1/24/22

"CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE?" Regarding Its Canonicity? (Old Testament) by Mark Copeland

 









"CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE?"

Regarding Its Canonicity? (Old Testament)

INTRODUCTION
  1. The Bible consists of 66 books...
    1. The Old Testament contains 39
    2. The New Testament contains 27
  2. Why these 66 books and not others...?
    1. What about the additional books in Catholic versions of the Old Testament?
    2. What about the so-called "lost books of the Bible?"
  3. Such questions pertain to the canonicity of the Bible...
    1. The word "canon" means a rule or standard for anything
    2. For early Christians, it meant the rule of faith, what is accepted as authoritative Scripture
  4. The inclusion of any book into the canon follows two basic steps...
    1. Inspiration by God - God determined the canon by co-authoring it
    2. Recognition by men - Man recognized what God revealed and accepted it as the canon
    3. "A book is not the Word of God because it was accepted by the people, it was accepted by the people because it was the Word of God."

[So why 66 books and not others? Let's first consider the question as it relates to the OT...]

  1. THE HEBREW CANON
    1. RECOGNIZED BY JESUS...
      1. Anyone who accepts the authority of Jesus will accept what He acknowledged as Scripture
        1. He pointed people to the Scriptures - cf. Jn 5:39
        2. He spoke of the faithfulness of Scripture - cf. Jn 10:35
      2. Jesus recognized three major divisions of the OT, which included 39 books - cf. Lk 24:44
        1. The Law (Torah) - the five books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy)
        2. The Prophets (Nebhiim) - "the former prophets" (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) and "the latter prophets" (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and a book containing the 12 minor prophets).
        3. The Writings (Kethubhim) - three poetical books (Psalms, Proverbs, and Job), five rolls (the Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, and Ecclesiastes), and several historical books (Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles)
      3. Jesus followed the arrangement of the OT books that was customary among the Jews
        1. We see this from His comments in Lk 11:49-51
        2. There he speaks of the persecution of the prophets from the murder of Abel (Gen 4:8) to the slaying of Zechariah (2 Chr 24:20,21)
        3. This arrangement is the one that is followed in the Hebrew OT today also
      4. "Jesus does not quote from every book of the Old Testament, but he does quote from all three of the main divisions, showing that he accepted the entire Old Testament as canonical." - Wilbert R. Gawrisch (How The Canonicity Of The Bible Was Established)
    2. RECOGNIZED BY THE APOSTLES...
      1. Paul acknowledged the Hebrew canon
        1. As written for our learning - Ro 15:4
        2. As written for our admonition - 1Co 10:11
        3. As profitable for doctrine, etc.- 2Ti 3:14-17
      2. The apostles frequently quoted from those books in the Hebrew canon
        1. In their gospels - e.g., Mt 1:22-23; 2:17-18; Jn 12:37-41
        2. In their efforts to evangelize - e.g., Ac 17:2-3
        3. In their epistles - e.g., Ro 3:9-10; 4:3; 1Pe 2:6

        [It is evident that Jesus and His apostles accepted the authority (canon) of the Hebrew scriptures which include the 39 books in the Old Testament. But what of the extra books found in the Catholic Old Testament...?]

