It is amazing almost beyond belief that there are those who profess to be preachers of the Gospel, who in years past would be expected to call Bible things by Bible names, who use the word “miracle” to refer to a baby being born, an astounding event that would not be normally expected or almost anything that cannot be explained logically. We, therefore, think it proper to write on a theme that we thought had been reasonably well settled in the minds of most members of the Lord’s church. Perhaps this should impress upon us that we must never assume that we are more than one generation away from apostasy, and there needs to be a continual emphasis on every biblical doctrine, however simple it may sound to some of us. There are many preachers of various denominations who claim the ability to perform miracles. The Bible teaches that although God still has the same eternal and unlimited power He always had, miracles in the Bible sense are no longer being done. A miracle, by definition, is an instance of God’s direct action, in such a fashion that it was a sign of special power in the one who performed it, as distinguished from His indirect action through natural laws. For example, when Jesus fed the 5,000 with five loaves and two fish, it was a miracle. Two fish multiplying in accordance with natural laws is an act of God, and demonstrates the power and wisdom of God, but would

Many are aware that the word “fellowship” may come from the Greek word “koinonia” or from “metoche.” Although Thayer defines it in various ways, including association and joint participation, it is clear from an examination of all the Bible has to say on the subject that it does not mean merely associate with, but joint participation in such a fashion as to indicate approval or partnership in the activity. When Jesus ate with publicans and sinners (Matthew 9:10-11; Mark 2:15-16; Luke 5:29-30), He was associating with them, but since He commands us to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11), we know that the kind of fellowship He had, we can have. The idea is very similar to the admonition of 2 John 10 where we are not to bid Godspeed to a false teacher. We may associate with him in order to teach him better, but not associate with him in such a fashion that indicates approval of his actions. A related idea is found in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 where Paul told those Christians not to keep company with fornicators and other wicked persons. He knew we had to keep company with ungodly people of the world, but to have that kind of fellowship with ungodly church members would show approval of their behavior, which is forbidden. Although the word “disfellowship” is not used in the Bible, Romans 16:17 shows that we are to mark and avoid those who cause divisions and offenses. First Corinthians

Jesus said in Matthew 5:20, “For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” About 65 years ago, I heard a preacher who was trying to impress upon us the importance of giving beyond a tithe use this Scripture to show that unless we gave more than the Jews did under the Law of Moses we could not be saved. Although I was but a boy, I wondered if the same principle of “exceeding righteousness” would apply to their prayers and Scripture reading. If we discovered that the average Jew prayed two hours a day, must ours be at least two and a half hours in order to be saved? If they read the Scriptures three times a day, must we read four times? Surely it does not take a brilliant scholar to discover that Jesus was not teaching that our salvation depended upon our doing more acts than the Jews did that we could classify as righteous acts. The truth is that their righteousness consisted primarily in the outward observance of laws of God and traditions of men. If God said to wash their hands, they thought washing all the way to the elbow would be even more righteous than God required, and apparently assumed that this extra righteousness would balance out their failure in some other area. That may be one reason they seemed to make the keeping of their

I applaud all proper efforts of elders and churches to find and use all scriptural principles of church growth. All research into why we have failed to grow as the early church did should reveal many positive and negative factors. We can find many positive factors with an analysis of Acts 2 and the following chapters. At least one negative factor or things that contribute to our failures came to mind as I was studying the Seventh Chapter of Joshua. Israel had been promised wonderful things in Joshua 1. “Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given to you” (Joshua 1:3). God continued with other great promises, but we cannot fail to note that as in all cases of God’s gracious gifts, those promises were conditional. Verse 7 begins some of those conditions. They involved being courageous, not turning aside from observing the commandments and meditating on them day and night. Those promises hardly begin to compare with ours. As Peter says, “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises” (2 Peter 1:4). The scope of them is suggested in Ephesians 1:3 where Paul says, “Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” In fact, He is “able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think” (Ephesians 3:4). Yet, with all those promises, in many places today with million dollar plants [facilities], multiple ministries with salaries of hundreds of thousands of dollars to

The King James Version reads in Romans 1:20, “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.” These questions may be raised, “How does the created world reveal the Godhead? Does not the Godhead consist of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Can one tell that by looking at the world?” The answer is suggested by the American Standard translation, though it does not explain it fully. It says, “His everlasting power and divinity.” The word translated “Godhead” or “divinity” is Theiotes. It is not the same as the word used in Colossians 2:9. It reads, “For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The word here is Theotes. Each of these words is used only one time in the New Testament. What Paul was saying in Romans 1:20 is that some of the attributes of God, such as His eternal power and other qualities that show Him to be superhuman, divine and worthy of our reverence and worship are evidenced by the creation. As many have put it in other contexts, logic demands that such Effects as we see demands a Cause that is not mere chance or human contrivance. However, those things do not reveal the essence, personality or the structure of the Godhead. When Paul wrote in Colossians 2:9, he affirmed that in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead. He was not affirming that

It has been many years since I rode a train, but I seem to remember that I saw written on the ticket the expression, “Not good if detached.” That thought has many applications. Faith is no good if detached from works (James 2:20). The branch is no good if detached from the vine (John 15:1-7). The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). The heart of the Gospel is that Christ died for us, was buried and was resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). That is good news. Yet, detached from the terms by which God says we must accept those facts, it is of little value. This is frequently done in denominational groups. On the other hand, it is possible to tell the conditions of appropriation, such as confession and baptism, but detach them, or not properly relate them to the facts of the Gospel. This is also a perversion, and it makes the actions of no value. If a person is told that he needs to be baptized to be saved, but has not really loved the Lord and repented of his sins, he is still lost. In 1 Corinthians 1:23, Paul said, “We preach Christ crucified.” The cross is at the center and heart of the Gospel. The cross is like the hub of a wheel. The spokes of the wheel are faith, repentance, confession and baptism. They connect the rim to the hub. It is possible to speak and act as if the spokes have

The Bible speaks of those who are dead in sin, and those who are dead to sin. Sadly, there are some connected with the church that seem to be about halfway between. That is, they gave the impression that they died to sin when they were baptized. However, as we look at their lives, the questions raised in Romans 6:1-2 are pertinent. “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. We who are dead to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?” Paul said in Romans 6:6-7, “Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin; for he that hath died is justified from sin.” Is it possible that instead of crucifying the old man, we just stunned him? Our baptism is supposed to be a symbol of burying the old man of sin into the death of Christ, and then rising to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4). However, it is possible to have a form of Godliness and deny the power thereof (2 Timothy 3:5). We probably have the answer to the fruitlessness in the lives of many who profess membership in the church as we examine carefully such passages as 1 Corinthians 15:36, “Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened except it die.” Although Paul is here talking about the resurrection of the body at the Second Coming of

Every parent and teacher should learn the distinction between the various words that are translated “teach” in the Bible. The word “didasko” has the basic meaning “to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them.” A good concordance such as Young’s or Strong’s should enable one to find the places where such a word is used. It has to do with explaining, expounding or enjoining others to observe or obey some precept or come to some conclusion about a matter. On the other hand, “paideuo” has to do with training another, which involves not only imparting information to him, but also causing him to learn. This is why it is sometimes translated “chastise,” for it involves correction, even punishment, if necessary, in order to mold the character properly. The expression in Luke 23:16, “I will therefore chastise him, and release him,” gives some indication of this meaning. The word “katacheo” is translated “teach” in various places, and seems to differ only slightly from “didasko.” The primary difference is probably in the fact that “katacheo” points in the direction of teaching with words that charm and delight the listener, whereas “didasko” simply refers to the imparting of information, in whatever fashion it may be done. However, “matheteuo,” which is translated “instruct” in Matthew 13:52 and “teach” in Matthew 28:19, involves something that no commentator of which I know deals with in an adequate manner. Most persons seem to think that it means “make disciples or learners by telling them certain facts.” It does not!

In view of the increasing number of preachers and teachers who do not seem to think that the words in the Bible have any specific meaning, but that almost any interpretation is satisfactory except some traditional one, we think it appropriate to emphasize that the Holy Spirit was very accurate in using the words He wanted to use to convey the exact thought He wanted us to gain from the expression. As a case in point, let us examine Romans 3:30, where we find the expression, “he shall justify the circumcision by [Gr. out of] faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.” I checked fourteen commentators, but none of them seemed to see any reason why Paul used two different expressions. Barnes makes the specific statement that there is no difference in the meaning. Lard is a little better, although he says, “Between the two expressions I can discover no difference. If there be any, it amounts to about this: that in ek pisteos the justification is conceived as arising out of belief as a source, whereas, in dia tes pisteos it is realized through the belief as means.” Even Whiteside, in whom I have more confidence than in most of the others combined, says, “It would seem that Paul meant to make a distinction between the phrases ‘by faith’ and ‘through faith,’ else why the two phrases? But the distinction, if any, is too subtle for me to discover.” Though loath to reveal either my arrogance or my ignorance, as

It was almost fifty years ago, but I still remember the conversation. It went about like this: “Billy, why don’t you come into the church? It would make your parents so happy. You are a good boy. You would not have to give up anything. You just need to complete your obedience in baptism.” “No,” Billy replied, “Not now.” Almost half a century has passed and Billy is still not a Christian. However, this question may be raised: If he had decided to “come into the church” to make his parents happy upon the assumption that he did not have to give up anything, but simply to “complete his obedience” in baptism, what would he have been? The truth is, he probably would have been in about the same condition that thousands are who are connected with the Lord’s church in one way or another. Let us examine in more detail some of the implications of the plea of that precious person who was trying to help Billy become a member of the church about which you can read in the Bible. First, “Why don’t you come into the church?” This does not even begin to be the kind of question the apostles asked. The idea began with the concept that the church is an organization into which a person decides to come in order to be saved. It is “the Ark of Safety,” similar to the ark into which Noah and his family, along with some choice animals, escaped

In Luke 11:1, the disciples are said to have requested of Jesus, “Teach us to pray.” Romans 8:26 says, “We know not how to pray as we ought.” Many times when persons want to know how to pray, they are talking about external mechanics of prayer—to make their prayers sound better to men who listen. God gives no rules about that. He does give some other information we need to know. We need to know the conditions of acceptable prayer. One of the first conditions is that we must be obedient children of God for any of the promises of God about the values of prayer to apply to us. Proverbs 15:29 says, “Jehovah is far from the wicked, but he heareth the prayer of the righteous.” First John 3:21-22 says, “Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, we have boldness toward God; and whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing in his sight.” Most denominations misuse 1 John 1:9 which says, “If we confess our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all righteousness.” This is spoken to those who are already children of God, not alien sinners who are not in God’s kingdom. As Jesus put it in John 15:7, “If ye abide in me and my words abide in you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be done unto you.” Related to this is that

In the first three verses of First Thessalonians, Chapter One, there are six of the greatest themes of the Bible: grace, peace, thanksgiving, faith, love and hope. Each of them is worthy of a series of articles. Usually when we speak of faith, hope and love, we start with 1 Corinthians 13:13. My purpose in this article is not so much to deal directly with those subjects, but to suggest another line of thinking related to them that needs our attention. It is sad that we have allowed denominations, and false teachers in the church, to monopolize these grand themes in a positive way so that most of our preaching is negative, telling why their false doctrines are not so. I do not know how to overcome this problem completely, for false doctrine must be condemned. However, our only sermons on grace should not be to emphasize that we are not saved by grace alone. Our only sermons on faith should not be to emphasize that salvation is not by faith only. It is possible to center our attention too much on what is wrong instead of emphasizing what is right. Yet, we should never get so concerned with “positive” preaching that we cannot point out error. At the same time, we need to be aware that we cannot get to heaven on the errors of our religious friends or brethren. This tendency to make a goal only on a rebound from the missed shot of another may result in

Almost everyone who refers to Genesis 2:18 using the King James Version or the ASV quotes, “And Jehovah God said, it is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.” Then they pronounce “help” and “meet” as if it were one word, sometimes saying, “helpmate.” I have no particular objection to referring to a man’s wife as his helpmate, if she is such. Nor do I have any desire to deny that God wants a man’s wife to be a mate that is helpful. However, I confess that I am bothered a little when a person who claims to be able to give an adequate exegesis of God’s Word does not know that the word “meet” as used here simply means “suitable.” It may not be quite as bad as a person who thinks Jesus said in Mark 7:27, “It is not meat [instead of meet] to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs,” but it is almost as bad. It is our judgment that almost any person can teach the Gospel plan of salvation, which is so simple that it is almost impossible to misunderstand without expert help. Yet, those of us who attempt to do more than write or speak about the simple facts, promises and commands of the Gospel, should at least be able to discover the meaning of a word before we attempt to explain it to some other person.

