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?

(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!

 

 

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Alternatives To The Resurrection (28:11-15) by Mark Copeland

 

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

Alternatives To The Resurrection (28:11-15)

INTRODUCTION

1. There are certain facts of history that no one can deny...
   a. Many people testified they saw Jesus raised from the dead
   b. These same people suffered greatly because of their testimony
   -- Such facts support the actual resurrection of Jesus from the dead

2. From the beginning, there have been alternative theories to explain the empty tomb...
   a. Matthew records the earliest theory: the disciples stole the body - Mt 28:11-15
   b. Other theories have been raised as well

3. Because of the significance of the resurrection (described in a previous lesson)...
   a. Those opposed to the gospel know this event must be discredited
   b. We who believe in Jesus must always be ready to provide a defense- 1Pe 3:15
      1) Not only why we accept the testimony of the witnesses (see previous lesson)
      2) But why we find alternative explanations impossible to accept

[In this study, we shall consider various "Alternatives To The
Resurrection", and why they are inadequate to explain the empty tomb.
We begin with the first explanation...]

I. THE DISCIPLES STOLE THE BODY

   A. ELEMENTS OF THIS THEORY...
      1. The disciples stole the body, then claimed He rose from the dead
      2. This was the "official" theory offered from the very beginning - Mt 28:11-15

   B. PROBLEMS WITH THIS THEORY...
      1. The explanation defies logic
         a. If the soldiers were asleep...
            1) How did they know it was the disciples who took the body?
            2) How could the large stone guarding the entrance be
               rolled away without awakening the soldiers?
         b. The soldiers guarding the tomb were Romans - Mt 27:62-66
            1) They were professional soldiers
            2) Charged to guard the tomb with their lives
            3) The punishment for falling asleep on duty was death
      2. This would make those who testified they saw Jesus liars and frauds
         a. As we saw in the previous lesson, they claimed empirical evidence
         b. Suppose just a few disciples stole the body, unbeknown by others...
            1) Such as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, or the women
            2) Others still say they saw Jesus, ate and drank with Him
         c. You have to explain why they were willing to lie and die knowing it was a lie

[The likelihood of timid disciples stealing the body of Jesus out from
under the noses of highly disciplined and skilled Roman soldiers while
they slept (an offense punishable by death) is hard to believe! Perhaps
that is why those who refuse to believe in the resurrection have
proposed alternative explanations, one being...]

II. THEY WENT TO THE WRONG TOMB

   A. ELEMENTS OF THIS THEORY...
      1. The women went to the wrong tomb, and found it empty
      2. They erroneously concluded that Jesus had risen, and their story spread

   B. PROBLEMS WITH THIS THEORY...
      1. The women had been to the tomb before - Mt 27:61
      2. The religious and political leaders could have easily silenced the apostles' claim
         a. If the women went to the wrong tomb, then the right tomb
            was still sealed and guarded by the Roman soldiers
         b. When the apostles' created an uproar with their story of
            the resurrection of Jesus (cf. Ac 4:1-2; 5:27-33), the
            Jewish leaders could have directed people to the right tomb
            and presented the body of Jesus!
      3. You still have the testimony of the apostles to contend with

[A more popular explanation in some circles is...]

III. JESUS SWOONED AND LATER REVIVED

   A. ELEMENTS OF THIS THEORY...
      1. Jesus did not actually die on the cross, He only swooned
         a. Suffering from shock, pain, and loss of blood, He fainted
            (swooned) from exhaustion
         b. Thinking that He was dead, the Roman soldiers took Him down
            and buried Him in the tomb
      2. In the coolness of the tomb, Jesus revived
         a. Somehow He left the tomb
         b. Appeared to His disciples, then lived in obscurity to die years later

   B. PROBLEMS WITH THIS THEORY...
      1. Jesus would have had to revive sufficiently enough to:
         a. Break through the burial garments that bound Him, including
            a hundred pounds of spices used in preparing His body for burial - Jn 19:38-40
         b. Role away the large stone that sealed the tomb
         c. Fight off the Roman guards protecting the tomb
         d. Walk the seven miles to Emmaus where He was seen by the two disciples
         e. Walk back to Jerusalem where He was seen by the apostles
         -- All within the same day!
      2. Every effort was made to prove He was dead
         a. The Roman soldiers at the cross pierced His side - Jn 19: 31-34
            1) Out of which flowed blood and water
            2) An indication He was already dead, having died of a ruptured heart
         b. Pilate made sure He was dead - Mk 15:43-45
            1) When Joseph of Arimathea wanted the body
            2) The Roman centurion confirmed that Jesus was dead
      3. Not only would this make the apostles liars and frauds, but
         Jesus also for allowing a lie to spread for years!