  2. THE OLD TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA
    1. THE APOCRYPHA DESCRIBED...
      1. These books were written after Malachi (400 B.C), prior to the coming of Jesus 2 These books include:
        1. The Wisdom of Solomon (30 B.C.), known as the Book of Wisdom
        2. Ecclesiasticus (132 B.C.), also known as Sirach
        3. Tobit (200 B.C.)
        4. Judith (150 B.C.)
        5. 1 Maccabees (110 B.C.)
        6. 2 Maccabees (110 B.C.)
        7. Prayer of Azariah (100 B.C.) placed as Daniel 3:24-90
        8. Susanna (100 B.C.) placed as Daniel 13
        9. Bel and the Dragon (100 B.C.), placed as Daniel 14
        10. Baruch (150-50 B.C.), placed as Baruch 1-5
        11. Letter of Jeremiah (300-100 B.C.) placed as Baruch 6
        12. Additions to Esther (140-130 B.C.), placed as Esther 10:4-16:24
        13. 1 Esdras (150-100 B.C.), also known as 3 Esdras
        14. 2 Esdras (150-100 B.C.), known as 4 Esdras
        15. Prayer of Manasseh (100 B.C.)
    2. THE APOCRYPHA ACCEPTED... 1 The Council of Trent accepted the Old Testament Apocrypha as canonical in 1546
      1. With the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh
      2. While there are 15 total books in the Apocrypha, Roman Catholic Bibles count only 11 because they combine the Letter of Jeremiah with Baruch and omit 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh
      3. The teaching of 2 Esdras 7:105 in opposition to prayer for the dead may have led to its exclusion by the Roman Catholic Church 2 Reasons suggested for the Old Testament Apocrypha as Scripture include:
        1. Some church fathers accepted these books (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
        2. The Syriac church accepted them in the fourth century
        3. The Eastern Orthodox church accepts them
        4. The Roman Catholic Church proclaimed them as canonical in 1546
        5. The Apocrypha was included in Protestant Bibles, including the original KJV of 1611
        6. Some have been found among other OT books with the Dead Sea Scrolls
    3. THE APOCRYPHA REJECTED...
      1. Jesus and His apostles did not accept these books as part of the Scripture
        1. There are no NT references to any of the Apocrypha as being authoritative
        2. The NT writers quote not one part of the Apocrypha
      2. Judaism never accepted these books as part of the Scriptures
        1. Ancient Jewish leaders specifically rejected the Apocrypha (Josephus, Philo)
        2. While included in the Septuagint (Gr. OT), they were never accepted as canonical
        3. The New American Bible, the new Catholic translation, in a footnote to the Story of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon frankly admits: "They are excluded from the Jewish canon of Scripture..."
      3. While a few early church leaders appear to take some material from them, most were opposed to the inclusion of the Apocrypha into the canon of Scripture (Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Origen)
      4. The Apocrypha itself recognizes our OT canon as a distinct twenty-four books, which corresponds to the Hebrew Bible as it is known today
        1. In 2 Esd 14:44-48, 70 books are distinguished from 94, leaving 24, or the exact number of the Hebrew canon, which became our 39 OT books
        2. Not only does the Apocrypha not claim inspiration for itself, it actually disclaims it when 1 Mac 9:27 describes an existing cessation of prophecy
      5. They include unbiblical teaching, such as praying for the dead (2 Mac 12:46)
      6. They contain demonstrable errors; for example:
        1. Tobit was supposedly alive when Jeroboam led his revolt (931 B.C.)
        2. He was still living at the time of the Assyrian captivity (722 B.C.)
        3. Yet the Book of Tobit says he lived only 158 years - Tob 1:3-5; 14:11
      7. The first official adoption of the Apocrypha by the Roman Catholic Church came at the Council of Trent in 1546, over 1,500 years after the books were written
      8. When the Apocrypha appeared in Protestant Bibles:
        1. It was normally placed in a separate section since it was not considered of equal authority
        2. Luther included the Apocrypha in his German Bible, but he introduced them with the comment, "These are books that are not to be considered the same as Holy Scripture, and yet are useful and good to read."
      9. No Greek manuscript contains the exact collection of the books of the Apocrypha as accepted by the Council of Trent
      10. While the Syrian church accepted the Apocrypha in the fourth century, the translation of the Bible into Syrian in the second century A.D. did not include it
      11. The Qumran community had hundreds of books in its library beyond the Scriptures
        1. While the library had some of the Apocrypha, it did not have commentaries on the Apocrypha it did with OT books
        2. The OT books had special script and parchment, unlike the Apocrypha
        3. Qumran clearly considered the Apocrypha as different from Scripture
CONCLUSION
  1. While the Apocrypha of the OT may be of historical value and in some ways supplement God's truth, they are not canonical
  2. Those who accept the authority of Jesus and His apostles will be content with those books found in the Hebrew OT
  3. In one sense, the issue might be regarded as irrelevant...
    1. The Apocrypha relates to the Old Testament
    2. Christians are under the New Covenant of Christ, not the Law of Moses - Ro 7:6; Ga 5:4
    3. Therefore we are to continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine - cf. Ac 2:42

But then that raises another question: What about the canonicity of the New Testament? This we shall address in our next study...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2022

"CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE?" Regarding Its Preservation And Translation? by Mark Copeland

 








"CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE?"

Regarding Its Preservation And Translation?

INTRODUCTION
  1. Has the Bible we have today been altered or corrupted...?
    1. We have no original "autographs" (manuscripts penned by the authors)
    2. All we have are copies of copies, made over the years
  2. How do we know there hasn't been...
    1. Significant changes or errors made in the process of copying?
    2. Collusion (secret cooperation for deceitful purposes) by those who possessed the early copies?
  3. It is not uncommon to hear such statements as...
    1. "The Bible was corrupted by the Catholic church who possessed it" (Mormons, JWs)
    2. "Only Catholic Bibles are reliable, since the church possesses the oldest copies" (Catholics)
  4. Yet it possible to have confidence in the Bible, that it...
    1. Contains the Scriptures as they were originally written
    2. Is free from attempts to twist the Scriptures to support a particular church or doctrine

[This confidence comes from keeping two things in mind: 1) Textual evidence for the Biblical documents, and 2) Translation guidelines for selecting a translation of the Bible.