Frequently those of us who preach the Gospel come across some strange concepts as we find those who attempt to justify some practice they want to uphold, whether in unscriptural marriage relationships, social life or other things. We have heard our share of them over the years, but one of the most interesting ones took place in a congregation in which I was preaching some time ago. There was a man attending, though not a member of that congregation, who had invented a new alcoholic beverage that was supposed to be superior to the run of the mill stuff. I never did discover whether the superiority was in the fact that it would make a man a raving maniac more quickly, make him a pauper more easily or exactly what. However, since he graced us with his presence with reasonable regularity on Sunday mornings, I felt that I should try to discover his justification for making, selling and drinking a deadly brew that dethrones reason, destroys homes, perverts justice, leads to murder and various other crimes, and probably has done more damage throughout the history of man than all other drugs combined. His arguments went along the usual lines at first. Christ made wine and Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach’s sake. So that is supposed to justify almost any kind of drinking. Then he climaxed it with his “block buster”! God not only authorized and condoned the drinking of strong drink, he commanded it!

The subtitle of this article might be, “Stop, look and listen.” My least granddaughter, Chelsea, almost 3-years-old, came into my study while I was sitting in front of my computer working on my workbook, The Mind of Christ. She said, “Paka, may I do my artificials?” I felt sure I would like to see her do her artificials, but I had no idea what they were. So I asked. (That is the proper thing to do when you do not know something. It is seldom proper to hide your ignorance from a child – or any other person – for they will soon find out anyway.) She replied, “They are compediate letters.” That sounded like a good word, from “com,” a Latin prefix meaning “with” and “pedi,” a Latin form meaning “foot,” but I did not remember it, so I punched the buttons on my computer for the Thesaurus and it was not there. Then, I got up and went to my big unabridged Webster’s of over 3,200 pages and did not find it. So I stopped and said, “Show me what you mean.” She sat down at the keyboard and ran her little stubby fingers over it at random. Since I knew that she knew at least part of the alphabet, and do not like to see people wasting time when they can be doing something constructive, I said, “Why do you not type the alphabet?” She replied, “No, not now. I just want to do artificials.” After looking and

While reading Psalm 19, I was struck by a simple truth that most of us may know, but which needs to be emphasized again. The last part of verse 8 says, “The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.” Since that is so, one might expect this also to be true: “The commandments of men are impure, confusing and blinding the eyes.” As I meditated on that, I thought of many denominational doctrines that do exactly that, whether they are commandments or supposed exegeses of passages of scripture. A classical case in point is found in The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches by Edward Hiscox. Under the subject of “Regeneration” on page 63, it says, “We believe the Scriptures teach that in order to be saved, men must be regenerated, or born again; that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind; that it is effected in a manner above our comprehension by the Holy Spirit, in connection with divine truth, so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel; and that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance, faith, and newness of life.” If you have a friend who is a genius, with a Ph.D. in language or communication, or a Th.D. in Theology, see if you can get him to explain that sentence in terms of anything the Bible says, or anything you can understand. Note that Jesus says in John 3:7, “Ye must be born again.” So, here is an imperative

One of the most outstanding things that strikes us as we read of the Scriptures in Matthew 13:53-58 and John 7:1-5 is the fact that those who should have been closest to Jesus seemed to understand and believe in Him the least. However, there are some other significant lessons evident as we study the family of Jesus. Because Jesus Himself indicated that in the truest, deepest sense, His family included those who do His will (Mark 3:31-35), we shall compare the physical and spiritual family of Jesus. Their Lowly Status The lowly background of Jesus and His family is indicated by at least three things: First, although the proper and usual offerings for purification was a “lamb of the first year” and a “young turtledove or pigeon” (Leviticus 12:1-8), for those who were too poor for that offering, permission was given for bringing two turtledoves or two pigeons. The parents of Jesus brought that offering (Luke 2:24). Thus, we see that His family was among the poorest and most humble from the viewpoint of the world. Second, when He is mentioned in Matthew 13:35 and Mark 6:3 as “the carpenter,” and “the carpenter’s son,” it is with apparent contempt at His lowly station in life. Third, Jesus said in Matthew 8:20, “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.” As the physical family of Jesus was of humble origin, so must the spiritual family

For the more than 40 years that I have been involved in correspondence Bible school work, most of the appeals I have heard (and probably most that I have made) have been directed toward the elderly women of the church. The philosophy probably was something like this: Since the elderly women of the church have been relegated to the background and not been given much of anything to do in the church that is important, why not get them involved in this kind of work, whether it be local, national or worldwide? There may be little wrong with that kind of philosophy except that it probably leaves the impression that this sort of work is of secondary importance, and is not really worthwhile except for those who cannot do anything else. If that impression is left on anyone, it is a tragic mistake and needs correction for three reasons. First, this work is not secondary. It is one of the ways of carrying out the primary task of the church. Second, elderly women can do many other kinds of things of value to the church. Third, this sort of work should receive the interest and participation of every segment of the church. Can you imagine the fantastic results that would be achieved in carrying out the commission of our Lord if the young people of our congregations were challenged with the wonder, joy and value of getting involved in mission work through correspondence Bible school work in China, Africa, India,

About half a century ago I preached a series of sermons on the names or titles of Christ. There are enough that I could have continued the series for more than two years, though I did not. For all younger preachers, and any that want to enrich your sermons, we urge you to consider sermon topics like that. Few of the titles yield more needed lessons than one Jesus applied to Himself in John 6 when He said, “I am the bread of life.” That could be studied in at least six different ways, but today I want to consider it in terms of His comparing Himself with the manna that they thought Moses had given their fathers. He said, “It was not Moses that gave you the bread out of heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread out of heaven” (John 6:32). First, consider the fact that it was not natural in origin, although it had many natural characteristics. It was like a coriander seed (Exodus 16:31). This is a little white aromatic seed. Though similar to the manna that came from the tamarisk bush, it was very different in many ways. The development of that one theme would produce many sermons or articles. Jesus spoke a profound truth when He said, “My Father giveth you the true bread out of heaven.” Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh and looked and acted like other men in many ways, but, as the officers said in John

Let us recognize at the beginning of any discussion of this question that if the Bible had a plain statement dealing directly with a question, that should end the discussion for all those who are willing to submit to Bible authority. If it does not, then we must arrive at a conclusion by an examination of biblical principles and statements that we attempt to apply to the question in a logical manner. If one says, “That is merely a matter of opinion, and one opinion is as good as another,” I must reply, “It is not merely a matter of opinion, and you do not believe that one opinion is as good as another.” Generally, one assumes that his own opinion is better than others are. If spots appeared on your face, and you wondered if you had measles or chicken pox, you would not consider your plumber’s opinion as good as your doctor’s, even if they did charge you about the same for an hour’s work. You, therefore, value the opinion of one who has more extensive knowledge and experience in an area more than you value that of a novice. Yet, you should keep in mind that even an educated opinion is not the same as direct Bible authority. Let us examine some principles and Scriptures that relate to the matter. God intended for women to have a subordinate role as evidenced by such passages as 1 Timothy 2:11-14, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and others. This does not suggest that women

I never cease to be absolutely amazed at what those of the Restoration Movement just prior to my generation were able to glean from the Scriptures – even without the aid of the internet, 109 versions and perversions (not counting true translations) for comparison, no televangelists and very few seminars. Some even learned from Greek/Hebrew and possibly from the old worn out KJV that this generation just cannot seem to understand! I just ran across this article, and at first perusing, thought, “How Crazy!” However, on a second and third consideration, it is truly the best thought that I have ever heard on the great “I Am.” The Foreknowledge of “I Am” Most of us are aware of, and perhaps have meditated upon, the answer God gave to Moses in Exodus 3:14 when Moses wanted to know what he should say when he was asked who had sent him. Part of the verse reads, “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, ‘I AM hath sent me unto you.’” We have probably come to the conclusion that regardless of what other wonderful things may be involved in that answer, it suggests that God is eternal – timeless. There is neither past nor future with God, but everything is now. He can thus “declare the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:10). It has long been a problem for philosophers, theologians and even for brilliant Christian scholars to explain how that if God foreknew that a thing would happen and thus it had

The question is sometimes raised, “Does the Bible teach that one may sin past the point of repentance?” The simple answer is, “Yes,” but the implications of the answer are so important that they deserve a little more extended thought. If a person can get to the place where it is impossible to repent, then sin is doubly dangerous. Let us examine some Scriptures that deal with the subject. First, in Genesis 6:3, we find that God’s Spirit would not always strive with man. It suggests that when every imagination and thought of man’s heart is only evil continually (Genesis 6:5), the powers and influences that God uses to bring men to repentance may be withdrawn. The same idea is expressed more concisely and forcibly in Romans. We find that “the goodness of God leads to repentance” (Romans 2:4). When men despised that goodness and rejected it deliberately and persistently, God gave them up. A careful reading of Romans 1:20-32 shows that God gave them up for at least three reasons (vss. 24, 26, 28). When God gives a person up, it seems almost without question that he has rejected the goodness of God that would be the cause of his repentance, and thus no longer has the ability to repent. We find that they were without excuse, because they did not like to have God in their knowledge. When we find in Exodus 4 and following chapters that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, we also find that Pharaoh hardened his

There is little question in the minds of those who are committed to pure, New Testament Christianity that untold damage has been done by all the false systems masquerading under the name of Christianity. However, as I meditated on this subject, I remembered Psalm 76:10, “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee.” Surely no student of the Bible can doubt that God has used ungodly men and situations to work for good to those who love Him. Let us consider some values of counterfeit religions. Strange as it may seem at first glance, the tremendous amount of evil that has been produced by false religions from the original apostate church on down to her present children and grandchildren should call attention to the careful student to the glory, good and wonder of the true Gospel. This was first impressed on me while in a doctor’s office. The doctor was berating what she called “the Christian religion,” but she kept referring to the practices of Catholic and Protestant churches. I said to her, “I have no apology to make, nor desire to uphold the things you are criticizing. What do you find wrong with Christ or His teaching?” She replied, “Nothing.” Then she kept me in her office for an hour while her waiting room filled up. I made another appointment to see her at home where I would not feel guilty for keeping her patients waiting. Most of the criticism I have heard directly from skeptics, agnostics and avowed

As far back as I can remember, our brethren have effectively denied the doctrine called “Impossibility of Apostasy,” “Security of the Believer,” “Perseverance of the Saints” or “Once Saved Always Saved.” The doctrine was the natural outgrowth of the Calvinistic doctrine of “Hereditary Total Depravity,” and an integral part of what is sometimes called the TULIP theory. Without examining each of the five parts of the theory, the idea of the whole thing is that since man is totally depraved, universally lost, God sent His Son to die for a limited portion of mankind who must respond to the irresistible grace of God, then must persevere and be saved eternally, else God’s whole plan is negated and His promise invalidated. The purpose of this article is not to refute the theory, which is false in every point, but to point out a Bible truth that is sometimes overlooked in the process of pointing out the falsity of the Calvinistic theory. There is a sense in which it is true that once saved we are always saved! The failure to realize that truth has caused much unnecessary worry on the part of many Christians. That is, I have had persons come to me with this problem: “I committed a sin before I became a Christian, and I want you to pray for my forgiveness, because it still bothers me.” I have replied something like this: “I cannot, for God has no record of it. He has forgotten it, and if I

In recent years, we have been hearing or reading an increasing number of statements to the effect that “we” think “we” are the only Christians. Yet, Alexander Campbell and most of the great leaders of the Restoration Movement expressly denied that, and taught rather that we should think of ourselves as “Christians only.” I am not sure who “we” is supposed to represent, but in some cases those writing have seemed to imply that there is a group in the “Church of Christ” denomination (whatever that is) that think they are the only Christians, but there are certainly Christians in the “other denominations” too! We have heard that kind of charge most of our lives from sectarians, and have come to expect it from those who have no concept of New Testament Christianity, but it is always disturbing when those who claim membership in the Lord’s church think and speak of it in denominational terms. We are saddened, but very sure, that there are those who think of themselves as having joined the “Church of Christ” church, because their opinion is that it is one of the best denominations in many respects – although very narrow minded and arrogant. It was expressed this way to me by a woman who said she had heard the idea from her pastor, the “Church of Christ preacher.” “If it is true that sprinkling is satisfactory, then immersion is certainly just as good – and maybe a little safer. Everyone admits that singing is

