2/12/20

HUMAN TRADITION? by steve finnell


http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/human-tradition-by-steve-finnell-is-man.html

HUMAN TRADITION? by steve finnell


Is man-made tradition equal to Scripture? Can following human tradition save anyone? Does God approve of human tradition that is contrary to the Bible?

 Believers in God have always struggled with human traditions.

 Isaiah 29:13 The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men. (NIV)

 Human tradition does not please God

 Mark 7:1-9.......7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules made by men.' 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." 9 And he said to them : "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God  in order to observe your own traditions! (NIV)

 God did not inspire man-made creed books, denominational doctrines that are contrary to Scripture, nor any other books that have been inspired by men's opinions.

 Matthew 16:5-12.......12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against  the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. (NIV)

 The Pharisees and Sadducees had a problem. They loved their human traditions more than God's commandments.

 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine . Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what they want to hear. 4 They will turn away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (NIV)

 Myth Defined: Any invented story, idea, or concept.

 All doctrine that is contrary to the Bible is a myth. 

 Human traditions that men have accepted as truth, but are contrary to the Bible:
1. That mankind living under the new covenant can be saved like the thief on the cross. No water baptism required. The thief did not believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, so no belief in the resurrection of Jesus required.

 NOT TRUE

 2. God selected a few men to be saved by grace alone and selected all others to burn in hell for all eternity.

 NOT TRUE

 3. That praying to the Virgin Mary and other dead saints has been approved of by God.

 NOT TRUE

 4. That water baptism is for a testimony of faith, but not essential for forgiveness of sins.

 NOT TRUE

 5. That God created theistic evolution.

 NOT TRUE

 6. That God established different denominations so men could choose the plan of salvation that agrees their own desires. That faith and practice could be written according to the tradition of men.

 NOT TRUE

 7. That pastors and priests have been given the authority to forgive men of their sins against God.

 NOT TRUE

 8. That studying Bible commentaries, church creed books, catechisms, denominational statements of faith is the way to find God's absolute truth.

 NOT TRUE

 9. That all men are guilty of Adam's sin at birth and need to be forgiven of Adam's sin. That the doctrine of original sin is confirmed by Scripture. [Note: Infants are not guilty of sin. Period. They do not break God's commandments.]

 NOT TRUE 

 -------------------------------------

 The Bible and the Bible alone is the antidote for the myths of human traditions. The Bible is the inoculation against false doctrine.

It Shall Accomplish What I Please by B. Johnson


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Johnson/Edna/Elizabeth/1939/accomplish.html
It Shall Accomplish What I Please
 
“For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isa 55:10-11).
Our Heavenly Father says that His word is like the snow and rain from heaven which make the earth bud and give seed to the sower and bread to the eater. Like the moisture from the sky, His word will not return to him void, but it will accomplish the purpose for which it has been sent.
The comparison here is between the earth receiving the snow and rain and being nourished, or watered, by it and His word (both Old Testament and New) being sent into the hearts of the people. Sometimes the earth is rocky and hard; likewise the hearts of the people may not be receptive, yet the gospel has a way of softening or watering those stony hearts to make them grow into what God wants them to be.
When we have studied and worked with an individual or a group of people who seem not to understand or respond, we need to remember this passage and know that God’s word will not return to him empty. It will accomplish His will even if it only serves to put Jesus’ enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:24-26). Our Father is fair and will give these people every possible chance to repent (2 Pe 3:9).
God has ordained that He will accomplish His will through His word. Man’s ways and thoughts are not the same as God’s ways and thoughts (Isa 55:8-9). The only way we can know God’s thoughts is for Him to reveal them to us, for only the Holy Spirit knows the thoughts of God (1 Cor 2:11). God’s prophets and apostles were inspired to write the word of God in the scriptures (2 Tim 3:16-17). They were guided into all truth (Jn 16:13).
We can build with wood, hay and stubble, but the only thing that will endure the test of the fire is gold (1 Cor 2:12-13). God’s word is pure gold, and we must use it to build in the hearts of the people. The Lord commanded Timothy to preach what he heard from the inspired apostle (2 Tim 2:2), and was told to preach God’s word (2 Tim 4:4). He commands us to preach the oracles of God (1 Pe 4:11). If we trust Him, and preach His word, it will not return to Him void.
Beth Johnson
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The King James Version.
Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Those last words by Gary Rose



Last night we watched “New Amsterdam”, which is a hospital drama. What struck me about this particular show was its emphasis on a hospital’s care for the terminally ill in their last days. There was one patient in particular, a Chinese math professor, who was looking for the meaning of life. His search ended in seeing the grandness of a snowstorm in counting the snowflakes, which seemed meaningless to me. But, it does raise the question about our last moments on Earth, as does the picture above. The Bible also raises the question but in a different way….


