10/21/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" The Great Commission (28:16-20) by Mark Copeland

                        "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

                    The Great Commission (28:16-20)

INTRODUCTION

1. The gospel of Matthew ends with Jesus meeting with His apostles in Galilee...
   a. Foretold by Jesus before His betrayal - Mt 26:31-32
   b. Announced by both an angel and Jesus after His resurrection - Mt 28:7,10

2. It was a meeting filled with mixed emotions - Mt 28:16-17
   a. Seeing Jesus, they worshipped Him
   b. Yet some were doubtful
      1) It is unlikely this refers to the apostles, for they had seen
         Jesus earlier - cf. Jn 20:19-20,24-29
      2) This may have been the occasion where over 500 saw Him at
         once, and some may have wondered what they were seeing - cf. 1Co 15:6

3. It was a meeting in which Jesus gave His disciples a command - Mt 28:18-20
   a. To make disciples of all the nations
   b. Baptizing and teaching them
   -- Ending with a promise to always be with them

[This command is commonly called "The Great Commission".  As we take a
few moments to look at it more closely, we may better understand what
was so "great" about it...]

I. GREAT IN ITS AUTHORITY

   A. JESUS HAS BEEN GIVEN "ALL AUTHORITY"...
      1. As the Creator, He had the original right to all things - Co 1:16-17
      2. As our Redeemer, even more so! - Php 2:6-11

   B. "ALL AUTHORITY" BOTH IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH...
      1. He now rules in the heavenly realm - 1Pe 3:22; Ep 1:20-23
      2. He also rules over the kings of the earth! - Re 1:5; Ps 2:1-12; 110:1-6

   C. WITH "ALL AUTHORITY" IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH...
      1. Jesus certainly deserves our obedience to Him as Lord - Ac 2:36; Lk 6:46
      2. Jesus certainly can deliver on His promises - 2Pe 1:2-5

[On the basis of such great authority, Jesus gives "The Great 
Commission".  As we continue, we notice that it is...]

II. GREAT IN ITS MISSION

   A. THEY WERE TO "MAKE DISCIPLES"...
      1. The KJV says "teach", the Greek word means "to make disciples"
      2. Thus they were to make "learners", "adherents", "imitators" of Jesus Christ
         a. Jesus had been inviting people to become His disciples all
            along - Mt 4:18-22; 11:28-30
         b. He expected His disciples to become like Him - Lk 6:40

   B. HOW THEY WERE TO "MAKE DISCIPLES"...
      1. First, by "baptizing them" in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
         a. A baptism for the remission of sins - Ac 2:38; 22:16
         b. A baptism in water - Ac 8:35-38; 10:47-48
         c. A burial - Ro 6:3-6; Col 2:11-12
      2. Then by "teaching them to observe all things" He had commanded
         a. Baptism is only the beginning, teaching must continue
         b. Such was the case with the early disciples - Ac 2:41-42
      -- Both baptism and ongoing teaching is essential to true discipleship!

[We should also observe concerning "The Great Commission" that it was...]

III. GREAT IN ITS SCOPE

   A. IT IS FOR "ALL NATIONS"...
      1. They were to go into all the world, and preach to every
         creature - Mk 16:15
      2. They were to be witnesses to the uttermost parts of the earth - Ac 1:8

   B. FOR "ALL NATIONS", NOT JUST ISRAEL...
      1. With the Limited Commission, it was just for Israel - Mt 10:5-6
      2. Now the Gentiles (all nations) could become fellow-heirs - Ep 2:11-22

   C. FOR "ALL NATIONS", NOT JUST OUR OWN...
      1. Jesus would have us think "globally", not just locally
      2. While we should be mindful of our local community, we should
         also be thinking of those abroad

[Finally, we note concerning "The Great Commission" that it is...]

IV. GREAT IN ITS PROMISE

   A. "I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS"...
      1. A promise similar to those Jesus made earlier:
         a. To His apostles - Mt 18:20
         b. To those who keep His commandments - Jn 14:18-23
      2. A promise similar to those God gave to:
         a. Moses - Exo 3:11-12
         b. Joshua - Josh 1:5
         c. The nation of Israel - Isa 41:10
      3. A promise that ought to provide much comfort when oppressed
         - Ro 8:31-38; He 13:5-6

   B. "EVEN TO THE END OF THE AGE"...
      1. Even to the time when:
         a. The Great Harvest will occur - Mt 13:39-43
         b. The wicked shall be separated from the just - Mt 13:49
      2. Throughout this Christian age or dispensation, Jesus will
         forever be with His disciples
         a. As they go into all the world
         b. Making more disciples

CONCLUSION

1. Is "The Great Commission" limited just to the apostles?
   a. Note well that disciples were to "observe all things that I commanded you"
   b. What did Jesus just command the apostles? (Go therefore and make disciples...)
   c. Future disciples were to observe all commands, including this one!
   -- Therefore "The Great Commission" is a commission to the church as well!