In Luke 17:5, the apostles said, “Lord, increase our faith.” They felt a lot like most of us. “If I had more faith, I could do greater things.” At that point, it is my judgment that most commentaries do not do justice to the lesson Jesus is trying to teach. The ones I remember say something like this, “The grain of mustard seed is small. If you just had a small amount of faith you could do great things.” No doubt this is true, provided some other conditions were met, but it appears to me that his statement is concerned with the other conditions, rather than with the “size” of their faith. Why? He already admitted they had a little faith (Matthew 8:26; 14:31; 17:20). So, if just having a little faith would allow them to do the “impossible” tasks, then they could have been already doing them. It is not the size of the faith that He emphasized, but the nature or quality of the faith! That is, I do not think He was saying, “If your faith was as big as even a grain of mustard seed you could do great things,” but “Though you know your faith is small, for you asked for it to be increased, if it were as (not as big as, but had the qualities of) a grain of mustard seed, you could do tasks that seem impossible.” Now, how is a grain of mustard seed? Well, it is small, but that is not the important point, for they already had that kind of faith! The important things are: it

The manner and subject of our prayers are according to our knowledge and comprehension of God, and our practical relationship with Him. If we think of Him primarily as a Maker, Lawgiver or Judge, we will pray in certain ways. If we think of Him primarily in terms of the hope that we have of heaven, then our greatest desire will be for the strengthening of that hope and the ultimate attainment of it. That may cause the nature and subject of our prayers to be different. This does not mean that one is to be done in preference to the other. It simply means that as we are thinking of God in different ways, we will pray in different ways. Always, the more definite our awareness of the riches of divine grace we have in Christ Jesus, the greater will be the depth and breadth of our prayers. Paul starts his prayer in Ephesians 3:14 with, “For this cause.” He was referring to the wonderful truths expressed in chapters one and two. He had discussed the marvelous grace of God and the fact that He has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. He had set forth the fact that we have been chosen and foreordained to obtain forgiveness in Christ, and though dead in trespasses, we have been made alive and to be joint heirs with Christ. There is probably nothing more significant that we can meditate upon as we come to God

How often have you heard one praying for a sick person say something like this, “Bless the hands that wait on him or her, and the means being used for their recovery,” but somehow seemed unwilling to say, “Cure their disease.” Of course, with my aversion to the claims of so-called “faith-healers” who give glowing testimonies of how they know of someone who was cured of almost anything they could imagine, I can understand our skirting around anything that might make us sound somewhat unorthodox. However, having long since passed the point where merely “sounding orthodox” unduly concerns me, I would like to suggest that we pray for the things about which we are concerned. I do thank God for the “hands that minister,” but ordinarily I am not really as concerned about them at that moment as I am with the particular person to whom they are ministering. So why not say so? I am not nearly as concerned with God blessing the knife that does the surgery (whatever that means) as I am with His blessing the person who is having the tumor removed. It is also slightly disturbing for me to continue hearing persons say, “Forgive us of our many mistakes and shortcomings,” without ever mentioning “our sins.” God can overlook our mistakes, but our sins have to be forgiven through the merits of the blood of our loving Lord, or we are lost forever! Surely, when we say, in reference to a sick person, “Nevertheless, thy will be done,” we are trying to echo

Many times we have heard John 6:53 quoted or read in connection with the Lord’s Supper. It says, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” I have no objection to any appropriate Scripture being read at any particular time, but we do feel an obligation to point out that there is a danger in doing or saying a thing which may be right in one context, but imply a thing that is not right in another context. Even a simple thing like a song director asking the congregation to stand every time he sings, “Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus” may leave the impression that the physical act of standing up is the way to stand up for Jesus. I do not want to make an issue of it, or be a “nitpicker,” but the principle of teaching truth by our actions, our singing or our use of Scripture is important. Although the bread represents the body of Christ and the fruit of the vine represents His blood as we partake of the Lord’s Supper that is not the subject in John 6. Furthermore, the terms “flesh” and “body” are not synonymous in the New Testament. Too, we need to understand that many expressions like “flesh and blood” mean something different than the meaning of one word plus the meaning of another word. If one person plays “cat and mouse” with another, he does not play “cat”

Last year, I was picking blackberries when an inspiration for an article came to me. Today, however, I went again and was again inspired. It was not the kind of inspiration that Paul had, but it may be worth considering. As I picked berries, the thought occurred to me that there are many lessons that relate to principles of personal evangelism. First, if you are more concerned with being bitten by chiggers, stung by yellow jackets, scratched by briars or other trivial things than you are with picking berries, you will never be a great berry picker. If anything is more important to you than glorifying God by being a fisher of men, you will never be a great soul winner. Second, you may find them where you least expect. If you are really interested in picking berries, you will discover them by the side of the road or in little patches hidden here and there in the field. It does not really matter if you are ready. First Peter 3:15 says, “But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear.” Third, you get them either when they are ripe and ready or you do not get them. In my 50 years of experience in trying to do personal evangelism, I have noted two significant things, both of which are bad. There are those who are

I have been amazed, discomfited, disturbed, chagrined and even dismayed at times when I read articles or hear discussion that implies that the grace of God somehow frees us from law or from the necessity of obeying law. As we have tried to point out many times, it establishes law (Cf. Romans 3:31) for without law one would not know how to accept that grace. It is almost impossible to conceive of one who cared about God at all becoming enmeshed in the blinding folds of denominationalism to the extent that one would deny the importance of obeying the commands of God! For preachers in the body of Christ to do it staggers the imagination. In my efforts to try to discover how brethren can get that way (for my natural tendency is to try to justify or excuse my brethren rather than criticize or condemn), I came across this thought: Are some who are teaching freedom from law really trying to say “freedom from the bondage of the law”? I would like to affirm that, in a very marvelous sense, we are, in Christ, freed from bondage of law. Yet, that sense needs to be explained or understood in the light of all God says about it, or one may, even there, fall into egregious error. An illustration or two may help to clarify how we are, in a sense, freed from bondage of law. Back before the speed limit was set at 55 mph, I was accustomed to

Most of us who preach the Gospel have urged upon our hearers the necessity of repentance, quoting Luke 13:3 as proof of such necessity in obedience to that Gospel. Surely there is no question that repentance is a key point in conversion, for without it, baptism is useless, and if one is penitent, the desire to be baptized is a certainty for one properly taught. Probably most of us also have realized that a text out of context is but a pretext. We surely know that in teaching a person the way of salvation, we should also teach him to handle the Word of God with honesty and care. We teach a person to distinguish between the statements and commands of Christ that applied to the apostles or the Jews of His day and those that apply to us. If we do not, we should. There is no question that repentance is a vital part of the plan of salvation. The question is: Does the fact that Jesus commands or commends it in Luke 13:3 prove it to be part of God’s plan for us to be saved? This is a day in which many ridicule “proof texts.” It is my strong conviction that we should have a “proof text” (authority) for everything we teach or practice in religious matters. However, are the verses under consideration the proof texts we need in telling a man what to do to be saved today? Look at the context, subject matter and occasion on which

In a lecture program, we heard two speakers on opposite sides of a question about divorce make antithetical comments about the meaning of 2 Corinthians 6:14. The first took the position that it had no reference whatever to the marriage relationship. The second said (and I quote his exact words), “It was speaking utmost and primarily to and certainly without exception to the thing of the marriage union. If it does not apply to the marriage union, I don’t really know what being yoked with unbelievers could mean.” Furthermore, he said: “1 Corinthians 7:12-17 countermands an express directive found in 2 Corinthians 6:14. The statement in 2 Corinthians 6:14 is this: ‘Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers.’ There is no doubt that this direct command forbids a Christian being yoked with an unbeliever. There is no conflict between the two verses once it is understood that in 2 Corinthians 6 Paul is forbidding a Christian to go and join himself to an unbeliever in marriage, while in 1 Corinthians 7 he is directing His remarks to a converted heathen or Jews whose marriage was already in existence prior to him becoming a Christian.” Our brother, therefore, takes a position that a prior statement countermands a subsequent directive! Aside from the somewhat imprecise use of the term “countermand” (which refers to one order or command revoking one previously given, and not the one previously given revoking the latter one), there are some other difficulties with that position. Once we accept the

While knocking on doors to try to set up Bible studies, I met a Unitarian with whom I had an interesting conversation. He said something like this: “I really appreciate Jesus, for he had so many human qualities. I feel that I can really relate to him when he got mad and cussed out the fig tree.” He was referring to the story in Mark 11 where it says in verse 21, “And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Rabbi, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.” I suppose the word “cuss” comes from a Southern pronunciation of “curse,” just as we hear “work” pronounced “woik.” In some sections of the country, “park” is pronounced “paak,” and apparently, the Harvard pronunciation of “Cuba” is “Cuber.” At any rate, I asked him what he thought Jesus said to the fig tree, and he responded that he did not know. I pointed out to him that the curse Jesus placed on the tree is found in Mark 11:14, “No man eat fruit from thee henceforward forever.” We need to understand that in the Bible the words “cursing” and “swearing” do not always have the same meaning that we normally apply to them. Most of my life I have assumed that when Peter began to curse and swear and say, “I know not the man” (Mark 14:71), he was using God’s name in vain and all sorts of vile and ungodly language. It is not necessarily so, although we

First Timothy 2:13-15 reads, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.” This verse contains one of the most difficult expressions of the whole epistle. The question of how a woman can be saved through childbearing has given Bible scholars of all ages a difficult time. Almost all of them have missed one or two very significant points, to which I shall try to call your attention. Perhaps we can simplify somewhat if we first say what we can be certain it does not mean. There is not the remotest hint in the Bible that bearing a child has any relationship to taking away any sin, or being saved from sin. Since this surely needs no extended proof, our next approach should be to ask, “Since the salvation cannot be related to being saved from sin, from what could anyone be saved by childbearing?” Our first approach was to look in the Bible at all the words that are translated “saved” or some cognate. We discovered that in the Old Testament there are at least 12, translated by hundreds of different terms, very few of which had anything remotely to do with being saved from sin. They relate to being rescued, helped, released or preserved in some circumstance. In the New Testament there are at least six different

In Philippians 4:4, Paul says, “Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say, rejoice.” The Greek word here is “chairo.” I am not scholarly enough to make a proper distinction between “chairo,” “agalliao,” “euphraino” and “kauchomai,” all of which are translated “rejoice.” As I look at every word in the New Testament where any of these are used, I think I see some possible distinctions, though I know of no “authority” that supports my conclusion, or denies it. It seems to me that “chairo” suggests a feeling of joy or gladness related to thanksgiving. While “agalliao” is not significantly different, it seems to carry the idea of exultation, or a more lively expression of joy, such as leaping in gladness. Both expressions are used in Matthew 5:12, “Rejoice (chairete) and be exceeding glad (agalliasthe).” The term “euphraino” seems to carry with it the idea of rejoicing in the sense of making merry, such as having a good time at a party. That does not mean that it relates to just having fun, but we can recognize that there may be a difference in the kind of joy we have at getting with the family during the holidays and the kind of joy we have when a person obeys the Gospel. The term “kauchaomia” carries the idea of glorying in, and may even be used of boasting about a thing. This is the word Paul used when he said in Galatians 6:14, “God forbid that I should glory save in

Most of the time when I have been asked, “Is a man born into the family of God, or adopted?” I have replied, “‘Born’ or ‘adopted’ are simply two different terms indicating a method of entering a family, so it does not matter.” I was simply indicating what I thought every reference work and dictionary to which I have access says. In addition to that, every preacher of the Gospel that I heard speak of it used the terms synonymously. Upon further examination, I discovered that most of the reference works start and end with the assumption that the terms refer to the same thing, without giving any Bible reference that indicates that to be the fact. I now believe we have overlooked some interesting, though not crucial things. The Greek term translated “adoption” is “huiothesia” about which Thayer says, “The nature and condition of the true disciples of Christ, who by receiving the Spirit of God into their souls become sons of God.” He adds, “It also includes the blessed state looked for in the future life after the visible return of Christ from heaven – i.e., the consummate condition of the sons of God which will render it evident that they are sons of God.” We wish that our readers and we were always able to differentiate between a casual opinion expressed by an “authority” and a scholarly, definitive conclusion, arrived at and proven by the proper analytical methods. Also, we wish the authority or the student would