Let's first take a look at the...]

  1. TEXTUAL EVIDENCE
    1. FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT...
      1. The Massoretic Text (900 A.D.)
        1. Earliest complete text of Hebrew OT, copied by Jewish scribes called the Massoretes
        2. Comparison with earlier Greek and Latin versions
          1. Reveal vary careful copying
          2. With little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D.
      2. The Dead Sea Scrolls (150 B.C. - 70 A.D.)
        1. Discovered in 1947, containing copies of OT books dating back to 100 B.C.
        2. Compared with the "Massoretic Text" of 900 A.D., they confirm the careful copying of Jewish scribes for over 1000 years!
      3. The Septuagint version of the OT (200 B.C.)
        1. A Greek translation of the OT, done in 200 B.C. by 70 scholars
        2. It also confirms the accuracy of the copyists who gave us the Massoretic Text
        -- In his book, Can I Trust My Bible, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C....Indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity."
    2. FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT...
      1. The number of the manuscripts
        1. Over 4,000 Greek manuscripts
        2. 13,000 copies of portions of the N.T. in Greek
      2. The location of the manuscripts
        1. Found in various places: Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, Italy
        2. Making collusion very difficult (not one church or religion contains them all)
      3. The date of the manuscripts
        1. Several papyri fragments have been dated to within 50-100 years of the original
        2. We have several nearly complete N.T. Greek manuscripts within 300-400 years
          1. Codex Sinaiticus, found near Mt. Sinai
          2. Codex Alexandrinus, found near Alexandria in Egypt
          3. Codex Vaticanus, located at the Vatican in Rome
      4. The variations of the manuscripts
        1. The vast majority are very minor (spelling, differences in phraseology, etc.; modern translations often note the differences in footnotes)
        2. Only 1/2 of one percent is in question (compared to 5 percent for the Iliad)
        3. Even then, it can be stated: "No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading...It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: especially is this the case with the New Testament." - Sir Frederick Kenyon (authority in the field of New Testament textual criticism)
      5. Other translations of the manuscripts
        1. More than 1,000 copies and fragments in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, Ethiopic
        2. 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate, some almost dating back to Jerome's original translation (ca. 400 A.D.)
      6. Writings of the early "church fathers" (100-400 A.D.)
        1. Early religious leaders who left 1000s of quotations of the NT in their writings
        2. Even if all the NT manuscripts and translations were to disappear overnight, it would be possible to reconstruct the NT from their quotations, with the exception of 15-20 verses
        -- The evidence is sufficient to show that the Greek text of the New Testament has been faithfully preserved, without the possibility of collusion or corruption by any one religious party or faction

      [While the text of the Bible has been remarkably preserved in its original languages, how can we be sure that the version we use is faithful in its translation of the text? Here are some...]

  2. TRANSLATION GUIDELINES
    1. BEWARE OF THOSE BY ONE INDIVIDUAL...
      1. Some translations are the work of one person; for example:
        1. The Living Bible, by Kenneth Taylor
        2. Which is not really a translation, but a paraphrase
      2. Though well intentioned, such translations often:
        1. Express the views of one person
        2. Convey the theological bias of that individual
      3. It is better to find translations produced by a committee of scholars
        1. With often hundreds of experts in Hebrew and Greek
        2. Who examine and critique each other's work in the translation
    2. BEWARE OF THOSE BY A PARTICULAR DENOMINATION...
      1. Some translations are the work of one religious group; for example:
        1. The New World Translation
        2. Produced by Jehovah's Witnesses
      2. Such translations are often slanted to prove doctrines favorable to the group
        1. E.g., the NWT translation of Jn 1:1-2 ("the Word was a god")
        2. E.g., the NWT translation of Col 1:16-17 (inserting "other" four times)
      3. It is better to find translations produced by representatives from different backgrounds
        1. Who are members of different religious organizations
        2. Who check each other's work to prevent theological bias
    3. RECOMMENDED ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS...
      1. King James Version (KJV)
        1. A classic, but somewhat archaic
        2. Many people have problems with or misunderstand the old English
      2. New King James Version (NKJV)
        1. An updated KJV, desiring to preserve the beauty of the KJV
        2. My personal choice, very easy to read
      3. American Standard Version (ASV)
        1. Most literal to the Greek, but therefore harder to read
        2. Almost out of print
      4. New American Standard Bible (NASB)
        1. An update to the ASV
        2. My second choice, though often wordy
      5. Other translations useful as references:
        1. New International Version (NIV) - easy to read, but prone to theological bias
        2. New American Bible (NAB) - approved for Catholics, useful to show differences in doctrine are not due to translations
CONCLUSION
  1. Can we trust the Bible? Yes, because...
    1. The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (though copies) have been providentially preserved
    2. Translations are available that are free from theological bias
  2. Yes, it is possible to have confidence in the Bible, that it...
    1. Contains the Scriptures as they were originally written
    2. Can be read without fear that it has been tainted to support a particular church or doctrine

We can trust the Bible...do you? - cf. Jm 1:21-22

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2022

Danger and the listening ear by Gary Rose

 

I confess, I have never been “handy”. While I may be able to do some simple tasks with hand tools, power tools are a NO-NO for me. Over time, I have learned that it is best if I just avoid all power tools altogether. Then, there is the picture above, and NO, IT IS NOT ME! I think what this person is doing is very, very STUPID and DANGEROUS!