2. Do we honor "The Great Commission" in our lives?  We do if we are...
   a. Submitting to the authority of Jesus
   b. Working to make disciples of Jesus
   c. Striving to make disciples in all the nations of the world
   d. Abiding in His Word and thereby ensuring His abiding presence in our lives

Shortly after giving "The Great Commission", Jesus ascended to heaven
(Ac 1:9-11).  His earliest disciples took that commission and did great things with it.

May these words of Jesus motivate us to do great things in our service to Him also! 
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

 

Water is Thicker than Blood by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=934

Water is Thicker than Blood

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The human relationships that exist between individuals who are physically kin to each other can, indeed, be precious and beautiful. In fact, God was responsible for creating the family framework (Genesis 2:24). Ideally, He intends for people to experience the warm, tender ties of blood kin and the multiple blessings associated with such ties.

Perspective is lost, however, when physical ties are permitted to interfere with obedience to God. God’s point is missed when a higher premium is placed on physical family than on spiritual family, when a Christian fails to relish to a greater degree association with the family of God—the church. The Bible teaches that Christians should not hesitate for a moment to relinquish fleshly relationships if it becomes necessary to do so in order to put God first (Luke 14:20,24).

Commenting on the status of His own blood relatives, Jesus declared: “Whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50). He recognized that the stringency of His teaching would disrupt family relationships, and so He stated that “a man’s foes will be those of his own household” (Matthew 10:36). He even went so far as to relegate physical ties to the comparative level of hatred when contrasted to the priority of spiritual ties: “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:26). [For a discussion of the meaning of “hate” in this verse, see Butt, 2003.]

Such explains why, during the Mosaic period of Bible history, Aaron was not permitted to mourn the deaths of his two sons (Leviticus 10:6). Such explains why the wives, and even some children, perished along with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, as they apparently were unwilling to oppose the blood ties of kinfolk who sinned (Numbers 16:27,32-33). Such explains why the people were to show no pity for their relatives who promoted false teaching, but were to lead the way in the execution process (Deuteronomy 13:6-11).

Yes, the family ties of blood kin can be extremely wonderful, providing unending security and acceptance, and frequently fulfill an important, divinely intended function. But these same blood ties can be the very thing that diverts a Christian from the strait and narrow, discouraging one from standing strongly and firmly on the solid bedrock of truth and right. It is imperative that God’s church be put first—even above family (Matthew 6:33). First allegiance and loyalty must be given to those who have been cleansed by the blood of Christ by passing through the waters of baptism (Ephesians 5:6; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22). For with God, water is thicker than blood.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Hate Your Parents—or Love Them?” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/601.

Was the "Image of God" Destroyed by Sin? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=564

Was the "Image of God" Destroyed by Sin?

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Many theologians through the years have claimed that the “image of God” spoken of in Genesis 1:26-27 refers to a spiritual perfection that was lost in the Fall. Thus, they have concluded that modern man no longer bears the image of God. Reformer Martin Luther believed that the “image of God” was an original righteousness that was lost completely. He thus proclaimed: “I am afraid that since the loss of this image through sin we cannot understand it to any extent.” Oftentimes John Calvin spoke of the image of God as having been destroyed by sin, obliterated by the Fall, and utterly defaced by unrighteousness. More recently, religionist/anthropologist Arthur Custance, in his 1975 book, Man in Adam and in Christ, observed: “Genesis tells us that man was created in a special way, bearing the stamp of God upon him which the animals did not bear. Genesis also tells us that he lost it” (p. 103). Does the language of Genesis 1:26-27 refer only to Adam and Eve, as these writers would have us to believe? Or does it refer to all mankind in general?