As I speak all across the nation, I mention in almost every sermon the honor that God has bestowed upon all of us by allowing us to be fellow-laborers together with him in the most glorious task on earth. Probably on the average of at least three times a day I thank God in wonder and amazement at the multitude and magnitude of blessings bestowed upon me personally as I participate in the various efforts to evangelize – take the good news – to people everywhere. A part of those blessings are the responses of thousands of students of Bible correspondence courses, the letters from hundreds of preachers in Africa, India and other places who respond to something they have read that has apparently helped them. God placed in almost every person the desire to feel useful. To find that God has permitted us to be useful in accomplishing the task which is so important that Christ died for it is thrilling and humbling. As I read Paul’s glorious ascription of praise in Ephesians 1:3, it occurred to me that I was simply experiencing in a small degree what Paul had in a large degree. He was expressing as a concrete reality which many of us are aware of only as a theoretical possibility. Let us examine some thoughts in that verse that should express the feeling of every Christian. First, “Blessed be God.” To bless God is to express adoration, veneration and gratitude for Him, and to acknowledge His

For over 60 years, I have been reading the story of Moses and the burning bush, as recorded in Exodus 3, but when I read it a few moments ago, I got a lesson from it that had never occurred to me before. Of course, this is the way God’s Word is. We could read it daily for a hundred years, and though we might assume that we have exhausted its meaning, it is ever fresh and new. We have seen preachers or others who seemed to be “on fire for the Lord” at some time in their lives, but after a while they seemed to burn out. We may remember Jeremiah who said, “And if I say, I will not make mention of him, not speak any more in his name, then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with forbearing, and I cannot contain” (Jeremiah 20:9). What was once a burning fire in some preachers has become little more than warm ashes now. We hear frequently in many areas of life talk of “burnout,” but it is especially troublesome to hear of preachers who get “burned up” at something and quit preaching the Gospel. What was it that made the bush not burn up or burn out? It was no doubt a miracle, but it was nevertheless the power of God. It was the miraculous power of God that was behind the first preaching of the Gospel

For almost fifty years, I have been trying to encourage personal evangelism and soul winning from the classroom and pulpit. I have conducted workshops on personal evangelism and teacher training. I have taught preacher-training classes. In all of these, I have tried to emphasize not only proper methods and actions, but especially proper attitudes. I have taught teachers how to use the blackboard, audio visual aids and study materials. I have taught personal evangelists how to sit around the table in an open Bible study, or show a filmstrip. I have taught preacher students how to walk to the pulpit and breathe properly. I have taught proper methods of study and exegesis. Not only have I dealt with homiletics, hermeneutics and apologetics, I have emphasized the need for understanding general semantics, enunciation, pronunciation, gesticulation and grammar. Especially have I stressed the importance of properly relating the doctrine we teach with the practice we perform. There is one aspect of the subject of sowing the seed that I have probably neglected as much or more than any other. That aspect is suggested in Psalm 126:5-6, which says, “They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing seed for sowing, shall doubtless come again with joy, bringing his sheaves with him.” It is my judgment that much of our failure to produce the great harvest of souls that we should be producing is the failure to feel as deeply as we should the sorrow for and

In the Lord’s church, as in all other groups, there is a tendency to take the word of someone of whom we think highly instead of studying the Word of God for ourselves. Although it is very dangerous, there may be some value in this, for each of us is ignorant of many things. For example, although I have been reading the Bible for over 60 years, there are some subjects I have not studied as deeply as I might have. If I discover that Foy Wallace, Gus Nichols, Guy N. Woods and N. B. Hardeman expressed the same specific view of the subject, I confess that until I have had a chance to study the subject in more detail, I would probably adopt their view as the most probable one. I am neither ashamed nor proud of that, but am stating what I think is a valid attitude. A child generally should accept what his parent believes and teaches him until he has a chance to examine the evidence for himself. The danger comes when one has an opportunity to study God’s Word in depth on some subject, but relies instead on one or more scholars for his conclusions. The subject of this article was suggested to me as I was reading in some scholarly book by a premillennial author about how to interpret prophecy. He suggested that there are only two methods: the allegorical and the literal. He properly points out some dangers in the allegorical method. He

For many of us who think of ourselves as conservative and set for the defense of the Gospel, there seem to be trends that disturb us. Apparently, because there are so many who seem to care less and less about the authority as it relates to the role of women in the church, the divorce problem, the authorized forms or acts of worship and various other things, many of us are seeming to lean over backwards in an effort to stand up straight. For example, many of us are sure that the King James and American Standard versions are generally more accurate than most other translations. We are positive that most of the translations we have examined are not really translations at all, but perverted commentaries, full of error of various kinds. That apparently has led some to the conclusion that any congregation that even allows a member to read from another version without public rebuke is an unsound congregation, unworthy of fellowship or support in any project they espouse. There are probably those who would withdraw fellowship from one who taught that if a congregation chooses not to have a traditional Sunday School, they are unworthy of fellowship. No doubt there are those who would like to send a questionnaire to every congregation or preacher to test their stand on every issue, from whether they approve of women preachers to whether they have a bus ministry. Let me make it emphatically clear that I think a person who is

This is being written a little after midnight about the time that is called the blizzard of 1996, with up to four feet of snow in some sections of the country and almost a foot in my driveway. However, I happened to be reading in the Songs of Solomon and found in chapter 2, verses 11-12, “For, lo, the winter is past; The rain is over and gone; The flowers appear on the earth; The time of the singing of birds is come, And the voice of the turtle-dove is heard in our land.” As I meditated on the contrast between what Solomon said and what I had experienced the day before, two kinds of thoughts struggled within me trying to be born. First, I thought of the harshness of the cold, biting wind as I shoveled the snow from my driveway. Then, I thought of how trivial that was compared to the difficulty and suffering of those stranded for days in an airport, or freezing to death in a car stuck in a snowdrift. We need to heed the words of the song: When upon life’s billows you are tempest tossed,When you are discouraged, thinking all is lost,Count your many blessings, name them one by one,And it will surprise you what the Lord hath done. Second, I thought that one can dwell on the slush and dirt created by the passing world, or one can dwell on the pristine beauty of the lovely snow; the perfection, symmetry and the

I am constantly amazed, and sometime amused, by our problems in communication. Were it not for the terribly serious nature of the problem, much more of it would be amusing. Although I feel sure that college textbooks, doctoral dissertations and many articles have been written on the subject, I do not remember any of them at the moment, but feel a pressing need to call to our attention some aspects of the problem that have come to my attention recently. Years ago, I heard of an orator who was declaiming on the greatness of womanhood. He may have been a preacher, preaching a “Mother’s Day” sermon. At any rate, he had in his notes the following: “Woman! Without her, man would be a beast!” What he actually said was, “Woman, without her man, would be a beast!” See what one small misplaced comma can do! Since then, I have been impressed many times that a person can quote my exact words and give an exactly opposite meaning to my statement. I have seen it happen in what I thought was a deliberate effort to pervert a statement, but it probably happens frequently through ignorance or inattention. As important as punctuation is in a written sentence, inflection and emphasis are equally important in a spoken sentence. This is why I have said on more than one occasion, “It is almost impossible to tell the truth if you try to repeat verbally what another person says.” A feeble illustration of it might

As far back as I can remember I have heard preachers say such things as “It must be admitted that faith and hope will terminate at the coming of Christ. Love is the greatest because it will abide forever.” It is my judgment that a deeper study of the question will convince us that the conclusion is incorrect, and based on either faulty logic or faulty exegesis, or both. I believe the song says, “faith will be lost in heavenly sight,” and the idea, no doubt, partly comes from a misuse of 2 Corinthians 5:7, “For we walk by faith, not by sight [eidos – appearance].” Romans 8:24 says, “But hope that is seen is not hope, for who hopeth for that which he seeth?” If one takes those scriptures and makes an improper application of them, he involves himself in some ridiculous absurdities. For example, a man may see a new car. Does the expression, “For who hopeth for that which he seeth?” negate the idea that he may yet hope for that car? Surely not! Let us examine with a little more care whether or not it must be admitted that “faith and hope will terminate at the coming of Christ.” It is true that we walk by faith, not by sight. It is true that by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, and we would not need to have faith in the truthfulness of that statement if we had seen

In John 3:14-15 we read, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” Thus, Jesus points to the serpent as a type of Himself. From this, we can get some important lessons. Of what does the type consist? The Israelites were a sinful people. We are a sinful people. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). The cure was not found in men searching for an antidote, killing the snakes, compromising and making an offering to the serpents, examining their wounds and applying a mustard plaster, but in lifting up the serpent that they might look upon it and live. The antitype is Christ being lifted up, and our trust being put in Him. If there is any one verse in the Bible that shows that believing in the Son includes obeying His commands, John 3:36 does. “He that believeth on [pisteuon] the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not [apeithon – which means, “does not obey”] shall not see life.” To state it another way, “Saving faith is always an obedient faith.” It does not really matter whether the command to them was “Look and live,” or “Crawl out and touch the pole and live,” the principle is that when the Christ was offered for our salvation

The more I preach the more I am convinced that much of our preaching fails (even when we have a lot of responses) because our preaching is predominantly anthropocentric. It is most natural for man to want to know, “What good thing must I do to be saved?” The reason man is lost in the first place is because he is more concerned about what he wants than he is about what God wants. So when he discovers he is lost, if his question about how to be saved is answered solely or primarily in terms of his wants, needs, desires and actions, he may stay basically anthropocentric. Because of the Calvinistic emphasis on God’s sovereign grace and the fact that the followers of that theology taught that man could do nothing, our preaching has emphasized what man has to do to accept that grace. At least mine has, and I shall continue to denounce the Calvinistic theory as contrary to God’s Word, even though some connected with the Lord’s church are now teaching it, and teach that man must respond to God’s grace in God’s appointed way. However, even if man did not need to do anything, our preaching could still be man-centered if it dwelt primarily on man’s needs, wants and desires. It would be well to start our teaching with the nature and purpose of God rather than with the wants and desires of man. Most evangelists of the denominational type urge their hearers to accept Jesus as their personal Savior.