[Another popular alternative explanation is...]

IV. THE DISCIPLES HAD HALLUCINATIONS OR VISIONS

   A. ELEMENTS OF THIS THEORY...
      1. All of Christ's post-resurrection appearances were only supposed appearances
      2. Those who claimed to see Jesus had hallucinations

   B. PROBLEMS WITH THIS THEORY...
      1. Remember that the appearances were not just to individuals, one at a time
         a. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus claimed to see Him - Lk 24:13-35
         b. Ten apostles claimed to see Him - Jn 20:19-25
         c. He appeared to over 500 people at once - 1Co 15:6
      2. The hallucination theory contradicts laws and principles which
         psychiatrists say are essential to hallucinations:
         a. Only certain kinds of people have hallucinations
            1) These are usually high-strung, highly imaginative, and very nervous people
            2) Usually only paranoid or schizophrenic individuals have hallucinations
            3) The appearances were not restricted to people of any
               particular psychological make up
         b. Hallucinations are linked in an individual's subconscious
            1) An individual may have an hallucination
            2) But hallucinations do not appear to groups of people
         c. They occur in people when there is a spirit of anticipation or hopeful expectation
            1) The disciples had no such anticipation - Lk 24:13-21
            2) They were prone to disbelieve even after they were told
               of the resurrection - Jn 20:24-25

[Then there is the theory that...]

V. SOMEONE IMPERSONATED JESUS

   A. ELEMENTS OF THIS THEORY...
      1. The appearances were not really Christ at all, but someone  impersonating Him
      2. This is evident because in some cases they did not recognize Him at first

   B. PROBLEMS WITH THIS THEORY...
      1. The disciples were reluctant to believe in the resurrection
         a. Some were doubtful, such as Thomas - Jn 20:24-25
         b. It would have been hard to convince them unless it was really Him
      2. It would have been impossible to impersonate Christ's wounds
         a. This was Christ's proof it was really Him - Jn 20:26-27
         b. Which convinced doubting Thomas - Jn 20:28-29
      3. The apostles traveled with Jesus for three years
         a. It is incredible that anyone could have gotten away with an impersonation
         b. Which is why the apostles were witnesses of the resurrection - Ac 10:39-41
      4. The one claiming to be Jesus performed miracles
         a. Suddenly appearing in locked rooms - Jn 20:19
         b. Directing them how to catch fish - Jn 21:1-7

[Closely related to this would be the theory that...]

VI. SOMEONE WAS MISTAKEN FOR JESUS

   A. ELEMENTS OF THIS THEORY...
      1. The disciples simply mistook for Jesus someone who looked like Him
      2. For example, the women mistook the gardener for Jesus - Jn 20: 14-15

   B. PROBLEMS WITH THIS THEORY...
      1. The same problems as with the impersonation theory
         a. Disciples reluctant to believe in the resurrection
         b. Impossible to recreate the wounds of Jesus
         c. Ample time with Jesus to verify His identity
      2. While Mary may have mistaken Jesus for the gardener, she was
         able to look through her grief and recognize who He was

[Finally, here is an alternative proposed by some theologians who just
cannot accept the idea of a physical, bodily resurrection...]

VII. IT WAS ONLY A SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION

   A. ELEMENTS OF THIS THEORY...
      1. Christ's resurrection was not a real physical resurrection
      2. Christ's body remained in the grave and His real resurrection was spiritual in nature
      3. It was only told this way to illustrate the truth of spiritual resurrection

   B. PROBLEMS WITH THIS THEORY...
      1. If it was only a spiritual resurrection, what happened to the body?
         a. The enemies of Christ were never able to produce a body
         b. Which they would have gladly done to discredit the apostles
      2. Again, the nature of the apostles' testimony is empirical:
         they ate and drank with Him, touched Him - Lk 24:36-43; Ac 10:39-41; 1Jn 1:1-2
      3. Paul argued a bodily resurrection of Jesus as evidence for our own bodily resurrection - 1Co 15:12-58

CONCLUSION

1. The resurrection of Jesus has been variously interpreted as...
   a. A great hoax (the resurrection is false)
   b. Mythology (the resurrection is fiction)
   -- Therefore various alternatives have been proposed to explain the empty tomb

2. But there is only one interpretation worth accepting...
   a. It is the supreme event of history (the resurrection is fact)
   b. Supported by empirical testimony provided by reliable witnesses
   c. With implications of great significance for both unbeliever and believer alike

When you consider the strength of the apostles' testimony, and contrast
it with the weakness of the alternative explanations that have been
proposed, it leads an honest person in only one direction:  to faith in
Jesus Christ as the Son of God...