2 Kings 20 ( World English Bible )
[1] In those days was Hezekiah sick to death. Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, “Thus says Yahweh, ‘Set your house in order; for you shall die, and not live.’” 

  [2]  Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed to Yahweh, saying,  [3] “Remember now, Yahweh, I beg you, how I have walked before you in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in your sight.” Hezekiah wept bitterly.

  [4]  Before Isaiah had gone out into the middle part of the city, Yahweh’s word came to him, saying,  [5] “Turn back, and tell Hezekiah the prince of my people, ‘Thus says Yahweh, the God of David your father, “I have heard your prayer. I have seen your tears. Behold, I will heal you. On the third day, you shall go up to Yahweh’s house. [6] I will add to your days fifteen years. (see also, Isaiah, chapters 38 and 39)


Now, it was a little depressing to see those people who were about to die, but reading Hezekiah’s plea and God’s response made up for it, because the Bible gives us hope. In his “last words” Hezekiah turned to God. Ever wonder what your last words will be? For Christians, they will most likely involve the appreciation of what God has done for them in this life and the certain hope of the blessings in the next!

2/10/20

"STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS" Joel - The Day Of The Lord (1:1-2:27) by Mark Copeland 

"STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS"

Joel - The Day Of The Lord (1:1-2:27)

INTRODUCTION

1. We now turn to the book of Joel, and this will be the first of two
   lessons

2. The name "Joel" means "Jehovah is God", and we know very little about the author...
   a. The name appears frequently, with at least a dozen men sharing  the name 
in the O.T.
   b. Described as "the son of Pethuel" (1:1), there is no reason to
      associate him with any other Joel mentioned in the Bible

[As we begin our study, let's do so with some...]

I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

   A. THE DATE...
      1. The date of the book is uncertain
         a. Some place it as one of the earliest of the "literary prophets" (ca. 900 B.C.)
         b. Some believe it was written after the Exile (ca. 400 B.C.)
      2. Hailey, Young, and other scholars defend the early date
         a. Suggesting a date of 830 B.C.
         b. Which is the date I am presuming for our study

   B. THE OCCASION...
      1. Joel's prophecy was occasioned by a calamity that had struck the land
         a. Literally, it is described as a locust plague
         b. Some suggest that the locusts were symbolical of an army that had invaded
      2. I take the description of the plague as literal
   
   C. THE MESSAGE...
      1. Joel sees the locust plague as a warning from God
         a. That the calamity was heralding "the day of the Lord" which was coming
         b. That if the people did not repent, this "day" would bring
            even more destruction
      2. So Joel's message is "Seek the Lord through repentance!"(1:1-2:27)
      3. Joel also has some things to say about what shall come to pass
         "afterward" (2:28-3:21)

[With this brief background as an introduction, let's now begin reading
the book with the aid of the following outline...]

II. OUTLINE OF THE BOOK (1:1-2:27)

   A. THE LAND IS LAID WASTE (1:1-12)
      1. Joel provides a graphic description of the locust plague (1-4)
      2. He calls for people to weep over the devastation (5-12)

   B. A PLEA TO CRY OUT TO THE LORD (1:13-20)
      1. To be led by the priests, consecrating a fast and calling the
           people together (13-14)
      2. For the present destruction is heralding the coming "day of the Lord"(15-18)
      3. Joel and the beasts take the lead, with their own cry to the Lord (19-20)

   C. THE COMING "DAY OF THE LORD" (2:1-11)
      1. A cry to warn the people, for the day is coming! (1)
      2. This particular "day of the Lord" is vividly described (2-11)
         a. It will be a recurrence of the locust plague
         b. Described as an invading army, an army led by God!
   