Most persons in the world of so-called Christendom are taught that since Romans 10:13 says, “Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” then the alien sinner needs to pray for salvation. Of course, they do not use the term “alien sinner,” for they apparently do not know the meaning of the term. At least in the 60 or more years I have been listening, I do not recall any preacher of any denomination using the term or distinguishing properly between the responsibilities of an alien sinner and a child of God who sins as a citizen of the kingdom. Probably a large number of those who claim to be “New Testament Christians” know there is something wrong with that doctrine, and may be able to quote John 9:31, “For we know that God does not listen to sinners,” or Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Yet to many, this is too much like simply arraying one Scripture against another, so you can just take your choice of which one to believe and overlook or reject the one that does not fit your preconceived notions. Of course, an honest Bible believer will take all the Bible says on any subject, and if one thing seems to contradict another, will try to see wherein he can find harmony. There needs to be an examination in more detail of what is involved in the expression, “calling on the name of

As I was preparing a sermon on the things for which Paul gave thanks, I noted something that in 65 years of reading God’s Word I never noticed before, and about which I have never heard a comment. It seems significant enough to me that I think it is worth taking the time to notice and study. There is an interesting expression of thanks given in 1 Corinthians 1:4, “I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ.” The thing that struck me about this expression of thanksgiving is that instead of saying something like, “I thank God for your ability, knowledge, love, good works,” he says, “I thank God for the grace of God which allowed you to have these things, or gave you the opportunity to have them.” The emphasis is not so much on what they were or qualities they had, per se, but on the grace of God that produced those conditions. I think that distinction, which I never remember hearing anyone mention, is worth noting. There is a difference in my saying, “I thank God that you are a Christian,” and saying, “I thank God for allowing you and helping you to become a Christian.” The more I think about it, the more significant it seems. I believe it suggests what I think is one of our basic problems. That is, we are prone to be more anthropocentric in our religious thinking than we

Yesterday, my three granddaughters were playing out in the yard on a trampoline close to the woods. They heard a hiss and a rattle and the dog barked, so they ran in the house, screaming, “Rattlesnake!” My son, who doubted their hysterical report, took his shotgun and went to investigate. There was a rattler, about the size of his wrist, with five rattles. After appropriate treatment, it ceased rattling. When he showed me the remains, I thought of the Old Serpent, the Devil, who sometimes warns us before he strikes. Then, I stayed up until about midnight reading some articles in a publication that leaves the image that it is always searching for truth, but can never hope to find it. All conclusions seem to be tentative except the ones that relate to the conservative brethren in the church who still strive to give a Bible answer to questions that relate to salvation. Those conclusions seem to be firm and certain. They are that most of the brethren are ignorant, outdated in viewpoint, which is formed by their cultural roots rather than by biblical truths. The Editor was scoffing at the idea that the church can be distinctive. He affirmed that he had rather be biblical than distinctive. That statement is very close to being an oxymoron. He seemed totally unaware that to be biblical is to be distinctive. The Lord’s church is distinctive simply because there is nothing else in the world like it. It came into being by

Probably almost everyone who claims to believe in Christianity would at least pay lip service to the idea expressed in 1 Peter 2:21 that Christ left us “an example, that we should follow in his steps.” Yet, much of the religious world, and even some in the fellowship of the churches of Christ, do not understand what that means. For example, one religious group teaches their members that they are to be baptized (immersed in water) to follow the example of Jesus. Furthermore, since Jesus was not baptized for the remission of His sins, then our baptism cannot be for the remission of our sins. They miss the point on at least two or three counts. First, to follow the example of Jesus does not mean that we are to do the specific things He did, but by doing as he did – whatever God wanted him to do. For example, He probably walked 40 miles or so to be baptized. He was baptized in the River Jordan. We are not required to do either. I have talked with those who felt they should be baptized “in running water” to follow the example of Jesus. I told them I would be happy to open the faucet and the drain in the baptistery if it would help their feelings any! When one protested that it needed to be a river, I told her that to be consistent, it would have to be the Jordan! He took the Lord’s Supper in an upper room. Many years ago, I was

Probably, a working definition of the terms with which this article is titled would be: “Character refers to what a person is; reputation is what people in general think he is.” Often, they may be about the same, for the old saying that you can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all of the time is probably true. All of us are probably aware of persons whom we have considered as “honest as the day is long.” However, when some situation arose that was revealing, we discovered that the night came all too soon. It is sad that throughout the brotherhood there are those who can fly 1,000 miles to speak on a lecture program about the value of personal evangelism, but have never been known to walk across the street to set up a Bible study. There are those who write excellent articles for what we think are some of the best papers in the brotherhood, but whose moral qualities are such that those who know them best trust them the least. There are those who seem to float around like buzzards looking for something rotten to feast on, and when they cannot find anything rotten, try to make it that way with innuendo, perversions and sometimes outright lies. We have not yet discovered why they seem to fit so well into the description given in Romans 1:29-30, “full of envy,

It is generally understood that coal and diamonds consist of the same basic carbon compounds. The difference is said to be that the diamonds are formed under conditions of extreme heat and pressure for some period of time. This suggests a principle that we find in the Bible and in our own experience. James says it this way, “Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold temptations; knowing that the proving of your faith worketh patience.  And let patience have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, lacking in nothing” (James 1:2-4). In my own years of growing up in poverty and hardship, going barefooted in the snow and having nothing to eat except popcorn balls or hominy for several days, I am aware that hardships and testings of various kinds may be valuable in helping to form character. However, I have discovered another truth, perhaps of equal value. The wind that causes one tree to be stronger and have deeper roots may uproot and destroy another. The difficulties, adversities and tests that help to make one person strong may break another. What is the difference? It seems apparent that one of the things that make a difference is in what was there in the first place. If you do not have certain qualities present in the raw material, the end result will not be the same. The things that caused Pharaoh to harden his heart might well have caused a person who had

Increasingly, I am hearing preachers, both young and old, educated and otherwise, read, quote and/or paraphrase 2 Corinthians 5:20, “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ” and urge upon their listeners that since we are ambassadors for Christ, we should do certain things. Alexander Pope said, “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.” One may say, “The word “church” is from the Greek “ekklesia,” which means “the called out ones.” “This football team has been called out. Therefore the football team is the church.” One may say, “The word ‘elder’ is from the Greek ‘presbuteros,’ meaning ‘an older person.’ So, any older person is to shepherd the flock according to 2 Peter 5:2.” One may say, “Paul speaks of ‘the word of reconciliation’ being spoken by ambassadors. Therefore anyone who has anything to do with reconciling man to God is an ambassador.” The logic (?) of the three conclusions above is comparable. It is wrong in each case. There is a little truth woven throughout the previous paragraph, but any person who approaches serious Bible study in that sort of superficial, haphazard way is in terrible danger. The most dangerous errors are usually those that are mixed with truth. A rat will eat a peanut that has only 2% poison more readily than pure poison. The basic question with which we wish to deal now is: When Paul uses the word “presbeuo” in 2 Corinthians 5:20 and Ephesians 6:20 (translated “ambassador”), to

When one is cutting down a tree, it is not necessary to cut off each twig or branch. If one cuts it off at the base, or uproots it, the tree is down. However, there are values in cutting it up in smaller pieces for other purposes. The same is true with any false doctrine. For example, there are numerous verses in the Bible that show the falsity of premillennialism. Any one of them cuts it off at the roots. When a doctrine is based upon the idea that the kingdom that God promised has not yet been established, but God’s Word plainly teaches that it has, we need go no farther to show that the doctrine is false. Mark 9:1 says, “And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.” Since it is evident that none of them are still living, the kingdom has come with power. Many other passages are equally decisive. However, we want to examine some roots of the tree and see that it is rotten from the roots up. Also, when we examine it in smaller parts, we can better understand and combat other related false doctrines. One of the foundations of the premillennial doctrine is that God made a covenant with Abraham that has never been fulfilled. It, therefore, must be fulfilled in the millennium, a thousand-year

In the sixty years we have been reading the Bible and hearing preachers proclaim the Gospel of Christ, we have heard many comments made on the fact that Christ is the Head of the church. With this statement no man who calls himself a Christian should disagree. However, without exception, all those who have spoken on the subject in our hearing have spoken as if the meaning of the phrase was practically exhausted when one thinks of the head as a sort of director of an organization. Or, if they want to go half a step further, they cap the climax by saying something like, “As my head directs my hands and feet, so Christ, the head of the body, directs every member of the body.” With all my heart (or head—or whatever) I believe that Christ is to direct every member of the church, the body of Christ, but aside from the little technical fact that my head does not really direct my hands and feet, but the head itself is directed by the brain to move, turn, etc., just as the hands and feet are, it is my conclusion that those allusions to the “head” of an organization directing it and the head of a man directing his body do not do justice to the meaning that the Holy Spirit would like to transmit to us through His Word. I am not arrogant enough to assume that I will now do justice to it, but if I can

One of the noblest statements of the Old Testament, yea, of all literature, is that found in Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” A denial or disbelief of that fact has been at the root of some of the most heinous crimes ever perpetrated upon the human race. Hitler’s experiments in selective breeding of humans, his assumptions of Aryan superiority and his murder of millions of Jews are but some results of the assumptions of the evolutionary theory. If man was not created in the image of God, but is the product of the survival of the fittest, then only the fittest are worthy of survival, and the elimination of the unfit is the wise and proper course. Not only abortion, but also killing the infirm (sometimes referred to euphemistically as euthanasia) is the natural consequence of the theory. If man is not in the image of God, then to speak of ethical or moral choices is just so much linguistic garbage. Can you imagine a lion debating the morality of killing a mother deer or allowing the baby deer to starve to death without her? Can you even imagine a human being stupid enough to debate it? Let us think of the meaning of being created in God’s image and the implications of that fact. Some have thought of it as referring to man’s physical being having some form or shape

Many of us make resolutions each New Year, most of which are broken fairly soon. This is being written just before the New Year, but the desirability of making the proper resolutions is so important that it makes very little difference when it is published or read. The stimulus for writing it came from a reading again from Psalm 119. David was a man after God’s own heart. His resolutions are worthy of our attention and emulation. In verse 7 he says, “I will praise (give thanks unto, ASV) thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.” There are at least five Hebrew words translated praise. The word used here (yadah) is translated “confess” 16 times, “give thanks” 32 times and “praise” 53 times. It is possible that he used this term because he wanted to emphasize his confession and thanksgiving for the righteous judgment of God with reference to his own grievous sins. In any case, we need to resolve to praise and thank God with uprightness of heart. Perhaps our petitions would get more attention from Him if our prayers had more praise and thanksgiving instead of mostly begging for what we want. Verse 8 says, “I will observe thy statutes: Oh forsake me not utterly.” There are at least six other times in the chapter when he says similar things about the judgments, statutes, ordinances or commandments of God. Each of us should deliberately resolve to keep the statutes, precepts and commandments

The following letter was sent to the editor of a local newspaper. I send it now to suggest to the readers of this paper that you can do good in season and out of season if you will take the time and effort to do so. You do not need to be a gifted writer to get a letter published in a local paper, and yet, it may do much good to an audience that will never read a Gospel paper. With the Christmas season approaching, we expect to see the usual kinds of letters to the editor complaining about the commercializing of this supposedly religious holiday, although God did not authorize it in the first place. The fact that many of those who do the complaining about commercializing are spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on cards, trees, decorations and gifts of varying uselessness does not seem strange or paradoxical to them. That the average person professing to be a Christian spends ten times as much honoring some friend or relative than he does in giving support to things that Christ said would honor Him does not seem strange to them. The fact that millions rejoice at a memorial of His birth, which God did not set aside as a religious or holy day, yet disregard completely what God did ordain for a memorial of His death every first day of the week, does not seem strange to them. Perhaps the fact that the Pope can now uphold the

A few minutes ago, a well-known brother and I were discussing some of the wonderful elderships we have known, and he suggested that it would be a good thing for elders to get many of the retired preachers who are now available in many congregations, to serve as elders, for their knowledge, background and experience could be an invaluable help. That made me think of writing an article relating to the subject. Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:2 that one of the qualifications of the elders is that he is “apt to teach.” In some of the congregations I have served, I had to ask the question, “Apt to teach what?” Many years ago one of the elders where I was preaching asked me very seriously, “Why don’t we use instrumental music in the worship?” Not having learned the fine art of diplomacy nor having attained the suave demeanor that only comes after years of practice, I said, “I don’t know why you do not. It is probably because you are too stingy to buy a piano. But I do not because I do not have any Bible authority for it!” I wondered how he got to be an “elder” in the first place, and he told me that he had been appointed by a great evangelist and Bible teacher who had been there in a Gospel meeting. It sounded as if the preacher had come by and established the church and, not wanting to leave it without leadership, sort

Not long ago I received a typewritten treatise of about 60 pages of invective, ridicule and misrepresentation from one who called himself my brother and claims membership in the Lord’s church, but now claims to live in the greater light that has been shed on the world by the flickering of the charismatic tongues of fire. It always surprises me just a little to re-discover how wonderfully this “deeper spirituality” that comes from the assumed baptism of the Holy Spirit seems to increase the bitterness, deepen the ignorance, and broaden the base of perversions and misrepresentations of many of those who claim to receive it. In this latest in a series of vilifications of the Lord’s church, I was impressed again with what seems to be common with most who take off on some radical extreme. At least many of them confess that when they were “faithful” members of the Lord’s church they felt that water baptism was the sine qua non of salvation. Now, having received the “real thing,” water baptism is practically nothing, but should be practiced either before or after Holy Spirit baptism for some reason. Or they may say that they had deified the apostles, and now they have learned that the apostles were only men, and did not have anything that is not available for us. Of course, none of them has yet written a second book of Romans, or even a “right strawy epistle,” as Luther spoke of James. With any number of other