   "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His
   disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are
   written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
   of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."
                                                     (Jn 20:30-31)

Are you willing to believe in Jesus, that you might have life in His
name?  Then heed the words of the apostle Peter proclaimed in the first
gospel sermon:

   "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God
   has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
   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; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
   Spirit.  For the promise is to you and to your children, and to
   all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
                                                       (Ac 2:36-39)  

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" The Witnesses Of The Resurrection (28:1-10) by Mark Copeland

 

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

The Witnesses Of The Resurrection (28:1-10)

INTRODUCTION

1. If the resurrection of Jesus Christ really took place, it has great significance...
   a. For those who have yet to believe in Christ
   b. For those who are Christians - Which we examined in another lesson

2. Upon what basis should one believe Jesus actually rose from the dead?
   a. The evidence presented in the New Testament involves eyewitness testimony
   b. Ten distinct resurrection appearances of Christ are recorded in the New Testament
   c. One such case is that found in Mt 28:1-10

3. It is clear from the Scriptures that our faith in Jesus is based upon such testimony...
   a. As Jesus intimated in His prayer, and John in his gospel - Jn 17:20; 20:30-31
   b. Jesus expected His apostles to be His witnesses - Jn 15:27; Ac 1:8
   c. Especially concerning His resurrection - Ac 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 13:31

4. Since our faith rests upon the testimony of these witnesses...
   a. Were they credible witnesses, that we should take them seriously?
   b. How strong is their testimony?
   c. How do we know they did not make it up, or were simply deluded?

[As with any event alleged to have occurred, there are a number of
factors to consider before we accept the event as a historical fact. One such factor is...]

I. THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES

   A. WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT...
      1. The strength or weakness of any testimony is affected by the number of witnesses
      2. The Law of Moses required at least two or three witnesses - Deut 17:6
      3. Today, the number of witnesses also plays a crucial role in our justice system
      -- The more witnesses you have, the stronger your evidence!

   B. THERE WERE MANY WITNESSES OF THE RESURRECTION...
      1. Paul lists many of these witnesses in 1Co 15:3-8
         a. Jesus was seen by Cephas (Simon Peter) - Lk 24:34
         b. Jesus was seen by the twelve (apostles) - Lk 24:36-43; Ac 1:2-3
         c. He was seen by five hundred people at one time (probably in
            Galilee) - cf. Mt 28:10,16-17
         d. He was seen by James, the Lord's brother
         e. He was seen by Paul, on the road to Damascus - Ac 22:6-10
      2. Other appearances are recorded in the Scriptures
         a. To Mary Magdalene - Mk 16:9; Jn 20:14
         b. To other women returning from the tomb - Mt 28:9,10
         c. To two disciples on the road to Emmaus - Lk 24:13-33
         d. To the apostles, Thomas absent - Jn 20:19-24
         e. To the apostles, Thomas present - Jn 20:26-29
         f. To seven disciples by the Lake of Tiberias (Sea of Galilee) - Jn 21:1-23
         g. To the apostles at the ascension - Ac 1:3-12

[So for a period of forty days (Ac 1:3), over 500 people had ample
opportunity to see Jesus, and determine for themselves if He was really
raised from the dead.  They were convinced, but are they reliable
witnesses?  How do we know they were not simply gullible, believing
whatever they wanted to believe?  This leads us to consider another
factor important to accepting the testimony of witnesses...]