You know, it is very easy to see when other people are doing things that are wrong, but how about when we do something that has the potential of harming ourselves? Seeing something that is visually right-in-front-of-our eyes is easy, but what if it something pertaining to a spiritual aspect of our lives? Do we listen to what God has to say to us, or do we just do what we want and be unconcerned about the consequences?

The Bible says…

Proverbs 16 ( World English Bible )

25 There is a way which seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.


Face it, human beings ( especially those of the MALE gender ) tend to be impulsive and not listen when it comes to spiritual matters. During the teen years we act as if we will live forever and do foolish things, often with disastrous results. Hopefully, during our twenties or thirties we learn to listen, but some people will never listen their entire life. And, with their demise will come their destruction.

Others, will pretend to be religious, but inwardly they remain stubborn and make their own rules to the detriment of their souls. Jesus said…

Matthew 7 ( WEB )

21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

22 Many will tell me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?’

23 Then I will tell them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.’

24 “Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock.

25 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn’t fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26 Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn’t do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand.

27 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”


Jesus, is his name just a “swear word” to you? Do you listen to what Jesus has to say about YOUR LIFE, about how you should seek God and follow HIS COMMANDMENTS? Listen, learn and follow, you will be glad you did! Don’t listen, and reap the consequences. Trust me, not listening is far worse than the fate of the man in the above picture.

1/17/22

Hebrews 10:22 and the Necessity of Baptism by Dave Miller, Ph.D

 

Hebrews 10:22 and the Necessity of Baptism


Dave Miller, Ph.D.

From Issue: R&R – November 2021

[Editor’s Note: This article is excerpted from AP’s book Baptism & the Greek Made Simple.]

Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful (Hebrews 10:19-23).

In addition to the host of passages that explicitly affirm the essentiality of water baptism for salvation, the grammar of Hebrews 10:22 provides additional verification. “Let us draw near,” or as Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest renders it, “let us keep on drawing near,”1 is a present middle/passive subjunctive verb used for exhortation—a “hortatory subjective.”2 This drawing nearer to God is to be accompanied by “a true heart in full assurance of faith.” The term rendered “full assurance” refers to a “state of complete certainty, full assurance, certainty.”3 The recipients of the book already possessed faith (when they became Christians), but they now needed to mature their faith and bring it to a more complete state of assurance, conviction, and certainty (particularly since they were tending to revert back to their Jewish conceptions).4 This admonition is followed by two Perfect passive participles.5 The Perfect tense in Greek connotes “completed action with a resulting state of being.” Perfect passive participles describe action that is either coincident with or antecedent to the principal verb.6 Hence, the actions of “having been sprinkled” and “having been washed” occurred before the admonition to “keep on drawing near to God.” As Marcus Dods explains: “These participles express not conditions of approach to God which are yet to be achieved, but conditions already possessed.”7 Mounce conveys the thrust of the perfect passive participle even more forcefully: “since our hearts have been….”8 The following two participles, therefore, refer back to the point in time of their conversion—when they accessed the “blood of Jesus” (vs. 19). As Carl Moll noted in his comments on verse 22: “We thus refer the language, not to sanctification, but to justification on the ground of a propitiation.”9

The first participle speaks of “having had our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.”10 In keeping with the subject matter of Hebrews, the notion of “sprinkled” undoubtedly harks back to and echoes the Law of Moses practice of sprinkling people and objects with various liquids (including water as well as blood) for purification purposes. However, it is a physical impossibility for one literally to sprinkle his heart, mind, and conscience. Hence, the writer is using figurative language. But how/when did they “sprinkle their hearts”? The answer lies in the fact that before one can become a Christian, one must alter his heart and mind, i.e., repent (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 2:38; 3:19; et al.). The Greek term for “repentance” literally means “a change of mind.”11 So the author and recipients of the book of Hebrews came to faith in Christ, and then repented of their sins. If, instead, the “sprinkling” here refers to the cleansing power of Christ’s blood, the design of baptism remains the same, since the two participles indicate coincident (with each other) actions. The former possible meaning is inviting since Romans 6 distinguishes between the “death” to sin that occurs in the mind of the prospective convert at the point of repentance which precedes the spiritual death or termination of sin which occurs in the mind of God at the point of burial in water.

