately 1,400 years in ignorance of this dogma? Were the Catholics, including the popes, who lived before its declaration by Pius XII (1950), saved in their ignorance of the “Assumption”? If they did not need this “truth” for salvation prior to 1950, why do they need it now?

There is no doubt that Mary was a special woman, but just like every other human being, she lived in a world regulated by an established principle that affects all of us: “It is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27, emp. added). Mary, at the end of her earthly journey, crossed the path from life to death and met all those who “sleep” in Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:13-14). Like them, and us, she is waiting for the Final Judgment, when the doors of heaven will open for all those who have done the will of the Father (Matthew 25:31-46).

REFERENCES

Conte, Ronald L. (2006), “A Summary of the Doctrine of the Dormition,” [On-line], URL: http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/dormition-summary.htm.

Hastings, James, ed. (1906), A Dictionary of Christ and the Apostles (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).

Mischewski, Dean (2005), “The Assumption of Mary into Heaven,” [On-line], URL: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_assumption.html.

“Did Mary Die?” (1997), Catholic News, August 13, [On-line], URL: http://www.catholic.org.sg/cn/wordpress/?p=1791&page=1.

Munificentissimus Deus (1950), [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM.

Roten, Johann (2006), “What about Mary’s Death?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.catholicweb.com/media_index.cfm?fuseaction=view_article&partnerid=48&article_id=2768.

The Ariels of Moab by AP Staff

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=924

The Ariels of Moab

by  AP Staff

Occasionally, as time passes and languages develop, the particular meaning of a word is changed or lost. One can see plainly, even in the English language, where words fall in and out of use, and their meanings change over time. Every language goes through this development, and sometimes it is difficult for the translators of the Bible to capture, by a single English word, the deeper meaning of a Hebrew or Greek word—especially if the exact meaning is lost in antiquity. One such word is found in 1 Chronicles 11:22 (and in 2 Samuel 23:20), among the lists of the mighty men of David:

Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had done many acts; he slew two lionlike men of Moab: also he went down and slew a lion in a pit in a snowy day (KJV).

Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had done mighty deeds, he slew the two sons of Ariel of Moab: he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow (ASV).

And Benai’ah the son of Jehoi’ada was a valiant man of Kabzeel, a doer of great deeds; he smote two ariels of Moab. He also went down and slew a lion in a pit on a day when snow had fallen (RSV).

Benaiah son of Jehoiada was a valiant fighter from Kabzeel, who performed great exploits. He struck down two of Moab’s best men. He also went down into a pit on a snowy day and killed a lion (NIV).

Four different versions give four different translations in reference to the same group: the ariels of Moab. The Anglicized “ariel” comes from the Hebrew word ‘ariyel, which is a compound of the words ‘aryeh, which means “lion,” and ‘el, which means “God.” This literal translation, “lion of God,” does not explain to whom the authors of Chronicles and Samuel were referring. However, when taken in context, it appears that these were warriors of stature that were feared for their might.

The Revised Standard Version did not translate the word, but placed a transliteration from Hebrew into English in the passage. The American Standard Version also transliterated the word, but inserted the phrase “sons of ” into the text, seeming to assume that ‘ariyel referred to a specific man named Ariel. However, this does not seem to fit with the text. The passage continues the record of Benaiah by speaking of his killing an ‘aryeh (“lion”), as if the passage were speaking of him killing two “lions of God,” and also killing a lion. To make ‘ariyel a name breaks the continuity of the passage in its references to lions, whether they be of God or otherwise.

Probably the best treatment of this passage would come from a mingling of the New International and King James Versions. The NIV translated ‘ariyel by the phrase “best men,” as in men of might and valor, while the KJV used “lionlike men” (NKJV—“lion-like heroes”). When taken in context, something along these lines would be the better translation. The passage in 1 Chronicles 11:10-47 speaks of the men that David considered mighty, as well as some of their exploits. The record of Benaiah (vv. 22-25) states that he killed the two ‘ariyel (along with a lion) and an Egyptian giant whose height measured about seven and a half feet. Therefore, the best rendition of ‘ariyel is probably something that conveys might and strength, more so than what “best men” or “lionlike men” convey—they were mighty men who fought like lions from God. In the Old Testament, the image of a lion was used often to express power and strength when describing warriors. Soldiers from the tribe of Gad were described in 1 Chronicles 12:8 as having faces like “the faces of lions.” David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan called the deceased “stronger than lions” (2 Samuel 1:23). Proverbs 30:30 described the lion as “mighty among beasts.”

