3/18/15

From Mark Copeland... "CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS" Introduction To Christian Apologetics 


                         "CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS"

                  Introduction To Christian Apologetics

INTRODUCTION

1. In 1Pe 3:15, all Christians are commanded to be ready to make a
      "defense" for the reason of their hope in Christ...
   a. The word "defense" is from apologia, which means "a speech in
      defense of what one has done, or of truth which one believes"
   b. The formal use of this word is used by Paul in 
      Ac 22:1; 1Co 9:3

2. Peter, however, uses the word in the context of an informal 
   inquiry by a friend or neighbor...

   a. E.g., someone asking "Why are you a Christian?"
   b. To such Peter says that we should be ready to give reasons why we believe

3. In this series of lessons on "CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS", we shall
   examine some of the evidence that exists for placing one's faith in
   Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God

4. In doing so, I hope to accomplish two objectives:
   a. To STRENGTHEN OUR FAITH in Jesus Christ
   b. To HELP PREPARE OURSELVES to be able to do the very thing enjoined
      by Peter in 1Pe 3:15

[In this lesson, I wish to establish some "BASICS" for Christian
apologetics that are important for all to realize...]

I. THE CHRISTIAN FAITH IS "AN INTELLIGENT, RATIONAL FAITH"

   A. IT APPEALS TO THE "MIND" AS WELL AS TO THE "HEART"
      1. God expects us to use our minds - Mt 22:36-38; Jn 8:32
         a. I.e., we do not have to commit "INTELLECTUAL SUICIDE" in
            order to have faith!
         b. This is important, for as one person said, "My heart cannot
            rejoice in what my mind rejects!"
            1) A "WEAK FAITH" may be the result of the heart trying to
               believe in something the mind cannot accept
            2) But the "STRONG FAITH" God requires involves both the
               mind and the heart
      2. So it is important that we present reasons why we believe in
         an INTELLIGENT and RATIONAL manner
         a. "We cannot pander to a man's intellectual arrogance, but we
            must cater to his intellectual integrity." - PAUL LITTLE

   B. DOES THIS MEAN WE CAN OFFER 100% PROOF?
      1. No, but there is virtually nothing of which we can be 100% sure
         (e.g., who our parents are)
      2. Yet, we often make 100% commitments with less than 100% proof;
         e.g., flying on an airplane...
         a. We cannot be 100% certain that we will have a safe journey
         b. But the statistical evidence is strong enough to convince us that we will
         c. So though we may not have 100% certainty of arriving safely,
            when we step on the plane we make a 100% commitment!
      3. So the question becomes:  IS THERE ENOUGH EVIDENCE OR PROOF TO
         WARRANT MAKING A 100% COMMITMENT TO CHRIST?
         a. I believe that there is
         b. Certainly enough evidence to commit myself 100% FOR HIM,
            rather than be 100% AGAINST HIM!
            a. There is no other alternative - Mt 12:30
            b. Jesus is like an airplane; either we get on board 
               totally, or we get left behind!

[So the Christian faith is to be an INTELLIGENT, RATIONAL FAITH. As an
example, consider the next "BASIC"...]

II. THE CHRISTIAN FAITH IS "A HISTORICAL, FACTUAL FAITH"

   A. CHRISTIANITY APPEALS TO HISTORY, AND THE FACTS OF HISTORY
      1. "The facts backing the Christian claim are not a special kind
         of 'religious' fact.  They are the cognitive, informational
         facts upon which all historical, legal, and ordinary decisions
         are based." - CHARLES PINNOCK
      2. It will be my purpose in future lessons...
         a. To present these HISTORICAL FACTS
         b. Then demonstrate that the CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION is more
            logical than any other

   B. BUT TO BRIEFLY ILLUSTRATE THAT CHRISTIANITY IS BASED UPON HISTORICAL FACTS...
      1. Consider Lk 2:1-5; 3:1-2
      2. Notice the appeal to time, places, people and events that
         actually existed in history

   C. THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, THEREFORE, IS A HISTORICAL FAITH THAT 
      APPEALS TO CERTAIN FACTS OF HISTORICAL OCCURENCE
      1. Not a PHILOSOPHICAL faith appealing to philosophies of men
      2. Not a faith based upon MYTHS and LEGENDS

[As we consider the evidences for the Christian faith, it is also 
important to bear in mind that...]