The Bible reveals that man still retains the image of God after the Fall. Genesis 9:6 states: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.” According to this passage, fallen man still bears the image of God. The record of Adam and Eve’s fall had been recorded earlier in the book of Genesis; that man had become a rank sinner is stated clearly in the immediate context of the passage (“…every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood”—8:21). Although God’s assessment is correct in regard to mankind, murder is forbidden because man is made in the image of God—that is, he still bears that image. If one argues that this passage speaks only about the past and says nothing about the future, he does violence to the meaning of the passage. Moses, writing about 2,500 years after the Fall, said that the reason murder is wrong is because the victim is someone created in the image of God. If man no longer bears the image of God after the Fall, these words would have been meaningless to the Israelites (and are worthless for man today).

In the New Testament, one can read where James wrote: “But the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God” (3:8-9, emp. added). The English verb “are made” (ASV) derives from the Greek gegonotas, which is the perfect participle of the verb ginomai. The perfect tense in Greek is used to describe an action brought to completion in the past, but whose effects are felt in the present. For example, when the Bible says, “It is written,” this is usually in the perfect tense. Scripture was written in the past, but is applicable to the present. The thrust of the Greek expression translated “who are made after the likeness of God,” is that humans in the past have been made according to the likeness of God and they are still bearers of that likeness. For this reason, it is inconsistent to worship God and curse men with the same tongue.

Although sin is destructive to man and repulsive to God, the Bible does not teach that the “image of God” was destroyed by sin’s entrance into the world. Rather, modern man still is created in God’s image. How thrilling and humbling it is to know that all men possess inherent characteristics that liken them to God and differentiate them from the lower creation.

Was Peter the First Pope? by Moisés Pinedo

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2561

Was Peter the First Pope?

by  Moisés Pinedo

Many advocates of petrine tradition will argue that Peter was appointed the “first pope.” Consider some of the arguments that are presented in favor of this assertion.

Argument #1: Peter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19).

With this statement Catholicism argues that Peter was granted supreme power or authority over the church. Although the context in Matthew supports no such interpretation, people of various religions agree that Peter was granted “something special” that was given to no other apostle. This “something” has often been misinterpreted.

We need to understand what “kingdom of heaven” means. Some people have suggested that it refers to heaven itself, and thus, they have represented Peter as the one who allows or prevents access into the eternal reward. But this interpretation is inconceivable since it finds itself in clear opposition to the context of this passage. Reading Matthew 16:18, we understand that the subject under discussion is not heaven itself, but the church. Therefore, Jesus spoke of the church as being the kingdom of heaven. This is shown not only in the context of Matthew 16:18, but it also is taught in many other passages throughout the New Testament (e.g., Mark 9:1; Colossians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; Hebrews 12:28).

Further, we need to understand the nature of the “keys” given to Peter. H. Leo Boles wrote, “To use the keys was to open the door or give the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God” (1952, p. 348). In other words, because of Peter’s confession about Jesus (Matthew 16:16), Jesus gave him the privilege of being the first man to tell lost souls how to become Christians and thus become part of the Lord’s church. Barnes put it this way:

When the Saviour says, therefore, he will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world—the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles (2005a, p. 171, italics in orig.).

There is no doubt that the “keys” represent the opportunities Peter would have to welcome the world, for the very first time, to the Christian age and to the kingdom of heaven—the church.

Also, we need to know when Peter used the “keys.” Jesus’ declaration was in a prophetic form. Peter would have the opportunity to open the doors of the church in the future. The Bible clearly shows us the fulfillment of this prophecy in Acts 2. Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit like the other apostles (2:4), stood and gave the first recorded Gospel sermon after the resurrection of Jesus (2:14-38). It was at that moment when Jesus’ words were fulfilled. Because of the preaching of Peter and the other apostles, 3,000 Jews (cf. 2:5) were baptized into Christ and entered through the open doors of the church (2:41-47). However, the church would be composed not only of Jews, but also Gentiles. Acts 10 tells us that Peter opened the doors of the church to the Gentiles, in the same way he opened the doors of the church to the Jews. This was the “special something” given to Peter because of his confession—the privilege of being the first to preach the Gospel (after the resurrection of Christ) to both the Jews and the Gentiles.

Peter opened the doors of the church, and since then the doors of the church have remained open. Only Peter received this privilege. Jesus said, “I will give you [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19, emp. added). There are no individuals, such as popes, opening and closing the doors of the church.

Argument #2: Peter received the power of binding and loosing (Matthew 16:19).