Perhaps these ‘ariyel were a special elite corps in the army of the Moabites, similar to our special forces (U.S. Navy SEALs; U.S. Army Green Berets, Airborne Rangers, and Delta Force; etc.). They also could have been two men who referred to themselves as the ‘ariyel, in reference to their abilities as warriors; likewise, it could have been an epithet given to them by their enemies. Whatever the reason, these men must have been known as some of the fiercest fighters, because they were compared to the “king of the jungle”—the mighty lion. Defeating two of them obviously was a feat worthy of mention in the list of mighty men. It is very hard for a single English word to convey the idea of warriors that go by “lions of God,” but it is obvious that they were considered some of the mightiest of men in that day.

The Age of Accountability by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1202

The Age of Accountability

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Calvinistic teaching claims that all humans have inherited a corrupt spiritual nature due to the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden. Due to this marred and perverse nature, the human heart is desperately deceitful, and man’s nature is evil. This doctrine generally is referred to as “total depravity.” Calvinists insist that “[e]vil pervades every faculty of his [man’s—DM] soul and every sphere of his life. He is unable to do a single thing that is good” (Palmer, 1972). He cannot do, understand, or desire the good: “[t]he corruption extends to every part of man, his body and soul” (Steele and Thomas, 1963, emp. in orig.).

Calvinism further maintains that, due to this inherited spiritual depravity, babies are born with a corrupt nature. Babies, therefore, are born depraved and, by definition, are in a “lost” state. The only way for babies to be saved is for them to be one of the elect—a predetermined few whom God arbitrarily decided to save while condemning all others. Hence, free will does not enter into the question of salvation. The Calvinist maintains that people cannot choose to receive salvation from God. They are in a lost condition due to their corrupt spiritual nature, and do not have the ability even to desire salvation, let alone to attain it.

While several lines of argumentation from the Bible can be advanced to refute the Calvinist’s viewpoint with regard to depravity, one in particular merits notice: the Bible’s teaching regarding the spiritual condition of children. Long ago, the prophet Ezekiel, after contrasting the behavior of a father with his son, stated unequivocally: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son” (18:20; cf. vss. 2-19). Jesus, Himself, demonstrated the spiritually safe condition of children when He stated: “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3). Adults must become like children if they wish to be saved! Children hardly can be spiritually depraved! Christ followed up this declaration with a comparable observation: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14).

Since all people are the “offspring of God” (Acts 17:29), they come into this world innocent of sin. That is why Paul, in pointing out that God preplanned to bring Christ into the world through Jacob rather than Esau, stated that the decision was made prior to the birth of the boys: “[F]or the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil” (Romans 9:11, emp. added). Likewise, God declared that the King of Tyre, like everyone else, had come into the world guiltless, but had become sinful due to his own choices: “You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you” (Ezekiel 28:15). If, at conception, God “forms the spirit of man within him” (Zechariah 12:1), why would anyone wish to insist that man’s spirit is, nevertheless, corrupt?

Another interesting realization is gleaned from Paul’s argumentation in Romans—a book unquestionably designed to expound the foundational premise of salvation available in Christ through the Gospel. In chapter seven, Paul contrasts the pre-Christian condition of the sinner with the post-cross availability of full forgiveness. The Law of Moses was, in fact, a tremendous law. It was authored by God Himself. It was specifically designed for the perpetual good of the people to whom it was addressed, i.e., the Israelites (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13). Like all law from God, it enabled people to recognize sin as sin (Romans 3:20; 7:7). In short, the law was “holy, and the commandment holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12). However, law did/does not contain within itself the ability to absolve those who violate its precepts. An outside force, one that is above and beyond the law, is necessary to rectify the effects of law infractions (i.e., sin). The Bible refers to this force as “propitiation” (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10) or “atonement” (Romans 5:11, KJV). Of course, this propitiation is the blood of Jesus.

As Paul expounded these spectacular spiritual realities, he imparted a significant truth regarding the innocence of children, i.e., their non-depraved status. Paul stated: “For apart from the law sin was dead” (Romans 7:8). He meant that prior to him becoming subject to the law, he was not guilty of any sin. He continued: “I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died” (Romans 7:9). When was Paul “alive once without the law”? The only time in a person’s life when he or she is spiritually alive in the absence of law is before he or she is a responsible, accountable adult. A person is not subject to the law of God until he or she is mature enough to understand and to be responsible for behavior. Here is the “age of accountability” to which so many have made reference over the years. Paul was saying that at the time he was a child he was “alive,” i.e., spiritually safe. But when he reached adulthood, and had to face the law’s assessment of his adult decision-making, sin “revived,” i.e., it sprang into existence in his life (see Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 53), “began to live and flourish” (Alford, 1852, 2:380), and he “died,” i.e., he became spiritually dead in sin. This “age of accountability” is not pinpointed in Scripture as a specific age—for obvious reasons: it naturally differs from person to person since it depends upon a variety of social and environmental factors. Children mature at different rates and ages as their spirits are fashioned, shaped, and molded by parents, teachers, and life’s experiences.