III. THE CHRISTIAN FAITH IS "AN OBJECTIVE FAITH"

   A. IT IS A FAITH IN AN "OBJECT":  JESUS OF NAZARETH!
      1. Faith in WHO He was:  The Christ, the Son of God
      2. Faith in WHAT He did:  He rose from the dead on the third day

   B. IT "DOES" MAKE A DIFFERENCE "WHAT" WE BELIEVE!
      1. The old cliche "It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as
         you believe in something" is inconsistent with the Christian faith
      2. Consider Jn 8:24; Ro 10:9
         a. Note that it is not faith IN OF ITSELF that is important
         b. But IN WHOM (the object) our faith is based!

[And then consider that...]

IV. THE CHRISTIAN FAITH IS "BASED ON PRINCIPLES OF TRUTH"

   A. SUCH AS "TRUTH IS ALWAYS OPEN TO EXAMINATION"
      1. So is the Christian faith
         a. Cf. Ac 2:22 - Peter appealed to the crowd to examine what
            they themselves knew
         b. Cf. Ac 26:24-26 - Paul invited Agrippa to examine the evidence
      2. Unlike some religions (esp. "Jehovah's Witnesses" and the
         "Mormons"), the CHRISTIAN FAITH is open to honest examination

   B. SUCH AS "TRUTH IS ALWAYS OPEN TO NON-TRUTH (FALSIFICATION)"
      1. That is, it is open to be proven wrong
      2. To illustrate, if you don't believe Jesus was raised from the dead...
         a. Use the evidence that is available, and...
         b. Attempt to prove by it that He wasn't!
         c. Do this and then we shall see which interpretation of the
            facts is more logical (intelligent and rational)

[Before I close this lesson, I wish to address one last question:  "If 
the Christian faith is such an intelligent, rational, historical and 
factual faith, then why do many people reject it?"]

V. WHY PEOPLE REJECT CHRIST

   A. AS IN THE DAYS OF CHRIST, IT IS USUALLY DUE TO ONE OF THREE REASONS...
      1. IGNORANCE - Jn 7:40-43
         a. Some rejected Jesus as the Christ because they were ignorant
            of the historical facts concerning His birth
         b. So many do today for a similar reason:  LACK OF ACCURATE INFORMATION!
      2. PRIDE - Jn 12:42-43
         a. Pride in wanting to be approved by men kept them from
            confessing Jesus as the Christ
         b. Today, many do not want the RIDICULE or REJECTION one might
            face for following Christ
      3. MORAL PROBLEM - Jn 3:19-20
         a. Some people reject the evidence because it would mean having
            to change their LIFESTYLE
         b. Today, many people in efforts to justify their immorality...
            1) Accept only that evidence which supports theories which
               allows them to continue their lifestyle
            2) Reject any evidence which may support a doctrine which
               would condemn their behavior and require a change

   B. WHAT IT OFTEN BOILS DOWN TO IS THIS...
      1. The rejection of Christ...
         a. Is not so much a problem of the "MIND" but of the "WILL"!
         b. Is not so much "I CAN'T" but "I WON'T"!
      2. There is enough evidence to convince the honest and sincere seeker
      3. But there is not enough evidence to force a man against his
         will when he is determined to reject it!

CONCLUSION

1. It is with these "BASICS" in mind that I shall endeavor to give
   evidence that warrants faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, the
   Son of God

2. I shall not attempt to prove anything "beyond a shadow of a doubt,"
   for that is not possible

3. But I shall try to show that it is more logical to believe in Jesus,
   than for one not to!

And we shall begin by examining the evidence that demonstrates Jesus to
be a true, historical figure, a person who actually lived!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

From Gary... Hatred



Want to serve God? Want to be the very best person you can be? If you do, you will be hated. Consider the following...

Matthew, Chapter 10 (WEB)
  24  “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord.  25  It is enough for the disciple that he be like his teacher, and the servant like his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more those of his household! 

2 Timothy, Chapter 3 (WEB)
 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 

Why must these things be? Because evil does not like to be exposed for what it is!!! And if Satan hates those who follow God, those who follow Satan will hate Christians as well. There has been, and always will be a separation between good and evil. Time to choose sides: If God is not your father, then the Devil is your Daddy!!!  