In John 20:8 we find, “Then went in also that other disciple which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.” What do you think he believed? Most of my life I have assumed he believed the truth about Jesus, and I have an idea most of my readers have done likewise. However, if verse 9 suggests what he did NOT believe, as confirmed by Mark 16:11, 13, 14, and Luke 24:11, does not verse 2 suggest what he DID believe? It seems evident that he did not believe the truth that Jesus was raised from the dead (v.9), but did believe the assumption made by Mary that “They have taken my Lord out of the tomb, and I know not where they have laid him” (John 20:2). Although I am not terribly concerned with that, I am concerned very much with a principle suggested by it. It is my conviction that many religious persons, some of whom are connected, more or less loosely, with the Lord’s church have an improper concept of the term “faith” or “belief” as we find it in the New Testament. Most of us are aware of the rather widespread denominational concept that faith in Jesus means “accepting Jesus as your personal Savior,” whatever that means. In the church of the Lord, we have tended to deny that, although in our present state of affairs, it would not be too surprising to hear of large numbers affirming it! However, I am suggesting an

As far back as I can remember I have heard preachers say such things as, “It must be admitted that faith and hope will terminate at the coming of Christ. Love is the greatest because it will abide forever.” It is my judgment that a deeper study of the question will convince us that the conclusion is incorrect, and based on either faulty logic or faulty exegesis, or both. I believe the song says, “faith will be lost in heavenly sight,” and the idea, no doubt, partly comes from a misuse of 2 Corinthians 5:7, “For we walk by faith, not by sight (eidos – appearance).” Further, Romans 8:24 says, “But hope that is seen is not hope, for who hopeth for that which he seeth?” If one takes those Scriptures and makes an improper application of them, he involves himself in some ridiculous absurdities. For example, a man may see a new car. Does the expression, “For who hopeth for that which he seeth?” negate the idea that he may yet hope for that car? Surely not! Let us examine with a little more care whether or not it must be admitted that “faith and hope will terminate at the coming of Christ.” It is true that we walk by faith, not by sight. It is true that by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, and we would not need to have faith in the truthfulness of that statement if we had

Since we continue to hear this question discussed, it seems fitting to write an article setting forth in more minute detail some of the prerequisites to answering that, or any other question, and some of the implications that are involved in the idea that prayer can change the mind of an unchanging God. First, let me point out an important principle: Before any question can be answered intelligently, one must have an understanding of the meaning of the terms used in the question.  Too often, preachers and writers try to answer questions before they determine what is being asked. If you were asked “Does x = y?” you would realize that other information must be forthcoming before you can answer properly. The same is true with the question under consideration. The two terms that may have the most ambiguity in the question under consideration are “hear” and “sinner.” Note some of the possible meanings of each. Hear1- To perceive by the ear that a sound has been made (cf. Acts 9:7). Hear2- To gain knowledge of (understand the meaning, cf. Acts 22:9). Hear3- To give attention to (as evidenced by some sort of response, cf. Acts 9:11; 10:4). Hear4- To grant the request or accede to the wishes of. Sinner1- An alien sinner who is rebellious against God. Sinner2- An alien sinner who is searching for and willing to do God’s will. Sinner3- A child of God whose love has “waxed cold” and who, therefore, sins. Sinner4- A child of God who

Last year I was picking blackberries when an inspiration for an article came to me. Today, however, I went again and was again inspired. It was not the kind of inspiration that Paul had, but it may be worth considering. As I picked berries, the thought occurred to me that there are many lessons that relate to principles of personal evangelism. First, if you are more concerned with being bitten by chiggers, stung by yellow jackets, scratched by briars or other trivial things than you are with picking berries, you will never be a great berry picker. If anything is more important to you than glorifying God by being a fisher of men, you will never be a great soul winner. Second, you may find them where you least expect. If you are really interested in picking berries, you will discover them by the side of the road or in little patches hidden here and there in the field. It does not really matter if you are ready. First Peter 3:15 says, “But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear.” Third, you either get them when they are ripe and ready or you do not get them. In my 50 years of experience in trying to do personal evangelism, I have noted two significant things, both of which are bad. There are those who are

I continue to get bulletins regularly from those who apparently are not opposed to anything except those who are opposed to something. There are many things I do not understand about that position, but one thing is especially puzzling to me that I hope someone will take the time and trouble to explain. For example, I have a bulletin in front of me with an article in it upholding the importance of baptism—immersion. At the same time, the author (editor, who claims membership in the Lord’s family) takes the position that the “pious unimmersed” will also be saved. Why would a person take the time and spend the money (even if most of it is some other person’s money) to write about a thing that makes no difference whether or not you understood it, believed it or did it? Much of his writing leaves the impression that even the “impious unimmersed” are about as well off as any of the rest of us, for we are all sinners, and almost everyone can expect to be saved by the unlimited grace of God. In all probability, according to his thinking, the impious person is not really responsible for his attitude, for he was made that way by some legalist in the “non-instrumental church of Christ” (that apparently is where all the legalists are, according to him), who thought truth was important enough to uphold. It has never been very clear to me why a person who belonged to a denomination whose

If I were discussing any Bible subject with a person in an effort to determine what is the proper action to take, and should discover that he is not concerned with whether or not God approves of such an action, I would stop that discussion. The reason is simple. If there is no standard by which to measure anything, there is no value in discussing whether it should or should not be anything. If a person indicates that he is concerned about God’s approval, the next step is to discover how he decides if God approves or disapproves of something. If his standard of measurement is how he feels in his heart, we stop the discussion, for not only is there no way for me to determine how he feels in his heart, but there is no way for me to determine if he feels the same way from one moment to the next. If he concludes that the way to decide what God wants in a matter is by an examination of God’s Word, then we ask, “What shall we look for in God’s Word to determine that?” If he admits that God’s specific command that a thing be done is one way we may be assured that God approves of it, we continue talking. If he admits that we do not have to find a specific command provided there is an approved example shown to be approved by the inspired record, we continue talking. If he admits that

The majority of denominational teachers ridicule some of the commands of God, such as baptism, as “mere ritual” or “ceremonialism.” We are reminded of a statement of Jesus in Matthew 23:23, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law; judgment, mercy and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” He expresses the same idea in Luke 11:42. Notice carefully that He did not say, “Forget about the things you consider trifles.” He said, “These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” We have no right to take any command of God and suggest that it is not important. However, we do have the right and responsibility to know what things are more basic and central, and put proper emphasis on them in our teaching and living. Because some religious leaders scoff at ceremonies, God has ordained that we need to make a distinction between “ceremonies” and “ceremonialism.” The Law of Moses, given by the authority of God, authorized certain washings of hands of the priests before offering sacrifices (Exodus 30:21). These were ceremonies ordained of God. Yet, the Pharisees had apparently considered washing as an act of great importance of itself, and had added many washings (Matthew 15:1-2) that had nothing to do with what God had commanded. Thereby, they had made void the Word of God by their traditions (Matthew 15:16), partly because they had

Cinnamon was our little dachshund who for about 16 years had thought she was a part of the family. As I dug a grave for her beside an oak tree behind our house, I started crying. Frankly, that shocked me, for I take a little pride in my presumed ability to handle emotional situations in a rational way. Can you imagine a reasonably intelligent, mature, grown man crying about the loss of a dog? I have conducted many funeral services over the last 40 years, and have cried less at many of them than I did there with my dog! Why? I am sure that I do not know all the reasons why people cry, but these thoughts occurred to me which may be helpful to you. First, I thought of one of God’s precious little creatures suffering as she did for a while before she died, and I felt grief for her. But I wondered, “How much grief do I really feel for the millions of God’s precious creatures who are going to be suffering for eternity if someone does not bring them to the Great Physician for His cure?” How many tears have I shed for the lost of the world? Second, I felt a personal loss of one that had loved me and needed me. So, it was a selfish kind of grief, for there would be no longer a joyous welcome of a little friend who just got pleasure from being with me—whether walking or resting.

In Psalm 37, verses 1 through 9, we find some advice that sounds almost like what we might expect from Solomon or Christ. It is good advice for Christians today. Let us examine some elements of that advice. First, “Fret not thyself because of evil doers, neither be envious of them.” This is a great sin against ourselves, for it destroys our peace of mind, creates bitterness, harshness and faultfinding. It is a sin against others, for it robs them of happiness that might be theirs if we were not envious of them. It is a sin against God, for it is disobedience to his command and shows a lack of faith. It does not mean that we should not be concerned about what harm evil doers work in the world, and the end to which they will come. It has to do with the kind of fretfulness that is produced by worry and envy. For a Christian to be envious of evil men is about as silly as an eagle being envious of a worm, or an ocean being envious of a mud puddle. We should remember what Paul said in 1 Timothy 6:6-8, “But godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, for neither can we carry anything out; but having food and covering we shall be therewith content.” The cure for that, and for various other ills, is found in the following verses. “Trust in the Lord and do good.” To be content and

All of my life I have heard Gospel preachers emphasize that when the Bible uses the expression, “in the name of,” it means “by the authority of.” My study suggests that it is not always so. The error may be so insignificant as to be unworthy of extensive comment, but any error, no matter how small, may cause subsequent errors that may be exceedingly dangerous. As a case in point, the Bible teaches that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21). It may have seemed a slight error to teach that baptism saves us because it is a meritorious or sacramental act, but it was not slight or insignificant. If one teaches the wrong thing about how, when or why baptism saves us, he may undermine the whole plan of salvation. Our subject today may not be that important, but truth is always better than error. Even proper emphasis of a truth is better than improper emphasis, though it may not be vital to salvation. Let us therefore examine the subject in more detail. The expression “in the name” is found at least 28 times in the King James Version of the New Testament. In about 18 of these it means “by the authority.” In the other ten, it means something slightly different. When the expression is from the Greek “en onomati” in seems always to have reference to the authority. This is the expression in Acts 10:48 when Peter commanded the household of Cornelius to be baptized. They needed to know that

If I were discussing any Bible subject with a person in an effort to determine what is the proper action to take, and should discover that he is not concerned with whether or not God approves of such an action, I would stop that discussion. The reason is simple. If there is no standard by which to measure anything, there is no value in discussing whether it should or should not be anything. If a person indicates that he is concerned about God’s approval, the next step is to discover how he decides if God approves or disapproves of something. If his standard of measurement is how he feels in his heart, we stop the discussion, for not only is there no way for me to determine how he feels in his heart, but there is no way for me to determine if he feels the same way from one moment to the next. If he concludes that the way to decide what God wants in a matter is by an examination of God’s Word, then we ask, “What shall we look for in God’s Word to determine that?” If he admits that God’s specific command that a thing be done is one way we may be assured that God approves of it, we continue talking. If he admits that we do not have to find a specific command provided there is an approved example shown to be approved by the inspired record, we continue talking. If he admits that

This article is neither intended to be a critical examination or exegesis of the whole passage of Matthew 19:9, nor a general dissertation on divorce and re-marriage. We wish to examine only one question, “Does the word ‘fornication’ in the passage have reference to an act of sexual intercourse committed before marriage, or does it refer to an act committed after marriage?” Let us make clear that whatever conclusion we reach is merely a conclusion, and not a clear and unequivocal Bible statement. However, the method of arriving at the conclusion and the conclusion itself will be indicated in the following. First, we need to examine the Bible meaning of “fornication.” Although the common present day usage of the term may usually refer to sexual intercourse between unmarried persons, Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, Second ed.(1949), p. 993 correctly says, “Fornication is sometimes used, espec. in the Bible, to include all sexual intercourse except between husband and wife.” Thayer says (p. 532) that it means, “illicit sexual intercourse in general.” Ultimately, the Bible meaning of a term must be decided from the Bible usage of the term. When we examine such passages as Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; Eph. 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3, there is no reason to assume that the passages are limited to unmarried persons. In fact, some of them cannot be so limited. Other references such as Jude 7 and almost all references that put it in a spiritual context indicate that the word does not have exclusive reference to unmarried persons. Also,

I recently read about a woman who left her baby in the shade of a tree for a few minutes while she was busy doing something else. When she returned a short while later, she found that the shade had moved. The hot sun shining in her baby’s eyes left it blind for life. She loved her baby, but both she and the baby will pay for that few minutes of neglect for the rest of their lives. When I read that I thought of a near tragedy in my life because of neglect. My brother and I had just bought a .22 rifle. Since rifle shells cost too much to waste them in useless shooting (15 cents a box), I enjoyed pointing it at knots on trees and pulling the trigger. My brother sat on a stump, and I aimed at his temple and started to pull the trigger, when I suddenly thought of advice I had read. “Do not point a gun at any living thing unless you want to kill it.” So I pointed at a knot and pulled the trigger. The bullet hit it dead center. I had forgotten that I had put a shell in the chamber after I thought I was through playing. I neglected to check. Fires, wrecks, death and all sorts of bad situations occur because of neglect. What does that have to do with sin? Is neglect a sin? It is not always a sin to neglect something, but it sometimes