It is imperative that every person of an accountable mind and age realize the responsibility that exists. Current culture is characterized by a tendency to evade responsibility for one’s action. Lawbreakers blame parents, genes, and society for their actions. But if the Bible teaches anything, it teaches that every single accountable human being will one day stand before God and give account for his or her own actions. “For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ” and “each of us shall give account of himself to God” (Romans 14:10,12).

REFERENCES

Alford, Henry (1852), Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).

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).

Palmer, Edwin (1972), The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Steele, David and Curtis Thomas (1963), The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).


DISCREDITING GOD'S WORD by steve finnell

  

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/discrediting-gods-word-by-steve-finnell.html

 

DISCREDITING GOD'S WORD by steve finnell


The Pharisees did not deny the miracles of Jesus, they just tried to discredited them. (Matthew 12:22,24 Then one was brought to him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute;  and He healed him, so that the  blind and mute man both spoke and saw. 24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, "This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons."(NKJV)

Certain contemporary believers in Christ do not deny what Jesus and the apostles said, they just ignore or change the meaning.

Acts 10:25-26 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him  and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But  Peter lifted him up, saying "Stand up; I myself am also a man."(NKJV)  

The apostle Peter rejected the worship of men, however, many today worship dead saints and the Virgin Mary by praying to them. Praying to anyone or anything is worship. Writing doctrine in a church catechism does not make it the word of God.

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptize will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.(NKJV)

Some believers in Jesus discredit the words of Jesus, found in Mark 16:16, by claiming that since some early manuscripts do not include it; therefore it is not trustworthy. Still others simply assert that, is baptized will be saved, actually means is baptized has already been saved. [Mark 16:16 is included in every Bible translation that I am aware.]

In order to discredit God's word, the Bible has to be deemed untrustworthy. The only effective was to discredit God's word is to add to or take away from the Bible. Creed books, new revelations, books written by men and other man-made doctrines are the keys to discrediting the word of God.

ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS FOUND IN THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE ALONE

Think on These Things by J.C. Bailey

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

Think on These Things

The apostle Paul, by the power of the Holy Spirit, said “if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Philippians 4:8). Two people within the same congregation may tell about the same event, and leave very different impressions of what happened.

One is a pessimist. One is an optimist. The one man paints a gloomy picture. The optimist paints a rosy picture. This text that we have used, suggests that a Christian should be an optimist. We need to be careful that we do not carry our optimism too far, but we do need to be optimists.

If we obey the command given here, we shall be optimists. We must have faith that truth shall eventually triumph. Christ reigns until He has put all his enemies under his feet (I Corinthians 15:25). If we are to succeed we must do as Paul did. He forgot the things that were behind and he pressed forward to the things that are ahead. We press on to the mark of the high calling which is in Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:13,14). Let us be assured that He who rides the white horse is King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:11-16).

True, we may fall by the wayside. We may fail, but He will not fail. His cause will prevail. We may refuse to endure hardship as a good soldier of Christ Jesus (II Timothy 2:3). There are many preachers today who make me wonder if this command has any part in their thinking. However, my concern along this line will not make me a pessimist. I shall rather think about those who are enduring hardship as good soldiers of Christ Jesus.

God is no respecter of persons. To some people it is no marvel when a preacher in this country refuses to endure hardship as a good soldier of Christ Jesus, but they are the first to criticize the citizen of another country who does not endure the same hardship. We need to learn the validity of what Peter said by the power of the Holy Spirit, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34). If it is wrong for a man overseas to make Christianity a way of gain, then it is wrong here. Why do we expect a different standard from a preacher in a foreign land than we do from preachers here? We sometimes demand more of them, at least in some respects.

Let me give you a concrete example. I was talking to a young man who had been overseas and he mentioned a certain native preacher whom we both knew.

He told me how this native preacher had interpreted for him and another young preacher. Any one would know that it is a harder job to interpret than it is to preach. (Many times I have used two interpreters during a series of meetings.) Yet, this very young man took part in the dismissing of this native preacher for failure to work. Another native preacher was let go who was one of the most diligent men I have ever met. It seems that he had paid too much for one bundle of paper that he bought. We would be enraged in this country if a man of the world dismissed someone for a thing like that. Why do we not protest when a brother in Christ is used that way: Why? Think on these things.

A man who had never been overseas at that time said at a workshop where I was one of the speakers, that things looked different overseas than they do here. I think I have been overseas long enough to assess the value of that statement. I do not believe that is the difference. I think there are restraints here that we do not have overseas. When McHenry was asked why he turned to the Seventh Day Adventists after he went to India, it is reported that his was, “I never did believe in eternal punishment.” In all probability, if he had stayed in the U.S.A. he would have died in the church; that is, to all outside appearances he would have continued as a member of the church. The Lord knoweth them that are His.