3/16/15

Sam Harris, Christ’s Resurrection, and the Nature of Belief by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=2770

Sam Harris, Christ’s Resurrection, and the Nature of Belief

by Kyle Butt, M.A.
Sam Harris has helped lead the new brigade of militant atheists in their charge against God. His bestseller, The End of Faith, attempts to persuade the reader that all religions, including Christianity, are not only useless, but often quite harmful. In truth, he does an outstanding job showing some of the problems with false religions like Islam, and he also effectively repudiates perversions of Christian doctrine that attempt to pass themselves off as authentic. What he fails to do, however, is accurately assess true, New Testament Christianity, a fault that lies at the heart of much modern, atheistic writing.
As a case in point, Harris asked the question: “What should we believe?” He answered:
We believe most of what we believe about the world because others have told us to.... In fact, the more educated we become, the more our beliefs come to us second hand. A person who believes only those propositions for which he can provide full sensory or theoretical justification will know almost nothing about the world (2004).
Harris then proceeded to discuss how to assess the validity of what we should or should not believe that other people tell us. He gave three sources of information and analyzed the validity of each. First, he proposed the scenario of an anchorman on the evening news claiming that a fire in Colorado had burned 100,000 acres. Second, he listed as a source of information numerous biologists who claim that DNA is the “molecular basis for sexual reproduction.” And the third source of information he listed was the Pope, who claims that Jesus is the Son of God, was born of a virgin, and was resurrected bodily after death.
After some discussion, Harris concluded that the first and second sources of information are reliable and should be trusted, but the third, the Pope, is not. What is interesting about Harris’ discussion is why he concluded that the story about the fire on the evening news is trustworthy. He elaborated:
Given our beliefs about the human mind, the success of our widespread collaboration with other human beings, and the degree to which we all rely on the news, it is scarcely conceivable that a respected television network and a highly paid anchorman are perpetrating a hoax, or that thousands of firefighters, newsmen, and terrified homeowners have mistaken Texas for Colorado. Implicit in such commonsense judgments lurks an understanding of the causal connections between various processes in the world, the likelihood of different outcomes, and the vested interests or lack thereof, of those whose testimony we are considering. What would a professional news anchor stand to gain from lying about a fire in Colorado? We need not go into the details here, if the anchor on the evening news says that there is a fire in Colorado and then shows us images of burning trees, we can be reasonably sure that there really is a fire in Colorado (2004).
It is not surprising that Harris follows this explanation with his statement about mistrusting the words of the Pope pertaining to the resurrection of Christ. In this regard, he is right: the Pope’s “word” on the resurrection is no more authoritative than the word of Sam Harris. But notice the straw man Harris has built. He rightly attacks the false belief of the Pope’s infallibility, but he does not address the real evidence that validates Jesus’ resurrection. Were we to put the evidence for the resurrection beside that of the news story, the resurrection would have unquestionably more “commonsense judgments” to commend it, making it much more “reasonably sure” than a modern news story.
Analyzing the resurrection of Christ in light of Harris’ filter of evidence, it is “scarcely conceivable” that several hundred eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6) of the resurrected Christ simply concocted the story to further their agenda. What would ordinary fishermen, farmers, or businessmen and women stand to gain from perpetuating such a hoax? The reward for their testimony was that many of them were stoned, killed with the sword, tortured, or imprisoned for nothing more than saying that they knew Jesus came back to life. Thousands of their peers listened with interest to their evidence, assessed the value of the witnesses and other information, such as the empty tomb of Christ, and were forced to conclude that the resurrection had, indeed, occurred (Acts 2:41). Many among the most educated classes, including the priests, who would have had numerous reasons to deny the validity of the evidence, were convinced of the truth of Christ’s resurrection (Acts 6:7). The many “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3) offered for the resurrection are recorded in the most reliable documents ever to come down to modern man from any historical repository (see Butt, 2004). In fact, so powerful are the various evidences for the resurrection (see Butt, 2002), that, knowing what we know “about the casual connections between various processes” and humanity’s “success of our widespread collaboration with other human beings,” it is inconceivable that the resurrection of Christ is a hoax. The Pope is an easy target. The real evidence for the resurrection is not.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/121.
Butt, Kyle (2004), “Archaeology and the New Testament,” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2591.
Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).

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


                  "CHALLENGES CONFRONTING THE CHURCH"

                               Secularism

INTRODUCTION

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

2. Each contribute toward changing the church...
   a. Into something very different than Jesus intended
   b. Churches that are carnal, fleshly, more of the world than of 
      God

[A similar challenge confronting churches is the trend toward secularism...]

I. DEFINING SECULAR AND SECULARISM

   A. SECULAR...
      1. Worldly rather than spiritual - American Heritage Dictionary
      2. Of or relating to worldly things as distinguished from things
         relating to church and religion; not sacred or religious;
         temporal; worldly - YourDictionary.com

   B. SECULARISM...
      1. Indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and
         religious considerations - Merriam-Webster
      2. Worldly spirit, views, or the like; esp., a system of doctrines
         and practices that disregards or rejects any form of religious
         faith and worship - YourDictionary.com

[One would think that by definition churches would be religious,
spiritual, sacred, in nature.  Yet many have noted that in too many churches, there are...]