With this argument Catholicism affirms two things concerning Peter: (1) that he received the authority to forgive sins; and (2) that Jesus considered anything Peter would do with His church as approved, authoritative, and good. In other words, Jesus gave him the gift of “infallibility.”

In order to analyze what Jesus said about Peter, we must take into account that the context of Matthew 16:19 is linked to the subject of the church, and not to the forgiveness of sins or the concession of some kind of infallibility about doctrinal matters. A biblical text that can help us understand Matthew 16:19 is Matthew 18:18, where Jesus made the same promise to all His apostles. He said, “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Of this text, Boles has noted, “This is the same thought as in Matt. 16:19. This shows that it has a broader application than that of the discipline of an erring brother. The Holy Spirit would guide the apostles in their instruction to the erring brother and the church” (1952, p. 377, emp. added). In His declaration in Matthew 16:19, Jesus affirmed that the conditions of the Christian system that Peter and the other apostles would expound already had been required by Heaven.

The Greek grammar of these verses sheds more light on the meaning of Jesus’ statement. A.T. Robertson noted that “[t]he passive perfect future occurs in the N.T. only in the periphrastic form in such examples as Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18” (1934, p. 361). Therefore, the text should read, “whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.” By saying this, Jesus declared that resolutions made on Earth were subject to decisions made in heaven. The apostles would preach in accordance with what was already bound or loosed in heaven. This was based not on the infallibility of a man, but on the infallibility of the Holy Spirit promised to the apostles in the first century (John 16:13; cf. Matthew 10:19-20). Today we have the inspired, infallible teachings of the Holy Spirit recorded for us in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Jesus never established Peter as a pope. The titles “Pope,” “Universal Bishop,” “Earthly Head of the Church,” “Pontiff,” and others never came from the mouth of Jesus to describe Peter. Regardless of the privileges given to Peter, his authority and rights were the same authority and rights given to the other apostles of the Lord (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:1-5; 12:28; 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11; Galatians 2:8).

WHO WAS PETER?

If Peter was not the first pope, then the question becomes, “Who was Peter?” Was he equal to the other apostles, or did he deserve a position of supremacy among the others? The arguments that establish Peter’s identity may be presented as follows.

Argument #1: Peter was only a man.

Although this declaration is obvious to many, sometimes its implications are overlooked. When Cornelius lay prostrate before Peter (cf. Acts 10:25), he told him, “Stand up; I too am just a man” (Acts 10:26, NASB). With this statement Peter implied three very important points: (a) that he was “too...a man”—that is to say, a man just like Cornelius; (b) that he was “a man”—that is to say, just like all men; and (c) that he was “just a man”—that is to say that he was not God, and ultimately was unworthy of worship. Peter, with all humility, understood that his human nature prevented him from accepting worship. On the other hand, the pope, being just a man like Peter, expects men to bow before him, kiss his feet, and revere him, thus receiving worship that does not belong to him. What a difference between Peter and his alleged successors! Not even God’s angels allow men to show adoration by kneeling before them (Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9). One can only be astonished at the tremendous audacity of one who usurps the place that belongs only to God!

Argument #2: Peter was an apostle with the same authority and rights as the other apostles.

On one occasion, the apostles of the Lord were arguing about who was the greatest among them (Luke 22:24), so Jesus told them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them.... But not so among you” (Luke 22:25-26, emp. added; cf. Matthew 18:1-5; Mark 9:33-37; Luke 9:46-48). Jesus never would have made this comment if Peter had more authority and rights than the other apostles as Catholicism suggests. In fact, if Peter was to be considered more honorable than the other apostles, this would have been the opportune time to clarify this point to the rest of the apostles who were “hungry for another’s glory.” However, Jesus assured them that this would not be the case among His apostles.

On another occasion, the mother of John and James came before Jesus with them, asking Him to allow her two sons to sit by Him in His kingdom, one on the right and the other on the left (Matthew 20:20-21). Jesus pointed out that they did not know what they were asking (Matthew 20:22), and added, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them.... Yet it shall not be so among you” (Matthew 20:25-26, emp. added). If Jesus considered Peter as greater than the other disciples, He could have clarified the issue immediately by telling Zebedee’s wife and sons that they were asking for an honor already given to Peter. But, He did not do that. Today it seems that many religious people want to make it so, and exalt Peter above the other apostles, in spite of what Jesus said.