Let me assure you that there is no doctrine that looks different to me in India than it looks here. I oppose instrumental music the same there as I do here. I oppose pre-millennialism the same there as I do here. Let me state further that I oppose denominationalism the same there as I do here. A preacher may go overseas and fraternize with the sects in a way that the church would not permit here. Why is this permitted? Is it true that God is no respecter of persons? I do not believe that God has one law in a foreign country, but another law here. Think on these things.

At one time there were many people in this country who believed that a preacher should not receive any regular support. In fact, when I was editor of the Gospel Herald, I had more than one article submitted along this line. This idea has pretty well died down as far as supporting preachers in this country is concerned. It is now considered right to support a preacher if he is a Canadian or an American any place in the world. Let us suppose that a man goes from Canada or the United States to some foreign country to labor. He has a native helper who can do more work in that country than he can. (This is not to disparage the work that is done by the Canadian or the United States citizen.) This helper makes his work possible. The man from America can be paid. He can be paid every month. According to some, that native cannot be paid with funds from overseas. I ask: Where is the golden rule? If this teaching be true then God is a respecter of persons. Think on these things.

A young Indian got acquainted with a church in this country. The church sent him to a Christian school. Then they sent him back to India. He told the congregation that you could not convert the Indian just by preaching. You had to have a project of some kind. The favorite project of the Indian is an orphan home. What has been the result? This Indian obtained seven acres of good agricultural land. There is no orphan home and no one was ever converted to Christ. The young Indian has gone back to his denomination. Tens of thousands of dollars of the Lord's money have been squandered. Should we not expect such a result when neither the preacher nor the congregation believed that the gospel was God's power to save? Think on these things.

Would you accuse me of a pessimistic attitude? I admit that some of what I have said would seem to point that way, but I have not finished. Despite our failures, think of what has happened in the world in this generation. Think of the hundreds of thousands who have obeyed the gospel in the various countries of the world. Think of the host of native preachers who now carry the gospel to their own people. At the end of World War II we probably had no more than 5,000 members of the church who were not in the United States. Today that number would be nearly half a million souls. It is growing daily.

So while we look at our mistakes, we shall not let them overshadow the great work that is being done. We shall accentuate the positive. Yes, I believe with all my heart that He who rides the white horse is the Lord of lords and the King of kings. I believe that He who is with us is greater than he who is against us. The church is growing. It has foes within and without, but it is growing. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all true believers (Romans 1:16).

J. C. Bailey, 1979

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

 

The root of all evil by Gary Rose

 

 

Very clever; folding money so that it delivers a message! And the message conveys a reference to the Bible; how interesting. Yet, that message bothered me a bit. For it seemed to say that ONLY money is a problem; and I know that this is not true. So, I made a comparison of several common texts to look for an answer…


1 Timothy 6 ( World English Bible )

10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some have been led astray from the faith in their greed, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.


1 Timothy 6 ( King James Version )

10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.


1 Timothy 6 ( American Standard Version )

10 For the love of money is a root of all [1] kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows. *


1 Timothy 6 ( Young’s Literal Translation )

10 for a root of all the evils is the love of money, which certain longing for did go astray from the faith, and themselves did pierce through with many sorrows;


1 Timothy 6 ( Byzantine Majority Text )

10 ριζα γαρ παντων των κακων εστιν η φιλαργυρια ης τινες ορεγομενοι απεπλανηθησαν απο της πιστεως και εαυτους περιεπειραν οδυναις πολλαις


So, based on this comparison it would seem that Young’s and the KJV are the most accurate when compared to the Byzantine Greek. Digging a little deeper, I looked at the immediate context of this verse and this clarified things. The Bible says...


1 Timothy 6 ( World English Bible )

6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.

7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we certainly can’t carry anything out.

8 But having food and clothing, we will be content with that.

9 But those who are determined to be rich fall into a temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful lusts, such as drown men in ruin and destruction.

10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some have been led astray from the faith in their greed, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.


Conclusion: The root of all evil is money, as based within the context of the 1 Timothy 6 passage.


Why all this? Well, consider the following…


1 John 2 ( World English Bible )

15 Don’t love the world, neither the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the Father’s love isn’t in him.

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, isn’t the Father’s, but is the world’s.

17 The world is passing away with its lusts, but he who does God’s will remains forever.



The Bible DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF; context is very import, whether it be within a passage or in comparison to another Bible Book or the Bible as a whole.


And, having said this – YES, the LOVE of money can very well be the root of all evils when one considers the context of 1 Timothy 6.


LOVE GOD MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN YOUR LIFE; If you do this, then everything will fall into its proper place.