   D. A CALL TO REPENTANCE (2:12-17)
      1. Voiced first by God Himself (12)
      2. Then elaborated upon by Joel (13-17)
         a. Repent, for God Who is gracious may relent and provide a blessing
         b. Make it a national repentance, led by the priests

   E. THE LORD'S PROMISE IF THERE IS REPENTANCE (2:18-20)
      1. He will be zealous for His land, and show pity to the people (18)
      2. He will bless them with grain, wine, and oil (19)
      3. He will remove the "army" (locusts) from the north (20)

   F. A CALL TO COURAGE AND GLADNESS (2:21-24)
      1. A call directed by Joel towards:
         a. The land, for the Lord has done marvelous things (21)
         b. The beasts of the field, for the pastures and trees are 
            fruitful once again (22)
         c. The children of Zion, for the Lord is blessing the land 
            with rain and a full harvest (23-24)
      2. This passage implies the people repented, and the Lord was 
         keeping His promise!

   G. THE LORD'S REASSURANCE (2:25-27)
      1. God will restore what His "army" (the locusts) had destroyed (25)
      2. They will be blessed with plenty, and praise God for His grace (26)
      3. Then they shall truly know that God is over them (27)

[This ends the first part of Joel's prophecy.  It clearly pertained to
the people of his day.  The rest of the book looks forward to a period
described as "afterward" (2:28), "in those days and at that time"
(3:1), and "in that day" (3:18).  This section we will examine in
our next lesson.

But from what we have read thus far, what lessons can we learn from 
Joel?]

III. LESSONS FROM THE BOOK OF JOEL

   A. THE VALUE OF NATURAL CALAMITIES...
      1. They can serve to turn men back to God
      2. God certainly used them to reach out to His people in the O.T.
         - cf. Am 4:6-12
      3. But not all calamities come from God; some came from Satan 
         - cf. Job 1:6-19
      4. Whether calamities come from God, Satan, or are purely 
         coincidental, they should be times of reflection concerning
         life and our relationship to God - e.g., Job 1:20-22

   B. THE NATURE OF TRUE REPENTANCE (2:12-13a)
      1. It must be with all our heart (12a)
      2. It must be inward, not just outward (12b-13a)

   C. THE NATURE OF GOD (2:13b)
      1. He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and of great 
         kindness - cf. Ps 103:8-14
      2. He relents from doing harm when we repent - cf. Jer 18:7-8

   D. "THE DAY OF THE LORD" CAN BE AVERTED...
      1. "The day of the Lord" often refers to God's judgment upon a nation
         a. Such judgments were many, and often described in terms 
            indicative of the final judgment at the end of time - cf. 
            the judgment of Babylon, Isa 13:1-13
         b. In the first part of Joel's prophecy, it referred to a 
            plague of locusts that would be greater than what they had
            already experienced - Joel 2:1-11
      2. But such judgments could be averted - cf. Jer 18:7-8
         a. Such happened with the city of Nineveh - cf. Jonah 3:1-10
         b. And when we compare Joel 1:11; 2:1,11 with 2:13-14,18-23,
            it appears to have been averted in Joel's day!
      3. Of course, this does not pertain to the "ultimate" day of the
         Lord at the end of time, but to the "preliminary" judgments 
         that God often brings upon a nation

CONCLUSION

1. Our next lesson will complete our survey of the book of Joel, in 
   which we will find...
   a. Joel writing of events that heralded the beginning of the
       Christian dispensation
   b. More lessons that are of value to the Christian

2. But in closing, may I remind you of that "day of the Lord" which is yet to
    come?
   a. A day vividly described in 2Pe 3:7-10
   b. A day which cannot be averted, but for which we can prepare- 2Pe 3:11-14

For those who prepare themselves for this coming "day of the Lord", 
they will find that indeed the Lord is "gracious and merciful, slow to
anger, and of great kindness" (Joel 2:13). But for those who continue
in their sins, we can only say along with Joel...

   "Alas for the day! For the day of the LORD is at hand; It shall
   come as destruction from the Almighty." (Joel 1:15)