Many Catholics try to justify their claim that Peter was the first pope by affirming that he was the greatest of the apostles. They declare that Peter was greater because: (1) he always is mentioned first in the lists of the apostles (e.g., Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13); (2) he was the apostle who recognized Jesus as Lord in Matthew 16:16; and (3) Jesus told him to care for His sheep (John 21:15-19). Are these arguments sufficient for establishing the papacy or supremacy for Peter? No. Consider the case for any other apostle. For example, it could be said that John was the “greatest” of the apostles because: (1) in the Bible he is referred to as the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 21:20,24); (2) he rested on Jesus’ bosom just before His arrest (John 13:25; 21:20)—certainly a posture that suggests a close relationship; and (3) Jesus charged him with the responsibility of caring for His mother (John 19:26-27). Does this mean that we also should consider John as a pope? If not, should we consider Peter as a pope when all of the apostles had the same authority and their own privileges? Indeed, Jesus gave all of His disciples, not just Peter, authority (Matthew 28:19-20).

Finally, consider the words of Paul. He said: “[F]or in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing” (2 Corinthians 12:11). From this verse, we conclude that Paul was inferior to none of the apostles, and that Peter was neither lesser nor greater than Paul.

Argument #3: Peter was an apostle who had the same power as the other apostles.

Some religious people have spread the myth that Peter possessed more miraculous power than the other apostles, and that, therefore, he was greater than the rest. Yet, Matthew 17:14-21 presents the account of an epileptic boy who was brought to the disciples of Jesus (including Peter), but they could not heal him. If Peter had a power that was “more effective” than the other apostles’ power, he should have been able to perform this miracle. However, the boy was healed only after he was taken to Jesus. Jesus then reprimanded all the apostles for their lack of faith.

Near the end of His ministry, Jesus promised all of His disciples that “he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do” (John 14:12). In Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit came with power, He empowered not only Peter, but also the rest of the apostles (vss. 1-4). This is confirmed when we read that “fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles” (Acts 2:43, emp. added). There is no doubt that the apostle Peter was filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, but that power also was manifested in the rest of the apostles and was never grounds for considering one apostle as being superior to another.

Argument #4: Peter was a man who made mistakes.

Peter committed many mistakes just as any other person. The New Testament records that he: (a) doubted Jesus (Matthew 14:28-31); (b) acted impulsively against his fellow man (John 18:10-11); (c) denied Jesus three times (Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-18,25-27); (d) was overwhelmed by his failure (John 21:3); and (e) acted hypocritically before the church (Galatians 2:11-21; Paul “withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed”—a confrontation that would have been considered insolent if Peter was the “head of the church”). We should not belittle Peter, but we must understand that Peter, like all servants of God, had his faults and should never be considered greater than the other apostles, or any other Christian (cf. Matthew 11:11).

CONCLUSION

Neither Jesus, nor the apostles, nor the early Christians considered Peter as superior to the other apostles. He was simply a man privileged to be part of the apostolic ministry and a member of the body of Christ, which is the church. There is only one Head of the church, and that Head is Jesus Christ, not Peter (Ephesians 1:20-22; 5:23; Colossians 1:18; et al.).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (2005), Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Boles, H. Leo (1952), The Gospel According to Matthew (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of The Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).

Where is the Tolerance and Respect for Diversity? by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2013/09/04/where-is-the-tolerance-and-respect-for-diversity/#more-4526

Where is the Tolerance and Respect for Diversity?

AaronMelissaKlein

(This post received the 5th most hits from our readers in 2013)

Aaron and Melissa Klien have been the subject of protests.  Boycotts. And Public outrage.   In fact Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries has launched an official investigation.
“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate.” Presumably in referring to the Klien’s, Avakian also said,  “The goal is to rehabilitate.”

So who are Aaron and Melissa Klien?  And what intolerable offense did they commit?

The Kliens own a bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, in Greshem, Oregon. Last January a lesbian couple wanted them to bake a wedding cake.  They Kliens refused.  They call their bakery a “Christian business.”  And felt it was incompatible with their faith to take part in homosexual wedding events.

Aaron Klien says he has nothing against homosexuals.  But adds, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.  I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”

As a result militant homosexual groups launched protests and boycotts. The Kleins said they have received death threats. Some even hoping his children would die.

LGBT protestors then focused other wedding vendors in the community. They threatened to boycott  florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.

That tipped the scales,” Aaron Klein said. “The LGBT activists inundated them with phone calls and threatened them. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.’”