The next participle, which describes action that occurred coincident with the sprinkling, adds “having had our body washed with pure water” (again, Wuest’s literal rendering). Observe that the use of the term “body” (singular-soma), not sarx (“flesh”) indicates a literal washing of the physical body with H2O—unlike the figurative use of sprinkling in the previous participle.12 The only activity associated with Christianity that involves water applied to the body is baptism. Lenski insisted that “the New Testament knows of only one washing, namely baptism.”13 Writing in the 19th century, Robert Milligan noted: “Indeed, nearly all eminent expositors are now agreed that there is here a manifest reference to the ordinance of Christian baptism.”14 To summarize, in Hebrews 10:22, the inspired writer urges his Christian audience to continue to draw closer to God, even as they had commenced that approach when they first believed, repented of their sins, and were baptized.

One other observation that merits consideration: in the very next verse, the writer admonishes his readers to “hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering.” The term “confession” is the noun form (homologian) of the verb that means to confess. The New Testament plainly declares that one of the prerequisites to initial salvation/forgiveness—in addition to faith, repentance, and baptism—is oral confession with the mouth (Romans 10:9-10). Macknight rightly notes: “The apostle in this exhortation referred to that confession of their hope of salvation through Christ, which the primitive Christians made at baptism.”15 If that is the confession that the writer has in mind in verse 23, then the writer alludes to all four prerequisites to salvation in two verses: faith, repentance, confession, and baptism.

Endnotes

1 Kenneth Wuest (2002 reprint), The New Testament: An Expanded Translation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 529; Also R.C.H. Lenski (2001 reprint), The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 347.

2 William Davis (1923), Beginner’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Harper & Row), p. 76; H.E. Dana and Julius Mantey (1955), A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: Macmillan), p. 171; Ray Summers (1950), Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press), p. 108).

3 Frederick Danker, rev. and ed. (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press), p. 827.

4 See the meaning in Colossian 2:2 and Hebrews 6:11, as well as the verb form used in Romans 4:21, Colossians 4:12, and Romans 14:5.

5 Summers, p. 103; Davis, p. 156.

6 Davis, p. 157.

7 Marcus Dods (no date), “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 4:346-347, emp. added.

8 Robert Mounce and William Mounce (2011), The Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), emp. added. See also NCV and ISV.

9 Carl Moll (1870), The Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Charles Scribner), p. 175, italics in orig.

10 Translated by Wuest, p. 529.

11 Danker, p. 640.

12 See Henry Alford (1874), Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint), 4:196.

13 p. 350.

14 Robert Milligan (1950), The New Testament Commentary: Epistle to the Hebrews (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate), 9:282-283.

15 James MacKnight (no date), A New Literal Translation, from the Original Greek of all the Apostolical Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 556, emp. added.


How should believers deal with risk? by Roy Davison

 

 

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/202103-Risks.html


How should believers deal with risk?

In the Scriptures God teaches us how to deal with risks.

We are subject to chance.

Solomon observed: “I returned and saw under the sun that - The race is not to the swift, Nor the battle to the strong, Nor bread to the wise, Nor riches to men of understanding, Nor favor to men of skill; But time and chance happen to them all. For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, Like birds caught in a snare, So the sons of men are snared in an evil time, When it falls suddenly upon them” (Ecclesiastes 9:11, 12).

“Time and chance happen to them all.” Life involves risks and the Scriptures tell us how to deal with these risks.

We are liable for preventable risks.

“When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it” (Deuteronomy 22:8).

Most houses at that time had flat roofs that were used as living space. A wall around the edge of the roof was required to prevent people from falling off.

Love for our fellowman motivates us to make conditions as safe as we can. If we fail to take reasonable safety precautions in a dangerous situation, we are morally and sometimes even legally responsible for resultant damage or loss of life.

Once when I was driving along a rural road, I suddenly saw a child - barely big enough to walk - standing in the middle of the road! I stopped, took him by the hand and said: “Come! I’ll take you to your mother!” When I went around the house, his mother first reacted very negatively. Someone had her child by the hand! I explained that he had been standing in the middle of the road.

Fortunately, I saw that little boy and was able to stop. But what if I couldn’t stop because I was recklessly speeding?

Even if you drive very carefully, bad things can happen. Once at night in Holland, a cyclist suddenly shot in front of our car. He was supposed to yield but did not. In the dark I did not see him at all until he was in front of the car. By braking very hard, I barely missed him.

I know a brother whose wife, sister and two children were all killed when they were crossing a road. They were hit by two teenage boys who were racing. At high speed their cars came over the hill, side by side in both lanes.