Paul said in Galatians 6:17, “Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear branded on my body the marks of Jesus.” The word Paul used is an interesting one, “stigma,” by which he may have been suggesting what apparently was a custom of the day that a slave was often branded by his master in some way, much as the cowboys branded cattle. In English, the word stigma simply means a mark of disgrace.    What did Paul mean by this expression, and what relevance does it have for us? There is little doubt that if we had been there looking at a man who had been chained in dungeons for long hours, with a face wrinkled with the care he had for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28), with the disfigured body caused by the stoning at Lystra, the scars on his back from the lashes he had received (2 Corinthians 11:24-25), and the marks left on his wrists as he was chained for the hope of Israel (Acts 20:28), we would understand more clearly what he meant. Could one question the sincerity, integrity and devotion of such a one, or doubt that he belonged to Jesus?     As an interesting sidelight of my main point, let us note that these are also proofs of the reality and truthfulness of the message of the risen Lord. Paul did not merely say, “Look at what I have borne for my belief in Jesus!” He said, “I know Him in whom I

Many of us have preached many sermons on such subjects as “The Ark as a Type of the Church.” We need to realize that although we can properly use the ark to illustrate many things about the church, the fact that Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21, “The like figure (antitupon) whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” does not mean that we can properly say the Bible sets forth the ark as a type of the church, but only that their salvation by water was a type of our salvation by water. The denominational quibble that it could not be a type of salvation by baptism because they were saved from the water by the ark, not saved by the water, and that they were not even touched by the water has no relevance for two reasons. First, when the Bible says a thing is a type or antitype it is, whether or not you can reason or quibble yourself around it. Second, the water saved them from the ungodly world as it washed that sinful world away. That is the type and antitype, not that the ark saved them from the flood of water. Therefore, Peter is not talking about the ark as a type of the church, but their salvation by water as a type of our salvation by water. This is not a matter of guessing or trying to find some new hermeneutic principle by which to prove a preconceived doctrine. It is a matter of

Almost every person who wants to emphasize the need for study of the Bible quotes 2 Timothy 2:15, which says, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (KJV). It is somewhat ironic that a proper exegesis of the verse that is almost universally used to teach that a person needs to study or meditate on God’s Word does not mean that at all, and its use to show that a person needs to study does show that we need to study, in spite of the fact that the verse in the original text does not mean that!     The word translated “study” is from the Greek “spoudazo” and is properly translated in the ASV as “give diligence.” Most persons assume, apparently, that if a person studies or meditates properly on God’s Word, he will be approved of God, for he can now rightly divide the Word of God. The first time I remember hearing about that was about 65 years ago; the preacher indicated that it meant that you should know the difference in the Old and New Testaments and thus rightly divide the Word.    That exegesis of the passage does very little harm to truth, for it is true that without studying, or meditating on God’s Word, you will not be approved of God. Probably you would not be able to realize the difference between the use or value of the Old and New Testaments. However, the

If we raise the wrong questions, we probably will get the wrong answers. We need to be discriminating in the questions we raise, and the answers we get or give. For example, the question, “Does God promise salvation to those who have failed to obey His will?” and the question, “Will God save any person who has failed to obey His will?” are two different questions, regardless of the fact that many brethren think they are the same. Even those persons who think the questions are perfectly clear and the answers should be just as clear and dogmatic may want to proceed a little further. Have you ever failed to obey His will? The Bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and 1 John 1:10 says, “If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar.” Therefore, regardless of how you answer the question, you have failed to obey His will. Most who read this would perhaps say, “We all know that, but we still have to obey His will that relates to forgiveness of sins in order to be saved.” Many would now teach that it does not really matter, for God’s grace will save everyone (or practically everyone) regardless of what he does. I am sorry for that group, but am not particularly addressing their false doctrine today.     Today, I am simply trying to make one point: God promises to grant remission of sins only to those who

The growing interest in the Women’s Liberation Movement and the increasing lack of concern for the God-given standards of morality has led me to conclude that an article on the text of 1 Timothy 2:9-12 might be in order.     The attitude of most religious groups toward this and all other Bible subjects is well expressed in the comment of The Interpreter’s Bible, pp. 406-407 on this passage. It says, “Obviously, the disposition of this epistle — does not accord with Jesus’ attitude of complete respect and chivalry toward women.” “It does not meet the needs of the world which could not afford to be without the special gifts which women bring to the leadership of the church. Here is a case where an early Christian’s understanding of the will of God needs to be corrected by further light which God has caused to break forth from his Holy Word.”     In other words, Paul did not know what he was talking about. He disagreed with Jesus and needs some modern theologian to correct him! This is typical of the thinking that permeates the whole of the most comprehensive and scholarly commentaries of the Protestant world. The results of that sort of thinking from most of the leaders of Protestant thought are seen in every facet of modern life today. It has permeated every segment of society and has been imbibed by many members of the Lord’s church, especially those preachers who are proud of the degrees they have received in those theological

Often we hear the expression, “I don’t have time” when a person is offering an excuse for not doing what he knows he should be doing. We may reply, “You have all the time anyone has.”     Occasionally, when I am in a home Bible study with a person who seems convinced of the Truth, but is not ready to obey the Gospel, he will say, “Give me a little time.” We may reply, “I cannot give you any time. You have all the time there is.”     Those answers may be correct and good, but whatever answer we give may not be as good as it might be if we do not understand that both in Greek and English the term “time” may have at least two different meanings. The Greek language is more precise than English, for it uses different words for different meanings. For example, in Hebrews 5:12 we find, “For when by reason of the time (chronos) ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food.” The word “chronos” refers to a period, whether long or short, in which a series of events may take place. It may thus refer to a particular date for an occurrence, whether past, present or future, as in Acts 7:17, “But as the time of the promise drew nigh which God vouchsafed unto

Almost every person who claims membership in the church, whether the most liberal in doctrine, or the most conservative, apparently wants the church to be a triumphant, dynamic church. One group seems to want it to be victorious by having it change in both message and method to suit the changing social conditions of the age. Some may think it can be victorious by going on in the usual humdrum, lackadaisical way it is going in most localities, opposed to any change. Many of us who are adamantly opposed to what is sometimes called the “change agents” in the church are not opposed to any change that will bring us closer to the pattern approved in the New Testament when the church grew the most rapidly. In fact, we urge all persons to examine themselves and make whatever changes are necessary to get closer to that pattern. Let us at this time examine a few of the marks of the church as pictured in the first few chapters of Acts that made it a triumphant, dynamic church. If we want to make changes, let us make them in that direction instead of assuming that the kind of significant changes that should be made is to snap the fingers, clap the hands or wiggle the hips to show more spirituality or involvement in the worship.     Besides the simplicity, boldness, earnestness, purity of life and doctrine and unity with which they proclaimed the message, there are at least three qualities first

Most of us are probably aware that this phrase, “unity in diversity,” has been taken by denominational preachers in past years and by liberals connected with the church in recent years to teach the idea that as long as we are united in a common belief that Jesus is the Son of God (even if we are not willing to submit to his authority in all things), we may have diversity in everything else. We may have any church names or affiliations we choose (join the church of your choice), teach any kind of diverse and contradictory doctrines, worship God any way we choose (since everything one does is supposed to be worship), and practice almost anything we wish in the name of religion and it is satisfactory, for we have “unity in diversity.”     Surely, these and all related ideas are abhorrent to any person who really loves the Lord and wants to glorify him and surrender to his authority in all things. Many of the brethren for whom I have the most respect have pointed out the error of this concept very forcibly.     However, I want us to consider another aspect of the problem in a different way. Although it is true that when we use a phrase that has been made popular and perverted by false teachers, we need to be doubly careful that we are not misunderstood, we also need to be aware that we should not be “taken hostage” by false teachers so that

Having just received a letter from a beloved brother indicating that he has slipped his anchor from the solid rock of God’s revelation to the shifting sands of subjective religion, my thoughts went to some in the Bible who started with such great promise and ended in miserable disgrace. A short study in contrasts may be helpful to give both warning to the unwary and encouragement to the feeble. Paul said, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12).     First, let us look at the story of Saul, the son of Kish, who became the King of Israel. When we first find him, we note that “There was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he” (1 Samuel 9:2). He not only had a well-formed and superior physical body, he demonstrated a submissive, thoughtful obedience to his father, which should commend him to all persons. He was head and shoulders higher than any of the people, but was not to big to obey his father and show concern for his possible anxiety (1 Samuel 9:3-5).     He was approved of God to be king, but demonstrated honorable humility. Saul was chosen, but “when they sought him, he could not be found. Therefore they asked Jehovah further, Is there yet a man to come hither? And Jehovah answered, Behold, he hath hid himself among the baggage” (1 Samuel 10:21-22). He was conscious of his unworthiness, of the insignificance and smallness of the tribe of

I still remember something of the joy I experienced many years ago when I read 1 John 1:7 in the Greek text. It says, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” The thing that thrilled me was the awareness that “cleanseth” is from the Greek “katharizei” which is present, active, indicative. Translated literally, it might read, “keeps on constantly cleansing us from all sin.”   Since then I have read a few articles by those who claim to be preachers of the Gospel who apparently think they have discovered in that verse something similar to “irresistible grace.” They write as if we can “continue in sin that grace may abound” because the blood of Christ keeps on cleansing. I emphatically deny that. I also want to point out two related dangers of which we need to be aware.     First, those who have a smattering of Greek may assume many things as a result of some little rule they think they have learned. It may be that the thing they think they have learned has some exceptions covered by another rule that they have not learned. What they are assuming to be true may be false, for it is one of those exceptions to the general rule. Second, even those who are Greek scholars and know far more about both the rules and exceptions than most of us will

I heard of a man who moved from Tennessee to Virginia when he was very young. He attended church services regularly, and was asked to read a passage on one occasion. He read the story in Matthew 25, which starts like this, “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise and five were foolish.”    With a look of amazement, he said, “If I had not read it with my own eyes I would not have believed it. It says there were five foolish Virginians, and no matter how hard it is to believe, we have to take what the Bible says.”     Paul once mentioned some who had “a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2). That fellow in Virginia might be “likened unto them.” However, at least his attitude was good. Even if one does not understand what the Bible says, it is good to have a basic faith that is willing to take whatever it says. That, of course, has led to many misunderstandings, but it is far better for a man to have faith in what he understands about the Bible, even if he misunderstands it, than for one to not even believe what he thinks the Bible says. The first one can be taught, and will do better when he learns better. The second one may be taught, but if he did not do what he thought the Bible taught

“The water’s warm. The clothing is ready. Everything is prepared for you to obey the Gospel.” Years ago sometimes I said something like that during the invitation in a Gospel meeting. I began to reconsider when, on making such a statement, I discovered the water was bitterly cold, and they had not prepared any clothing, for they expected no baptisms, and rarely had one.     A few years later, I began to reconsider it from two other standpoints. First, when we say, “everything is prepared” and we almost always think of physical things, what does this reveal (or at least suggest) about our thinking? Is it not very similar to what we often hear when an announcement is made about our favorite habit of meeting and eating? In New Testament times, the emphasis was on praying and fasting. In our day, it seems to be on preaching and eating. Therefore, after we have had our experiences (whatever they are) in the “main auditorium,” we say, “Now let us go have fellowship in the basement (or room 101 or the fellowship hall).” One might think we misunderstood or disagreed with Paul in Romans 14:17, “For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”     Those who have seen me in the “chow line” (usually close to the front, for I try to be a leader) know that I am not averse to eating and drinking—even in the “fellowship hall.” However, I am concerned that a