According to their facebook page the Kleins are now shutting down their store and moving the business they have left into their home.  “Better is a poor man who walks in integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways” reads one of their post from Proverbs 28:6.

Consider these five points.

(1) Is it just my religious bias, or does it seem that the intolerance is on the part of the pro-homosexual crowd that demands everyone cater to them?

The word “tolerance” has changed it’s meaning. It used to mean that we show respect to people with whom we disagree.  That we treat them with dignity. Now “tolerance” means that we must accept every idea, belief and practice as equally valid, true and right.  In fact, we must applaud and celebrate every lifestyle.  No matter how bizarre!

The persecution of the Kliens and their family business exposes the true colors of the far left.  They preach tolerance and diversity. Yet, have no tolerance for the faith of sincere Christians who respectfully disagree with their life style.  So much for diversity!

(2) Christians and churches need to realize we are under attack.  In the past several years the forces evil have been emboldened.  The devil has gotten a foothold in the media, entertainment industry and educational system in this country.  We are in fight “against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:11).

(3) We must be willing to say as the apostle Peter, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).  Christians in business and even churches may increasingly be called upon to disobey ungodly laws in favor of God’s divine edicts.

(4) We can learn a great lesson from the pro-homosexual forces in our country.  In my life time they have taken a practice that everyone in society knew was abnormal and wrong, and made it acceptable.  Lawful.  And even celebrated.  I wonder what would happen, if we all worked with the same desire, diligence, and dedication to share our faith and preach the gospel of Christ? 

(5) In spite of what the enemies of Truth do, Christians are called upon to live on a higher plane.  Let us not give in to ungodly attitudes or unrighteous actions.  We must practice the old adage that says, “Love the sinner. But hate the sin.”

In an age of relativism and individualism, tolerance is the mantra of our secular society.  Yet, where is the tolerance for Christians? And their Faith?

There will be more folks like the Kliens who suffer intolerance from the “politically correct” crowd.  In the meantime Christians must stay strong. And stand for Truth.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

WHERE IS GOD? by David Vaughn Elliott

 

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/insight-into-bible-truth-254-where-is.html

WHERE IS GOD? by David Vaughn Elliott 

Have you ever felt abandoned by God and wished you had never been born? You're in good company. I think we may fail to grasp the extent of Job's suffering. We may quote, "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21). But that is only at the beginning of Job's suffering.

Before proceeding, let's review God's evaluation of Job. James 5:11 says, "You have heard of the endurance (patience) of Job." Two times in Ezekiel 14 God condemns the wickedness of the land, saying that even if three righteous men were in it, the land would still be punished. The three would only save themselves. Who are the three? Noah, Daniel, and Job.

The Depth of Job's Suffering

Have you ever had a sore itching/hurting so bad that you couldn't keep from scratching it? Job was covered with such sores. Fingernails were not enough. He scratched with a broken piece of pottery. We often castigate his "friends" for their unhelpful rebukes. But when his friends first arrived, "they lifted up their eyes at a distance and did not recognize him, they raised their voices and wept... Then they sat down on the ground with him for seven days and seven nights with no one speaking a word to him, for they saw that his pain was very great" (Job 2:12-13). 

Job spoke first: "Let the day perish on which I was to be born... Let not God above care for it... Let those curse it who curse the day... Why did I not die at birth... Why did the knees receive me, and why the breasts, that I should suck?... Why is light given to him who suffers, and life to the bitter of soul, who long for death, but there is none" (Job 3:3-21).

There is not the slightest indication that Job contemplated suicide. In spite of all his suffering, he had deep faith in God and knew that life was in God's hands. He fully recognized that God is God, that God is the Almighty. "How can a man be in the right before God? If one wished to dispute with Him, he could not answer Him once in a thousand times... Who has defied Him without harm?... Who could say to Him, 'What are You doing?' " (Job 9:2-12).

In spite of bitterness, Job neither denied nor cursed God. Nor did he pray "beautiful," insincere prayers. Rather, he openly made his complaint to God: "I will speak in the bitterness of my soul. I will say to God, 'Do not condemn me; let me know why You contend with me... Your hands fashioned and made me altogether, and would You destroy me?' " (Job 10:1-2, 8). 

Where Is God? 

My beloved Margaret was a woman of great faith. Two months after 9/11, we were scheduled for our third trip to Belarus to teach the Word. Before leaving, someone asked if we still planned to fly. Margaret's reply was two-fold. In the first place, the chances of a repeat were slim. In the second place, she said, "If they blow up the plane, I know where I'm going!" 