A God Like That by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=906

A God Like That

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

If a hundred atheists, agnostics, or unbelievers were asked why they do not believe in God, they might give a hundred different reasons. Certainly, no single reason has emerged as the quintessential answer for unbelief. The problem of evil, pain, and suffering would rank at the top of the list, as well as the claim that “religion” is unscientific.
There is, however, another primary reason that many people give for not believing in the God of the Bible. They say that they would believe in a god if he acted different than the one in the Bible, but they simply “cannot” believe in a god that would act like the one discussed in the “holy book.” An excellent example of this argument comes from an article written by Ronald Defenbaugh. In it, he chronicled his life, pointing out specific times when his unbelief was confirmed by a particular action or idea taught by a “religious” individual or institution. In a paragraph detailing his early years of raising a family, he stated:
One evening, a friend about the same age as us rode home with us from one of our children’s sporting events. This was the first time I realized I may have a real problem with believing. She was a good friend of my spouse’s, a member of our Church and very religious. I don’t remember how the subject came up but salvation was our subject of conversation. She stated that even though my father had been an honest, caring person who did nothing but good, he would not receive salvation. He could only go to Heaven if he accepted Christ as his Savior. I remember thinking that I wanted no part of a deity that sent my father to Hell under those circumstances. Why would a baby, or my father, or even me be sent to Hell just because we didn’t accept Christ as our Savior? What about the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists? Again, what about me? This started me thinking that I probably was without belief. Or at least I didn’t understand it. It didn’t fit my logic (2003).
While his reference to God sending a baby to hell is without any biblical support, his understanding of the teaching of the concept that the God of the Bible will send to hell all individuals who have reached the age of accountability (the level of mental maturity at which a person is capable of understanding the concept of his or her own sin) and who have not accepted Jesus Christ, is absolutely accurate (John 8:24). Understanding this precept very clearly, he stated that he “wanted no part of a deity” like that. It is almost as if he is implying that if the God of the Bible were a little different, or if He better “fit” Defenbaugh’s own ideas, then he might be willing to believe in such a God.
Let’s analyze this position. Those who “cannot” believe in a God like the one in the Bible, conveniently accept as true all the characteristics of God that make Him look like a heartless tyrant. For instance, they accept that the God of the Bible is a deity Who has ordered executions of “immoral” nations that do not worship Him. They also accept that the God of the Bible will confine certain individuals to eternal destruction due to the “wrong” decisions of those individuals. (The word wrong is in quotation marks because the actions the Bible labels as wrong and the actions accepted as wrong by many unbelievers often are quite different.) After flipping through the Bible and compiling a list of all the things that they think a true god should not do, they then declare that they cannot believe in a god that would do such things.
In doing this, they neglect to accept the other characteristics of the God of the Bible that would make acceptable His actions and decisions. For instance, 1 John 3:20 states that God “knows everything.” There is not an unbeliever alive who would claim to know everything. Could it be that the things known by the God of the Bible, which are unknown to the skeptic, might just be the very things that could sufficiently explain God’s actions? Isaiah 55:8-9 states: “ ‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.’ ” If the skeptic accepts from the Bible the ideas about God with which he disagrees, is he not equally obligated to accept the statements about God that explain the depth of God’s character? If the thoughts of God and the ways of God are far above all the ways of man, could it be that, in the great cosmic scheme of things, an all-knowing God might have some plans of which the skeptic is not fully informed?
To postulate a capricious God Who confines people to eternal destruction simply because those people do not “dot a few i’s” or “cross a few t’s” seems an easy straw man to destroy. Yet, when the “rest of the story” is told, the picture becomes much clearer. The fuller portrait of the God of the Bible is of a deity Who is all knowing (1 John 3:20) everlastingly righteous (Psalm 119:142), loving (John 3:16), compassionate and merciful (James 5:11), anxious for all men to be saved (2 Peter 3:9), and willing to give them numerous opportunities to do so (Acts 17:26-27).
The later portion of Defenbaugh’s article reveals the true essence of rejecting the God of the Bible. Defenbaugh commented that atheism “means no belief—no belief at all, godly, ungodly or otherwise. No Satan, Hell, Heaven, God, Jesus, Angel, Holy Ghost, no nothing. I am free of all constraints. The only person I have to answer to is Man—each man.” Once again, Defenbaugh hit the nail on the head when it came to his concept of the God of the Bible. God demands certain things from His human creation. But since Defenbaugh does not want to comply with those things, he has chosen instead to disbelieve, so that he can be “free of all constraints.” Yes, it truly is easy to answer “each man” since all human opinion carries equal weight. But “God is not a man” (Numbers 23:19), and “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25). In reality, after the Bible’s entire picture of God is allowed to shine through, in all its glory, no other god could measure up to “a God like that.”

REFERENCES

Defenbaugh, Ronald (2003), “Why I Couldn’t Deconvert,” [On-line], URL: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=263.