II. MANIFESTATIONS OF SECULARISM

   A. THE CHURCH AS A BUSINESS INSTUTITION...
      1. In the Bible, the church is a spiritual institution
         a. The body of Christ, the kingdom of God - 1Co 12:27; Col 1:13
         b. The bride of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit - 2Co 11:2; 1Co 3:16
         c. With elders served as shepherds, feeding and guiding the flock of God - Ac 20:28
         d. Deacons met physical needs, but so others could focus on spiritual needs - Ac 6:1-7
         e. Preachers were devoted to the Word, serving as evangelists - 1Ti 4:16; 2Ti 4:5
      2. Today, many churches function more like a business
         a. Elders are more like board members, directors, corporate managers
         b. Preachers have become staff managers, counselors, figure heads
         c. Members divided into committees, departments, with chairpersons, superintendents
         d. Evangelism has turned into marketing, public relations

   B. THE CHURCH AS A SOCIAL INSTITUTION...
      1. Today, many churches have become social clubs
         a. Building gymnasiums, eating ("fellowship") halls
         b. Offering mental counseling, babysitting services
         c. Providing entertainment for children and even adults
      2. Whereas in the Bible the church focused on the spiritual
         a. They assembled to worship, edify one another - Ac 20:7; He 10:24-25
         b. Trends leading to make the focus social or secular were addressed - 1Co 11:17-34
         c. The assembly was their "fellowship hall", the Lord’s Supper their "fellowship dinner"
         d. Families were expected to take care of their social needs,
            lest the church become burdened and unable to fulfill its primary duties - e.g., 1Ti 5:16

[Turning the church from a spiritual institution into a secular one does
not occur overnight.  Changes that appear innocent and harmless may be
the "gateway drug" to secularism.  A few thoughts for...]

III. AVOIDING SECULARISM

   A. DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SACRED AND SECULAR...
      1. Let the church fulfill its role as a spiritual institution, focused on:
         a. Teaching the Word of God, praising God
         b. Providing opportunities to fulfill spiritual duties (e.g.,Lord’s Supper, assembling)
         c. Equipping the saints for ministry, much of which will occur outside the church
      2. Let family and society fulfill their roles
         a. Parents and friends providing entertainment, physical needs
         b. Professionals providing medical and counseling needs
         c. Individuals joining together in charitable organizations to serve others

   B. ADOPT BIBLICAL GUIDELINES...
      1. The church should focus on providing spiritual needs - 1Co 11:34
         a. Many churches struggle as to when and where to draw the line
         b. Paul does so in this passage; can it not be a guide for us today?
      2. As a church, be careful not to take on unnecessary burdens - 1Ti 5:16
         a. Many churches are burdened with social concerns, neglecting spiritual ones
         b. Paul warns against this in this passage; can it not be a guide as well?
      3. Let the organization of the church be patterned after the New
         Testament, not modern day businesses with their titles and organizations - e.g., Php 1:1

CONCLUSION

1. The Lord’s church is a wonderful institution; but God has other institutions as well...
   a. Such as family, government, etc.
   b. Each uniquely designed and qualified to fulfill their respective roles

2. The Lord’s church is likewise uniquely designed and qualified to fulfill a role...
   a. One that is spiritual and sacred
   b. One that can easily be neglected or burdened

Even with the best of intentions, the Lord’s church can easily be
transformed from a spiritual institution into a secular one.  That is the danger of secularism...!


Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

From Gary... Problems, politicians and priorities


The federal government is out of control. Drunk with power and the acquisition of personal wealth, they have lost touch with those who elected them. We need to remove all of them, install term limits and spending limits- and do it now.  A constitutional convention needs to be convened to make these things happen!!!!  Having said my peace about the current state of affairs in Washington, I encourage every Christian to read the following...

Romans, Chapter 13 (WEB)
  1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God.  2 Therefore he who resists the authority, withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment.  3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the same,  4 for he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he doesn’t bear the sword in vain; for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil.  5 Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.  6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are servants of God’s service, attending continually on this very thing.  7 Give therefore to everyone what you owe: taxes to whom taxes are due; customs to whom customs; respect to whom respect; honor to whom honor.

If we follow God first, we will naturally be model citizens and therefore do the best we can within any system of government- even corrupt and ungodly ones.  In the meantime, I encourage you to investigate the following...