II. THE CHARACTER OF THE WITNESSES

   A. SOME HAD NOT BELIEVED IN JESUS...
      1. Like His brothers in the flesh - Jn 7:3-5
      2. They even thought Him crazy - Mk 3:21
      -- But seeing Him after His resurrection, they became His disciples! - Ac 1:14

   B. SOME WERE SKEPTICAL AFTER JESUS' DEATH...
      1. Thomas would not accept the words of others - Jn 20:24-25
      2. Not until he had empirical evidence would he believe - Jn 20:26-28
      3. This demonstrates witnesses who were not gullible or easily deceived
         a. Which is why the Lord appeared to select witnesses - Ac 10:40-41
         b. Witnesses qualified to know if it really were Jesus

   C. ONE WAS EVEN A FORMER ENEMY...
      1. Saul of Tarsus, who later became known as Paul the apostle - Ac 9:1-2
      2. Until he saw Jesus raised from the dead, he believed it to be
         God's will to oppose Jesus and His followers - Ac 26:9-11

[These were not gullible witnesses, ready to believe any hint that
Jesus had risen.  They required overwhelming evidence to convince them
that Jesus was truly raised from the dead.  Now let's consider...]

III. THE STRENGTH OF THEIR WITNESS

   A. DEMONSTRATED BY THE NATURE OF THEIR TESTIMONY...
      1. Their testimony appealed to empirical evidence
         a. Evidence derived from experiment and observation rather than theory
         b. For forty days they were given infallible proofs - Ac 1:3
         c. They ate and drank with Jesus - Ac 10:41
         d. They saw, heard, and touched Him - Jn 20:24-28; 1Jn 1:1-2
      2. There is no way they could have been deceived or deluded
         a. If all they had were individual dreams, visions, or hallucinations...perhaps
         b. But they testified that Jesus appeared to them in groups as well as to individuals

   B. DEMONSTRATED BY THEIR TRANSFORMATION...
      1. Prior to the resurrection, Jesus' disciples were afraid and without hope
         a. They fled at his arrest - Mk 14:50
         b. Peter cowardly denied Him three times - Mk 14:66-72
         c. The women mourned His crucifixion - Lk 23:27
         d. After His death, the disciples were sad - Lk 24:13-17
         e. After His death, the disciples hid behind closed doors, for
            fear of the Jews - Jn 20:19
      2. But after the resurrection, they fearlessly praised God and proclaimed Jesus!
         a. Praising God in the temple - Lk 24:52-53
         b. Proclaiming Christ, despite persecution - Ac 5:28-32,41-42
      3. This transformation in their lives is strong evidence for the
         resurrection, as admitted by one Orthodox Jewish scholar:
         a. "If the disciples were totally disappointed and on the
            verge of desperate flight because of the very real reason
            of the crucifixion, it took another very real reason in
            order to transform them from a band of disheartened and
            dejected Jews into the most self-confident missionary
            society in world history." - Pinchas Lapide, former
            Chairman of the Applied Linguistics Department at Israel's
            Bar-Iland University (TIME, May 7, 1979)
         b. He concluded that a bodily resurrection could possibly have
            been that reason!

   C. DEMONSTRATED BY THEIR HIGH MORAL STANDARD...
      1. They taught others to live holy lives - 1Th 4:1-7; Ep 4:25
      2. They lived their own lives in unimpeachable way - 1Th 2:3-12
      -- Does this sound like people who propagate lies when they know better?

   D. DEMONSTRATED BY THE PRICE THEY PAID...
      1. The apostles endured much suffering because of their testimony - 1Co 4:9-13
      2. All but one died a martyr's death because of their testimony
      3. Even Jesus' brother, James, was thrown off the temple and then
         clubbed to death for his testimony
      -- There was no motive for them to persistently lie about Jesus' resurrection!

CONCLUSION

1. The nature of their witness does not allow for the option that they
   were simply deceived or deluded...
   a. Again, they professed empirical evidence
   b. They claimed to eat and drink with Him, touch Him, see Him

2. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, there is only one alternative...
   a. These witnesses were liars, deceivers
   b. Even Paul admits this is the only alternative - 1Co 15:14-15

3. Is it reasonable to believe they successfully propagated a lie?
   a. Too many people attested to the same fact
   b. They were not the kind of people to fabricate such a falsehood
   c. They lived noble lives, and were ALL willing to suffer and die for their testimony!

When we carefully examine the lives and testimony of "The Witnesses Of
The Resurrection", the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that
they really saw what they claimed:  Jesus is risen!

And His resurrection from the dead is assurance from God that Judgment
is coming and we must repent:

   "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands
   all men everywhere to repent,  because He has appointed a day on
   which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He
   has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising
   Him from the dead." - Ac 17:30-31

Are you ready for that Day?  

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016