A Flawed Assumption Many Make About Kings and Chronicles by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5421

A Flawed Assumption Many Make About Kings and Chronicles


by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Thirty-three times in 1 & 2 Kings1 you will find the phrase “the book of the chronicles of the kings of” Israel/Judah.2 Ten times in 1 & 2 Chronicles3 you will discover the phrase “the book of the kings of” Israel/Judah.4 Many Bible readers assume that “the book of the chronicles” mentioned in 1 & 2 Kings is a reference to 1 & 2 Chronicles, while “the book of the kings” mentioned in 1 & 2 Chronicles is a reference to 1 & 2 Kings.5 Is such an assessment correct? Is “chronicles” in Kings a reference to 1 & 2 Chronicles, and is “kings” in Chronicles a reference to 1 & 2 Kings?
First, consider the matter from purely a common-sense perspective. How could each book be a reference to the other book? It makes sense that one of the books could possibly refer to the other or could prophesy about the future existence of the other, but how could both be referring to each other as already being in existence? If one book was written before the other, then the other book obviously was not yet written, and therefore the reference to it already being in existence would be impossible and nonsensical. (Imagine the original recipients reading over 30 times about a book that was not yet in existence. If such a thing happened with a written record today, we would call it “fiction,” not history.) Thus, on the surface alone, it should be evident that at least one of these books is not referring to the other.
Second, the evidence favors Chronicles being written a century or so after Kings. The final event recorded in Kings is Jehoiachin’s release from prison in the 37th year of Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 25:27-30), which would have been in 560 B.C.6—the earliest date of the writing of Kings. On the other hand, Chronicles concludes in the first year of the Persian King Cyrus (in 538 B.C.),7 when he wrote his public proclamation allowing all Jews in his kingdom to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple of Jehovah (2 Chronicles 36:22-23). Also, some of the Jewish descendants listed in the genealogies in Chronicles8 push the earliest date of the writing of Chronicles easily back to about 500 B.C. What’s more, if Ezra, “the skilled scribe in the law of Moses” (Ezra 7:6), wrote Chronicles (as Jewish tradition reasonably contends),9 the earliest date of Chronicles is moved back even further—to approximately 450 B.C.10 Thus, given the likely general time periods of the writing of Kings and Chronicles, it seems quite safe (and rational) to conclude that “the book of the chronicles of the kings” mentioned more than 30 times in Kings does not refer to Chronicles—a history written perhaps 100 years later.
Third, Kings appeals to “the book of the chronicles of the kings” for further details about various matters that are not recorded in 1 & 2 Chronicles. For example, regarding Nadab, the second king of Israel, 1 Kings 15:31 states: “Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?” However, none of Nadab’s acts are recorded in 1 & 2 Chronicles. (In fact, the inspired chronicler records very little activity of the kings of the northern kingdom.)  What’s more, 1 Chronicles 9:1 refers to a vast amount of genealogical information (cf. 1 Chronicles 1:1-8:40) in “the book of the kings of Israel,” which quite clearly is not from 1 & 2 Kings. (There simply is very little genealogical information in 1 & 2 Kings other than the overall, general succession of the kings of Israel and Judah. And there certainly is nothing like what the chronicler records in 1 Chronicles 1:1-8:40.)
Finally, consider the fact that Kings and Chronicles mention a number of different books about which the inspired writers (a) were aware and (b) used (by inspiration) as reference books. Kings documents the existence of “the book of the acts of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41), while Chronicles mentions “the book of Nathan the prophet,” “the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite,” “the visions of Iddo the seer” (1 Chronicles 9:29), “the chronicles of King David” (1 Chronicles 27:24), “the book of Jehu the son of Hanani” (2 Chronicles 20:34), etc.11 Thus, it was quite natural for the inspired writers of Kings and Chronicles to reference non-canonical records in their historical writings. After all, if the inspired apostle Paul could occasionally quote from pagan poets (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12), couldn’t the inspired prophets who penned Kings and Chronicles refer to any number of relevant sources in their histories? To ask is to answer.
Rather than go through life assuming the Bible teaches “this” or “that,” let’s resolve to reason through God’s inspired revelation and draw only those conclusions warranted by the evidence. In the case at hand, we learn that in addition to God’s inspired books of Kings and Chronicles, there were various relevant, historical, non-canonical writings to which the penmen of Kings and Chronicles alluded (which were not each other). Taking special note of these facts not only helps us in properly understanding the text, but it can also aid us in responding to Bible critics who may assume contradiction on the part of the writers of Kings and Chronicles.