Years later, Margaret was suffering with increasing limitations and unrelenting pain. She grieved that she couldn't complete her latest children's Bible course. She went from walker to wheelchair. She experienced increasing difficulty in feeding herself and even swallowing. All kinds of remedies were tried to ease her pain, until she finally accepted prescription narcotics. Still not enough. 

In that situation more than once, Margaret cried out, "Where is God?" Margaret was ready to die; she wanted to die. Why did it have to go on and on? Where was God? As I look back, actually her suffering was short compared to many others. 

"Where was God?" I had no neat answers. Some time after the Lord took her home, it came to my mind to examine the Psalms. I seemed to remember that such an outcry was very much a theme of that great book. Here are a few verses that stand out. 

"Why do You stand afar off, O Lord?
  Why do You hide Yourself in times of trouble?" (10:1).

"How long, O Lord? Will You forget me forever?
  How long will You hide Your face from me?
  How long shall I take counsel in my soul,
  Having sorrow in my heart all the day?" (13:1-2).

"I will say to God my rock, 'Why have You forgotten me?' " (42:9).

"For Your sake we are killed all day long;
  We are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.
  Arouse Yourself, why do You sleep, O Lord?
  Awake, do not reject us forever.
  Why do You hide Your face
  And forget our affliction and our oppression?" (44:22-24).

"Will the Lord reject forever?
  And will He never be favorable again?
  Has His lovingkindness ceased forever?
  Has His promise come to an end forever?" (77:7-8). 

Lots of questions, yes; but no denial of God, no cursing God. 

What We Have That Job Did Not
The first thing that Job did not have was the book of Job! We do not know who wrote the book nor when – or if – Job learned in this life why he had to suffer so. At the time of his suffering, he did not know he was a pawn in the great conflict between God and Satan. Neither he nor his friends knew that his suffering was not because he was so evil, but because he was so good! 

In Job 9:33 he says: "There is no umpire between us [Job and God], who may lay his hand upon us both." Some versions render "umpire" as "arbiter" or "mediator." Job did not have the "one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). Job did not have the good news of Jesus. He did not have a Savior who had suffered for his sins and the sins of his friends. Job did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Job did not have the comfort and power of Romans 8:28: "We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God." "Good," I take it, according to God's definition, not ours. "Work together," I take it, in due time – maybe even only with eternity in view.

Nor does Romans 8 promise an easy life. It even quotes from Psalm 44, as I did above: "Just as it is written, 'for your sake we are being put to death all day long; we were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.' " But then Romans 8 continues: "But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (vss. 36-39). Wonderful!

Be aware that these precious verses are not promising a life of comfort and ease. The Psalm quoted makes that clear. The NT does not promise an end to suffering, sickness, pain, and agony in this life. Such promises are reserved for the new heavens and new earth (Rev. 21:1-4). What is promised is that God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit will be near us.

But even if we do not feel His presence, even if we feel forgotten, even if we "desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better" (Phil. 1:23), nevertheless, He is near and loves us. 

With all that Job did not have, with all of Job's questions, yet Job declared: "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him" (Job 13:15). 

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB.

The Basic Error of the Protestant Reformation by j.c. Bailey

 

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

The Basic Error of the Protestant Reformation

We judge a tree by its fruit. In most ways great good has come from the Protestant Reformation. If we look at the countries where it flourished and compare them with the countries that clung to the old way, we can see what a good thing it was.

If the Reformers had lived up to their two great slogans, then the history of the religious world would have been different. Here are the two great slogans that were adopted by the Reformers:

THE UNIVERSAL PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVER
THE BIBLE THE FAITH OF THE PROTESTANT

But these noble slogans have been left far behind because today various Protestant denominations are as priest-bound and creed-bound as the Catholic church which they were trying to reform.

The very word REFORMATION is a mistake. It assumes that the Catholic Church was the church and it needed to be cleaned up. A candid perusal of the Bible will show that the Catholic Church is not the church of the Bible and no part of the church of the Bible. It is built on the traditions of men. Jesus described them exactly in Matthew 15:8,9. We have but to look at their doctrine and practices to see how true this is.

The errors of the Protestant world are borrowed largely from the Catholics: infant baptism, sprinkling for immersion, calling men "Reverend," a name that belongs only to God (Psalms 11:9).