Jesus said, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). Many of our readers may know that in that verse there are two words translated “will,” and therein lies some very important lessons.     When Jesus said, “Father, if thou be willing,” He used the Greek word “boulomai.” When He spoke of His own will, He used the word “thelema.” This does not mean that God’s will is always “boulomai” and man’s will is “thelema,” but it means that each of us—God and man—may have a fixed and determined purpose (boulomai) and a wish or desire (thelema), and they may differ.     A look at some related words and the way they are translated may be of some value. The word “boule” is translated ten times “counsel,” once “will.” The word “boulema” is translated “purpose” once, “will” once. The word “boulomai” is translated “be disposed” once, “be minded” twice, “be willing” once, “intend” twice, “list” once, “will” 26 times, “would” 11 times. The word “thelema” is translated “desire” once, “pleasure” once, and “will” 62 times. The related word, “thelo” is translated at least 16 different ways, but “desire” 13 times, “will” 98 times, and “would” 70 times.     When one checks all the uses of the terms, one discovers that both God and man may have certain fixed purposes. For example, it is not God’s fixed purpose (boulomai) that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), so Jesus was

I have been amazed in the past few years to hear from a large number of Gospel preachers who seem to have discovered for the first time the doctrine of salvation by grace. I can understand how a person who has been studying the Bible even for half a century can read some passage and almost gasp with delight as a new depth of it becomes apparent to him, for I feel sure that this has happened frequently to all of us who love the study of God’s Word. It is one of the great joys of studying the Bible in depth. However, in trying to discover the reason for this apparent confusion about salvation by grace, it occurred to me that part of the problem may be a semantic, rather than a doctrinal one.     For example, if a person reads that the Bible says, “Repent and be baptized—for the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38) and he does that, has he obeyed the law or not? If you answer, “Yes,” then you must logically conclude that he got remission of his sins (was saved from them) by the law, and obedience thereto. If you answer “No,” then you seem to be in a strange and contradictory position of admitting that here was a law (commandment) of God, and you obeyed it, yet you did not obey the law, or at least that obedience to the law had nothing to do with your salvation!     Many of us have

By T. Pierce Brown In recent years, we have been hearing or reading an increasing number of statements to the effect that “we” think “we” are the only Christians, yet Alexander Campbell and most of the great leaders of the Restoration Movement expressly denied that, and taught rather that we should think of ourselves as “Christians only.”     I am not sure who that “we” is supposed to represent, but in some cases those writing seemed to imply that there is a group in the “Church of Christ” denomination that thinks they are the only Christians, but there are certainly Christians in “other denominations,” too! We have heard that kind of charge most of our life from sectarians, and have come to expect it from those who have no concept of New Testament Christianity, but it is always disturbing when those who claim membership in the Lord’s church think and speak of it in denominational terms.     We are saddened, but very sure, that there are those who think of themselves as having joined the “Church of Christ” church, because their opinion is that it is one of the best denominations in many respects—although very narrow minded and arrogant. It was expressed this way to me by a woman who said she had heard the idea from her pastor, the Church of Christ preacher: “If it is true that sprinkling is satisfactory, then immersion is certainly just as good—and maybe a little safer. Everyone admits that singing is satisfactory (if it is pretty), so

Last week (2002), I listened to President Bush as he presented before his Cabinet and the nation his plan for fighting the drug war. Every politician and reporter I heard seemed to be in favor of the idea, but many criticized it because he was not planning to spend enough money to do the job. A few, who seemed more astute than the average, pointed out that spending ten times that much money would not do the job if we did not attack the root of the problem.     However, no one, as far as I heard in the news media or the political arena, even hinted at any specific way to attack the root of the problem, or even suggest what it is. The closest thing I heard to it was someone suggesting that more needed to be spent on “education.” I presume that meant “telling people the harmful effects of it” as if the thousands who are selling it and using did not already know first hand of its harmful effects!     Then, this same weekend I met with a group of Christians who are working on a plan that will do more to curb the drug traffic, pornography, alcoholism, teenage pregnancy, crime in and out of the streets, family abuse and other numerous social ills than all of the programs the government can devise.     That plan is simply God’s plan, but one of the things that thrilled me is that instead of simply sitting around and

This morning I was talking with a woman about her relationship with her husband, and she informed me that he had run out of magnet. I almost laughed, but did not, as I realized that she meant that he had lost his power of attraction. In the 72 years I have lived, I never recall hearing that expression before, although I wonder why, for we have heard of persons with magnetism, and we have heard and talked about magnetic personalities. As I meditated on what she told me, I thought of the expression in John 12:32, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.” Like a magnet, He would attract men of all kinds. Doubtless, He was speaking of His being lifted up on the cross, as references in John 3:14 and John 8:28 would indicate. However, that “lifting up” would avail very little if there were not three other kinds of lifting up. He had to be lifted up from the tomb, lifted up to the right hand of God in Heaven, and lifted up by the proclamation of the Gospel and the living of Christlike lives where the life of Christ “may be manifested in our mortal flesh” (2 Corinthians 4:10).     This is the point at which my mind kept returning to the question, “Have you run out of magnet?” Have you lost your drawing power? We never had any drawing power that was worth anything in the first place that did not result

After a restless night of weeping and praying, I felt that I had to write this article, asking help of some wiser, more experienced brethren who may know some answers I may not know. For almost half a century I have been answering questions, both in articles and in private teaching, concerning who, why, what, when, where, how, and so what of many Bible questions and human responses. But now I need help.     There was a Christian brother to whom I had taught something of the grace of God, a deacon who could and did teach and preach. His wife called and told me that she was divorcing him because he had been carrying on an adulterous relationship with another woman for more than eight years. With a breaking heart, I wrote and asked him how and why it could happen. I told him I could understand David. I could understand Peter. I could even understand something of how and why Judas could betray the Lord as he did. However, I could not understand how a man who has any understanding of God or any love for anything that is holy, sacred or worthwhile can persist in sin for that long. I received no answer, but he eventually repented and his precious, heartbroken wife took him back. I conducted his funeral, but never got a good answer to my questions.     Then a young preacher of the Gospel, a graduate of a school of preaching, with unusual ability, insight and dedication openly took

Yesterday, as I was visiting with a friend who was almost killed and paralyzed from the chest down when struck by a drunken driver, but who, with great courage, faith and determination continued to study, write and go to school, she mentioned to me that an elder had said something to her about being content when she was in the nursing home.     Since she was continuing her studies in Abilene Christian University in Greek and Bible (having received her degree from a Junior College after she suffered the injury), she looked in her Greek Testament at 1 Timothy 6:6 and read, “But Godliness with contentment is great gain.” She pointed out to me what I had never noticed before. The Greek word translated “contentment” is “autarkeia” which Thayer defines as “a perfect condition of life in which no aid or support is needed.” She was checking Thayer, Vine’s and Young’s Concordance for the various related meanings, and I suggested that she write an article about it. Since she is so busy with school work, attending to her own physical, mental and spiritual needs (she is in a wheel chair in her own apartment now) she may not get around to it for some time, so I decided to write one, which she can probably improve on when she does get to it.     We usually think of contentment merely as a passive state of willingness to “put up with” whatever state we are in, assuming that when Paul said, “I have

In 1 Corinthians 12:9, we find listed the spiritual gift of faith. Although my research is not extensive, every Gospel preacher of my knowledge who has written or spoken about it recognizes that is not the faith that is prerequisite to salvation of which he speaks. It does not take the wisdom of Solomon to realize that the spiritual gift of faith that some Christians were given after they became Christians is not the same thing all had to possess before they became Christians!     So, it appears that the only logical conclusion to which anyone can come is: “It is a special kind of faith that the Spirit imparted directly to enable them to work miracles.” Some, in a more indefinite statement, simply say, “It was a miraculous faith.”     I have not yet heard anyone discuss the question, “If it was the kind of faith that enabled one to work miracles, how did it differ from the gift of verse 10¾the working of miracles?” Did that person have two gifts, or was he able to work miracles without that kind of faith?     It may be that since these spiritual gifts did not all depend on a person’s spirituality, or how closely he walked with Christ, the gift of faith was an impartation of a special trust in God to enable him to have the strength and ability to remove the “mountains” of difficulty that might confront the early church in the task of establishing a new religion.     Surely there can

Jesus said in John 8:32, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” There seems to be an increasing number of influential and scholarly brethren who are teaching, “You do not have to know the truth to be made free.” Their reasoning goes like this, if I understand it properly: “No one knows all the truth. So if one had to know all the truth to be made free from sin, no one could be free from sin. For example, when we were baptized, none of us knew all the blessings that God promised His children. He could, therefore, believe all sorts of error, such as that he was saved by faith only, and still he would be made free from sin as long as he was baptized with the notion, attitude or opinion that his baptism under those circumstances was obedience to God and would please Him.” I suggest it would be more fitting for those philosophers to give an exegesis of John 8:32 and tell exactly what truth a person has to know to be free from what thing or things rather than simply to deny the truth Jesus spoke.     Of course, a person does not have to know all the truth about oak trees in order to be free from wrong ideas about how to raise peanuts. Nor does one have to know all the truth about everything God revealed in order to be saved. It has often been pointed out that those on Pentecost,

Most of my life I have quoted and heard John 8:32 as if it stands alone. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” The statement can stand alone in the sense that it is a general truth, universal in its application. That is, medical truth can make us free from certain diseases. Financial truth can make us free from certain financial problems. Scientific truth can even make us free from the law of gravity for a time as we operate under another law in outer space.     Here, Jesus is talking about a different kind of truth, and a different kind or dimension of freedom. Richard Lovelace was right when he said, “Stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage.” John the Immerser, in prison with his head about to be removed, was free in a far more significant sense than Herod on his throne, for Herod was a slave to pride, passion, lust, licentiousness, greed and gluttony.     So, although the statement can stand alone and be true in all sorts of situations, it is in a connected thought when Jesus said it. It is connected with an “if” in verse 31, as Jesus said, “If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples.” Then he says, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Since the statement in its original context is contingent on abiding in his Word and being truly a disciple,

We have noticed over the past 70 years that those who are most active in speculating about what the prophets of the Old Testament meant and trying to give all the inside information about the Battle of Armageddon are the least concerned about what God said for us to do to be saved from our past sins and live the Christian life in a pleasing and effective way. We have little doubt that the Devil is gleefully promoting all such activity, for if he can get Christian people involved in endless speculation about prophecies that the Bible does not clearly show have been fulfilled, he will be able to undo much of the good that has been done in turning them away from sin in the first place.     This does not mean that we should be unconcerned about prophecies. It does mean that we should pay particular attention to the many statements in the New Testament that show the fulfillment of prophecy. When the inspired writer says, “This is that which was spoken by the prophet,” any person who has the kind of faith that pleases God will let that be the final word on the matter.     One should especially note such passages as Acts 3:24 that says, “Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.” The prophets told of things that were to happen to Israel before the time of Christ, and during the time of

In Exodus 3:1, we find in the ASV, “Now Moses was keeping the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the back of the wilderness, and came to the mountain of God, unto Horeb.” Some translations have “to the far side of the desert.” The thought occurred to me that some of us have figuratively been through the desert in one way or another before we came to the holy ground where God gave us direction.     There have been some that have become Christians with the mistaken notion that God promises you that when you follow him, you will not have any problems. You will not have any problems that you and God cannot handle, but the idea that life is supposed to be all sweet and kind to a Christian is false, and can be very destructive to one’s faith if we allow the Devil to deceive us into thinking that is what God promised. When Jesus said, “Take my yoke upon you” he did not promise to remove the burdens of life, but to help us bear them. When Paul said, “There hath no temptation taken you, but such as man can bear: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make also the way of escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Cor. 10:13), he did not say that God would remove the temptation or

If we raise the wrong questions, we probably will get the wrong answer. We need to be discriminating in the questions we raise, and the answers we get or give. For example, the question, “Does God promise salvation to those who have failed to obey his will?” and the question, “Will God save any person who has failed to obey his will?” are two different questions, regardless of the fact that many may think they are the same.  Even those persons who think the questions are perfectly clear and the answers should be just as clear and dogmatic may want to proceed a little farther. Have you ever failed to obey his will? The Bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and 1 John 1:10 says, “If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar.” So, regardless of how you answer the question, you have failed to obey his will. Most who read this would perhaps say, “We know that, but we still have to obey his will that relates to forgiveness of sins in order to be saved.” Many now teach that it does not really matter, for God’s grace will save everyone (or practically everyone) regardless of what he does. We feel sorry for that group, but are not specifically addressing their false doctrine today.     We are now simply trying to make one point: God promises to grant remission of sins only to those who accept