Jesus teaches His followers to avoid unnecessary risks.

“Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny” (Matthew 5:25, 26).

“Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace” (Luke 14:31, 32).

Risks do not justify laziness.

“The lazy man says, ‘There is a lion in the road! A fierce lion is in the streets!’” (Proverbs 26:13). This lazy man is using a fictitious or at least a very improbable risk as an excuse for not going to work.

In the parable of the talents, the master expects his servants to trade with the resources entrusted to them, which involves risk. The master said to the man who hid his talent in the ground: “You wicked and lazy servant” (Matthew 25:26).

Risks may not be misused as an excuse for being lazy.

Diversification reduces risk.

“He who observes the wind will not sow, And he who regards the clouds will not reap. As you do not know what is the way of the wind, Or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, So you do not know the works of God who makes everything. In the morning sow your seed, And in the evening do not withhold your hand; For you do not know which will prosper, Either this or that, Or whether both alike will be good” (Ecclesiastes 11:4-6).

God’s providence does not justify recklessness.

In Psalm 91 “He who dwells in the secret places of the Most High” is given wonderful promises of God’s protection. The devil misapplied verses 10 to 12 to tempt Christ. “Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, ‘If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: “He shall give His angels charge over you,” and, “In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.”’ Jesus said to him, ‘It is written again, “You shall not tempt the Lord your God”’” (Matthew 4:5-7).

Sometimes arrogant people criticize a careful believer for allegedly “not having enough faith”.

Having complete trust in the promises of God does not mean that we may be careless: “A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, but the simple pass on and are punished” (Proverbs 22:3). From this passage we learn that it is foolish to ignore risks, that a wise person foresees risks and takes appropriate precautions, and that failure to do so, has bad consequences.

We must pray for protection. But God expects us to take measures to reduce risk! Jesus warned His followers to flee from Jerusalem to avoid the siege of the city (Luke 20:20, 21).

Misfortune does not indicate God’s disapproval.

Job’s so-called friends thought the terrible things that had happened to him meant that he must have committed some secret sin for which God was punishing him.

This was untrue because Job’s righteousness was the very reason he was being tested so severely!

Christians risk their life to save others.

A Christian girl I knew in university died because she went back into their burning house to try to save her little brother.

Paul wrote: “Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life” (Romans 16:3, 4).

Christians risk their life to follow Christ.

Jesus said, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it” (Matthew 16:24, 25).

Barnabas and Paul are called “men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:26).

What have we learned?

God teaches us how to deal with risks:
- We are liable for preventable risks.
- Jesus teaches us to avoid unnecessary risks.
- Risks do not justify laziness.
- Diversification reduces risk.
- God’s providence does not justify recklessness.
- Misfortune does not indicate God’s disapproval.
- Christians risk their life to save others.
- Christians risk their life to follow Christ.
Amen.

Roy Davison

"BAPTISM" What About "Re-Baptism?" by Mark Copeland

 








"BAPTISM"

What About "Re-Baptism?"

INTRODUCTION
  1. In our study of baptism we have seen that it is...
    1. Essential
      1. To salvation - Mk 16:16; Ac 2:38; 22:16
      2. To becoming disciples of Christ - Mt 28:19-20; Ga 3:27
    2. Immersion, not pouring or sprinkling
      1. The Greek words can only mean immersion
      2. Pouring and sprinkling do not fit the FIGURES used to describe baptism in the NT.
      3. Scholars are unanimous that immersion was the practice in the NT
    3. For penitent believers
      1. For sinners with faith in the Lord Jesus who have repented of their sins
      2. Not infants, who are incapable of faith and repentance
  2. Another question that is often raised: "Is there ever a need to be re-baptized?"
    1. What about those who were sprinkled?
    2. What about those baptized as infants?
    3. What about those baptized believing they were already saved?

[This study examines the question of re-baptism, first by noticing...]

  1. A CASE OF "RE-BAPTISM" IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
    1. RECORDED IN ACTS 19:1-5...
      1. Background information is found in Ac 18:24-28
        1. Apollos had been teaching the baptism of John
        2. But he himself was taught more accurately by Aquila and Priscilla
      2. Paul finds some "disciples" at Ephesus - Ac 19:1-3
      3. Upon further examination he has them "re-baptized" - Ac 19:4-5
    2. SOME OBSERVATIONS...
      1. They had been previously "baptized"
      2. But their baptism was lacking in some way
        1. Even though it was immersion
        2. Even though it was "for the remission of sins" - Mk 1:4
      3. But their baptism was not in the name of Jesus, i.e., by His authority - Ac 2:38; 10:48; 19:5
        1. Which would have been a baptism into the name of the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son - Mt 28:19
        2. Which would have been a baptism into the death of Christ, by which they would have been clothed with Christ - Ro 6:3-7; Ga 3:27
        -- Because their first "baptism" lacked an essential element, "re-baptism" was necessary!