3/14/15

Take Your Pick by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

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

Take Your Pick

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Nearly all credible historians will concede that a man by the name of Jesus lived and died in the land of Palestine about 2,000 years ago. Even most atheists accept the historicity of Jesus the Nazarene. There simply is overwhelming evidence that points to a man named Jesus who lived and died in the first century. In fact, just by acknowledging the “first century,” one is describing a time based upon the birth of Jesus. Our whole dating method is based upon this man called Christ [“B.C.” meaning “before Christ,” and “A.D.” (standing for Anno Domini) meaning “in the year of the Lord”]. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and infidels (for the most part) all accept that Jesus was an actual human being.
However, even though most people who know some world history admit that Jesus was a real person, relatively few believe He was God in the flesh (as the Bible repeatedly emphasizes). They might say He was a good man, or that He was a noted philosopher or great moral teacher, but the fact is, the majority of the people in the world do not believe He was (as Peter claimed nearly 2,000 years ago) “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).
Have you ever thought about what people actually are saying who deny the deity of Christ, yet believe He was a good man? They are saying that Jesus was not Who He claimed to be—the Son of God. They are advocating that even though Jesus accepted such claims of deity from men (cf. John 1:29,41,49; 20:28) and claimed deity Himself time and again (Mark 14:62; John 9:36-38; 10:30; et al.), what he said was not true. Yet they still hold to the assumption that Christ was a “good man.”
Realistically, there are only three explanations that one can give as to who Christ was: (1) He was the greatest liar, con man, and phony the world has ever known; (2) He was a lunatic who simply labored under the delusion that he was God; or (3) He was who He claimed to be—God. Logically speaking, no other choices exist. The view that Christ was a raving madman has rarely been entertained by anyone who is aware of Christ’s life and teachings. No lunatic could answer questions with such profound wisdom and authority (cf. Matthew 7:28-29). What madman would teach that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us? The insane do not teach that we should “turn the other cheek,” and then set an example of exactly how to do that—even unto death. Lunacy does not produce such genius. For that reason, relatively few ever have been so foolish as to call Christ a lunatic.
Furthermore, not even the most celebrated infidels have been willing to characterize Christ as a con man or charlatan. Renowned infidel Henri Rousseau once wrote: “Yes, if the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of a God” (Emile, 1.4). French humanist and staunch enemy of Christianity, Joseph Renan, called Jesus a “sublime person” and declared that in Him “is condensed all that is good and lofty in our nature” (Life of Jesus, chapters 1,28). The fact is, very few people throughout history ever have claimed that Christ was a liar or a lunatic.
But, if Jesus was not a liar or a lunatic, then logically He must have been who He claimed to be—the Son of God. One cannot profess sensibly that Christ was a good man, yet not the Son of God. Either He was both—or He was neither. Either Christ was a lunatic, or a liar, or the Lord. Take your pick, but choose wisely, for your eternal destiny is at stake.

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


                  "CHALLENGES CONFRONTING THE CHURCH"

                              Traditionalism

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

I. THE MEANING OF TRADITION

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

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

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

   D. AS FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES...
      1. The word "tradition" as such is not found in the Old Testament
      2. It is found thirteen (13) times in New Testament
         a. Three times referring to "apostolic teaching" - 1Co 11:2;2Th 2:15; 3:6
         b. Ten times referring to "the tradition of the elders" or "the
            traditions of men" in a dangerous way - 
            Mk 7:3-13; Mt 15:2-6; Col 2:8; 1Pe 1:18; Ga 1:14
      3. Jesus did not feel bound to abide by "the traditions of the
         elders"
         a. Some traditions He had no problem with keeping
            1) Such as going to a wedding feast - Jn 2:1-2
            2) Or attending the Feast Of Dedication - Jn 10:22-23
         b. He just as easily had no problem with violating other traditions
            1) Plucking grain on the Sabbath - Mk 2:23-28
            2) Eating with unwashed hands - Mk 7:1-5
      4. Jesus evidently did not subscribe to the view of "traditions" handed down orally
         a. He never appealed to the traditions of the elders
         b. He either appealed to the authority of the written Word (the
            Law of Moses), or to His own authority as the Son of God
      5. Note well:  We have seen that not all "traditions" are wrong
         a. If they are "handed down" by inspired men, they are to be heeded - 2Th 2:15
         b. If they are doctrines or interpretations handed down by
            uninspired men (like the traditions of the Jews) they are suspect
         c. But in some cases uninspired "traditions of men" might be observed

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

II. THE DANGER OF TRADITIONS OF MEN

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

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

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

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

III. TRADITIONS AND TRADITIONALISM: A SUMMARY

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)