However, the most serious error of Protestantism was not borrowed from the Catholics but came in opposition to the Catholic teaching that a man could be saved by the works of the church as prescribed by the church, regardless of what the Bible taught. The Protestants rightly taught that a man is saved by faith in Christ Jesus (John 3:16). We are not saved by the work of the law (Romans 3:28). We are not saved by our own righteousness (Titus 3:5). But men erroneously came to the conclusion that we are saved by faith ALONE.

One of the popular creeds of the Protestant world says: "Faith alone is a very wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort." The Bible does not so teach. The Bible teaches that a man must believe in the person of Christ (John 8:24). He must believe in the Word of Christ (Romans 10:17). When we reject the Word of Christ, we reject Christ: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my saying hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day (John 12:48). To this we add: "Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ hath not God, but he that abideth in the teaching hath both the Father and the Son" (II John 9).

We are saved by faith in Christ, but we are saved by an obedient faith (Romans 1:5; Romans 16:26; John 3:36). The Holy Spirit says PLAINLY that Jesus saves those who obey: "And having been made perfect he became unto all THEM THAT OBEY HIM the author of eternal salvation" (Hebrews 5:9). The whole Bible shows that God accepted man only through an obedient faith. To this there is no exception, from Abel to Paul. The Bible says that they that are of the faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham (Galatians 3:9). Abraham was blessed when he obeyed the voice of God AND NOT BEFORE: "And the angel of Jehovah called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said, by myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessings I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thee as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies and in thy seed [that seed was Christ: Galatians 3:16] shall all nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice" (Genesis 22:16-18). Abraham was blessed when he obeyed. The blessing came AFTER the obedience. We are blessed with the faithful Abraham. How can anyone say we are saved by FAITH ALONE, when the Bible from beginning to end testified that man is saved by an OBEDIENT faith?

In holding to this erroneous doctrine of justification by faith alone, men have rejected the plain teaching of the Word of God: that we are saved by an obedient faith. When one accepts the plain teaching of God's Word then he does not need to reject Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." He does not need to reject the plain teaching of 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). Judge a tree by its fruit. The doctrine of justification by FAITH ALONE causes man to reject these two Scriptures and many others. To accept the Bible teaching of justification by an obedient faith, one can accept these verses without question AND ALL OTHER SCRIPTURES THAT CALL UPON MAN TO BELIEVE AND OBEY.

The faith that was once for all delivered to the saints was an obedient faith, as is demonstrated hundreds of times in the Word of God. The devils believe but they are not saved FOR THEY DO NOT HAVE AN OBEDIENT FAITH (James 2:19).

We are all saved by faith in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:26). This faith causes us to be baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27). Salvation is IN CHRIST (Acts 4:12). We are in Christ by an obedient faith. Salvation is there and only there.

Let us give up the human doctrine of justification by FAITH ALONE. It is one of the traditions of men (Matthew 15:8,9). It is an old tradition that has been believed by millions of good people since the very beginning of the Protestant Reformation. BUT JUSTIFICATION BY AN OBEDIENT FAITH IS AS OLD AS THE BIBLE ITSELF.

"Choose you this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my house," we shall accept the Bible doctrine of justification by an obedient faith (Hebrews 5:9).

J.C. Bailey (1986, Bengough, Saskatchewan)

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


Get a plan! by Gary Rose


 

A life without a plan is foolishness. Growing up, our teachers in high school told us to plan for the future; they were right. Being without a plan is like a ship without a rudder, it just wanders. If one just wanders through life, the worst just may happen.


The picture presents a plan and its a good one. For those without faith, I suppose one could substitute “Be optimistic” instead of “Have Faith”, but that is a faith in one’s self. Christians have faith in what God did through Jesus and that is a matter of historical fact. When I saw this sign, I thought of the Apostle Paul’s parting admonition to his protege, Timothy…



2 Timothy 4 ( World English Bible )

1 I command you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom:

2 preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all patience and teaching.

3 For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts;

4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside to fables.

5 But you be sober in all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, and fulfill your ministry.

6 For I am already being offered, and the time of my departure has come.

7 I have fought the good fight. I have finished the course. I have kept the faith.

8 From now on, there is stored up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give to me on that day; and not to me only, but also to all those who have loved his appearing.



Christian, hold fast to your faith; it is really the only sure thing in unsettling times. Paul did and so can you. That sign is great as far as it goes, but place your hope in Jesus- you will be eternally glad you did!