      [May we not conclude that if an earlier "baptism" lacks some essential element, then "re-baptism" is necessary? To determine whether "re-baptism" is required of us, consider...]

  2. WHEN "RE-BAPTISM" IS APPROPRIATE
    1. FOUR "ELEMENTS" CONSTITUTE BIBLE BAPTISM...
      1. The proper mode: a burial (immersion) - Ro 6:3; Col 2:12
      2. The proper authority: in the name of Christ - Ac 19:5
      3. The proper purpose: for the remission of sins - Ac 2:38; 22:16
      4. The proper subject: a penitent believer - Ac 2:38; 8:37; Mk 16:16
    2. WHEN ONE ELEMENT WAS LACKING, "RE-BAPTISM" WAS COMMANDED...
      1. In Ac 19:1-5, the proper authority was lacking
      2. Even though their previous baptism had the right mode, purpose, and subject, "re-baptism" was commanded!
    3. APPLYING WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED...
      1. If we were baptized by sprinkling or pouring:
        1. As practiced by Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists and others
        2. Our baptism lacked the proper mode (immersion)
        -- "Re-baptism" would be therefore be necessary
      2. If we were baptized by the authority of anyone other than Jesus:
        1. Such as Ellen G. White (Seventh Day Adventists), The Watch Tower Society (Jehovah Witnesses), Joseph Smith (Mormons), and others
        2. Our baptism was not by the right authority (Jesus Christ)
        -- "Re-baptism" would be therefore be necessary
      3. If we were baptized as a public confession of faith (thinking we were already saved):
        1. As practiced by most Baptists, Assemblies Of God and others
        2. Our baptism was not for the right purpose (remission of sins)
        -- "Re-baptism" would be required to ensure we have been scripturally baptized
      4. Finally, if we were baptized but were not penitent believers:
        1. As is the case when people are baptized...
          1. When all their friends are doing it
          2. Because their spouse, fiancé, or parents are pressuring them to do it (and they do it to please them, not God)
          3. As infants incapable of faith or repentance
        2. Our baptism was lacking the right subjects (penitent believers)
        -- Our need for "re-baptism" would be just as great as any other!
CONCLUSION
  1. In summarizing what has been said in this study:
    1. If our baptism lack any of the four essential elements of Bible baptism...
      1. The proper mode - immersion
      2. The proper authority - Jesus Christ
      3. The proper purpose - for remission of sins
      4. The proper subject - a penitent believer
    2. Then "re-baptism" is both appropriate and necessary to ensure that our sins have been washed away by the blood of Jesus!
  2. But perhaps I should clarify:
    1. When one is baptized because their "first" baptism lacked an essential element...
      1. It is not really "re-baptism"!
      2. Technically speaking, the person is being baptized scripturally for the first time!
    2. When one has been scripturally baptized once...
      1. There is never a need to be baptized again!
      2. For once we have clothed ourselves with Christ in baptism:
        1. The blood of Christ continually cleanses us of our sins
        2. As we repent and confess our sins to God in prayer - Ac 8:22; 1Jn 1:9

Have you been scripturally baptized? If you desire assistance, please feel free to let me know! May God bless you in your efforts to do His Will!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2022

"BAPTISM" What About Infant Baptism? by Mark Copeland

 








"BAPTISM"

What About Infant Baptism?

INTRODUCTION
  1. In the previous studies we have seen that baptism...
    1. Is essential to:
      1. SALVATION - Mk 16:16; Ac 2:38; 22:16
      2. BECOMING DISCIPLES OF CHRIST - Mt 28:19-20; Ga 3:27
    2. Is immersion, for:
      1. The Greek words can only mean immersion
      2. Pouring and sprinkling do not fit with figures used to describe baptism in the N.T.
      3. Scholars are unanimous in pointing out that immersion was the practice in the Bible and early church
  2. Two more questions remain which are often in the minds of people:
    1. Should infants be baptized?
    2. Is there ever a need to be "re-baptized?"

[This study shall consider the question "What about infant baptism?" My first point is to suggest that...]

  1. "INFANT BAPTISM" IS NOT BIBLE BAPTISM
    1. BIBLE BAPTISM REQUIRES IMMERSION...
      1. We have seen that pouring or sprinkling is not baptism
      2. Therefore "infant baptism" as commonly practiced is really a misnomer
        1. "Infant pouring" or "infant sprinkling" would be a more accurate description
        2. Only if the infant is immersed could it be called "infant baptism"
        -- Of course, immersion is not the only thing which constitutes Bible baptism...
    2. BIBLE BAPTISM REQUIRES CERTAIN PREREQUISITES...
      1. Bible baptism requires FAITH - Ac 8:35-38
        1. Notice the eunuch's question, and Philip's response
          1. "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"
          2. "If you believe with all your heart, you may."
          -- If one believes, they may be baptized - cf. Mk 16:16
        2. Infants, however, are incapable of belief!
      2. Bible baptism requires REPENTANCE - Ac 2:38
        1. If one is a penitent believer, they may be baptized
        2. But infants are incapable of repentance!