Endnotes

1 First and Second Kings were originally one book in the Hebrew Bible.
2 This phrase is found 18 times in reference to the book of the kings of Israel and 15 times in reference to the book of the kings of Judah.
3 First and Second Chronicles were originally one book in the Hebrew Bible.
4 This phrase is found seven times in reference to both Israel and Judah and three times in reference to Israel alone. In addition, the phrase “the book of the kings” is found once without any particular kingdom specified.
5 In fact, just recently I heard an otherwise great Bible lesson where a preacher misidentified these books in this manner.
6 If Jehoiachin was carried away into captivity in 597 B.C. (1 Kings 24:8-16), and he was in captivity for 37 years (1 Kings 25:27), then his release (and the closing of the book of Kings) would have taken place in 560 B.C.
7 See J. Barton Payne (1988), “1 & 2 Chronicles,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 4:304.
8 Including two grandsons of Zerubbabel (1 Chronicles 3:17-21).
9 Cf. the language at the end of 2 Chronicles (36:22-23) and the beginning of Ezra (1:1-4).
10 See Payne, 4:304-306.
11 For more information on various non-canonical writings referenced in the Bible, see AP’s article “Are There Lost Books of the Bible?” (2003), www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=66.

A Critical Blunder In "Christianity for Blockheads" by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2834


A Critical Blunder In "Christianity for Blockheads"

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Making the Bible and Christianity easier to understand for Christians and non-Christians is certainly a noble aspiration. Douglas Connelly and Martin Manser have attempted to do this very thing in their new book Christianity for Blockheads. There are many things this book gets right (e.g., God’s existence, Jesus’ divinity, the Bible’s inspiration, salvation being a free gift from God, etc.). Like so many denominational writers, however, Connelly and Manser have misled their readers regarding the Bible’s teaching on how to receive the gift of salvation.
In chapter eight, titled “Your Life’s Greatest Change: Salvation,” Connelly and Manser claim that the Bible associates faith and repentance with “the act of becoming a Christian” (p. 150), but “you are not delivered from sin’s penalty...because you were baptized” (p. 149). Non-Christians are instructed simply to say the “sinner’s prayer” in order to become a Christian (p. 151). But, the fact of the matter is, a non-Christian does not become a Christian merely by praying. Jesus made this clear in Mark 16:16 (cf. Matthew 7:21). Peter made this clear in Acts 2:38. Ananias made this clear in Acts 22:16. And Paul made this clear in Galatians 3:27. [NOTE: Ananias did not tell Paul that his sins were washed away when he spoke to Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:4-6), or when he fasted for three days (9:9), or when he prayed (9:11), but when he was baptized (22:16).]
In addition to faith and repentance, the New Testament teaches that one’s immersion in water also precedes salvation (not that H20 saves us, but that the blood of Jesus saves us [Revelation 1:5], when we are baptized). It is mentioned numerous times throughout the New Testament, and both Jesus and His disciples taught that it precedes salvation (Mark 16:16; Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:38). The apostle Paul’s sins were washed away only after he was immersed in water (Acts 22:16; cf. Acts 9:18). [NOTE: Even though it was on the road to Damascus that Paul heard the Lord, spoke to Him, and believed on Him (Acts 9), Paul did not receive salvation until he went into Damascus and was baptized.] The book of Acts is replete with examples of those who did not receive the gift of salvation until after they professed faith in Christ, repented of their sins, and were baptized (Acts 2:38-41; 8:12; 8:26-40; 10:34-48; 16:14-15; 16:30-34; 18:8). Furthermore, the epistles of Peter and Paul also call attention to the necessity of baptism (1 Peter 3:21; Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:1-4). If a person wants the multitude of spiritual blessings found “in Christ” (e.g., salvation—2 Timothy 2:10; forgiveness—Ephesians 1:7; cf. Ephesians 2:12; etc.), he must not stop after confessing faith in the Lord Jesus, or after resolving within himself to turn from a sinful lifestyle. He also must be “baptized into Christ” (Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3) “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).
Sadly, Christianity for Blockheads builds a roadblock to heaven. Unless readers of this cliff-note version of the New Testament return to the New Testament itself and let the Bible writings speak for themselves, those who read this book will remain ignorant of the final step one must take in order to have his or her sins forgiven. This is the final step Peter told the thousands on Pentecost to take (Acts 2:28), the final step that Ananias told Paul to take (Acts 22:16), and the step that saturates Luke’s account of the first 30 years of the church.
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:37-38, emp. added).
*For more information on what a non-Christian must do to become a Christian, please read our free e-book, Receiving the Gift of Salvation.

REFERENCES

Connelly, Douglas and Martin Manser (2009), Christianity for Blockheads (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (no date), Receiving the Gift of Salvation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)