        [The first thing to realize about "infant baptism" is that it is not baptism in the strict sense of the word; nor is it the baptism spoken of in the N.T., which was only for those who possessed faith and a penitent heart.

        Another point to consider is...]

  2. "INFANT BAPTISM" IS NOT NECESSARY
    1. THE RISE OF INFANT BAPTISM IN CHURCH HISTORY...
      1. Even those who later approved of infant baptism admit that one could not prove it from the Scriptures...
        1. "It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles." (MARTIN LUTHER, On Rebaptism)
        2. "Infant baptism was established neither by Christ nor the apostles. In all places where we find the necessity of baptism notified, either in a dogmatic or historical point of view, it is evident that it was only meant for those who were capable of comprehending the word preached, and of being converted to Christ by an act of their own will." (JACOBI, Article on Baptism in Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, Vol. I, p. 287)
      2. If this is true, when did the practice of "infant baptism" begin?
        1. The earliest mention of infant baptism is around 200 A.D.
        2. The practice began only after the doctrine of "original sin" had been developed
          1. "The early theological development of the doctrine of original sin contributed to the importance of infant baptism." (Christianity Through The Centuries, p. 160)
          2. The whole basis of "infant baptism", therefore, lies in the assumption that infants are born in sin
    2. ARE BABIES BORN IN SIN?
      1. Of course, the doctrine of "original sin" means different things to different people
        1. Some understand it to refer only to inheriting the "fallen nature" of Adam, and not any personal guilt of his
        2. But the common conception includes the idea of inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin as well, meaning that babies are born in sin and guilty of sin
        3. It is this latter understanding that led to the practice of infant baptism
      2. People are not held accountable for the guilt of their forbears!
        1. God has clearly said that He does not hold the child guilty for the sins of the father - Ezek 18:20
        2. Paul described a time in his life when we was alive before he became a sinner - Ro 7:7-11
          1. According to the common idea of original sin, this would have been impossible!
          2. But not if children are born free from the guilt of sin and remain so until they reach an age of accountability
      3. Consider also the nature of the NEW COVENANT - He 8:6-13
        1. One of the notable features about the new covenant is:
          1. "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying 'Know the Lord'..."
          2. "For all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them."
          -- In other words, no one enters into this new covenant without already knowing the Lord!
        2. Unlike the OLD COVENANT...
          1. Where people entered the covenant by virtue of birth into the family (Israel)
          2. Where males entered the covenant by virtue of circumcision when eight days old
          3. Where as they grew older they had to be taught to know the Lord!
        3. When "infant baptism" is practiced, this distinctive feature of the new covenant is no longer present!
          1. Children, who have supposedly entered a covenant relationship with the Lord, still need to be taught as they get older
          2. They have to be taught to know the Lord!
        4. This distinctive feature of the new covenant is true only when:
          1. Baptism (the means by which we enter a covenant relationship with the Lord today) is administered to penitent believers
          2. Those who enter the covenant have already been taught about the Lord (via the gospel of Christ)
CONCLUSION
  1. Should infants be baptized? The answer is "yes" if we can show...
    1. One example in the N.T. where infants were baptized
    2. That they meet the prerequisites of faith and repentance required of all those baptized in the N.T.
    3. That they can know the Lord somehow before they enter into the relationship baptism places them, and so do not need to be taught to know the Lord
  2. But the Biblical facts are...
    1. There is not one case of "infant baptism" in the N.T.!
    2. Only those who believe and have repented may be baptized!
    3. To baptize infants would make the point of He 8:11 without meaning!
  3. The logical conclusion from the Biblical evidence is that babies...
    1. Are born into this world without the personal guilt of their ancestors
    2. Are not lost and in need of salvation
    3. Are "safe" (not "saved," for they were never "lost")
    4. Remain safe until they reach an accountable age where they become guilty of their sins, and in need of salvation
  4. What if you were "baptized" as an infant?
    1. Most likely you were not actually baptized (immersed), simply "sprinkled"
    2. Even if immersed, it was not "Bible baptism", which requires faith and repentance
    -- Thus you are still in need of obeying the Word of the Lord!

Don't place your faith in the traditions of men, or in the doctrines of some church; place your faith in God's Word, and obey it accordingly!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2022
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)