Farewell For Now by Bill Blue

This will be the last article of "Prove All Things." We would like to share with our readers why we decided to publish our articles in the first place, how we chose the topics we decided to write about, the responses we received, and why we have brought the series to an end.

GOAL ONE: PREACH THE GOSPEL (Matt.28:19-20; 2 Tim. 4:2)

For nearly a year (45 weeks), Jeff Himmel and six other men at the Spring Warrior Church of Christ have written on a variety of religious topics beginning with "Why we believe in a God," and ending with a series discussing some common misinterpretations of Scripture concerning the end of time. The articles ranged from the simple and non-controversial to more doctrinal and controversial. We discussed the nature of God and the Bible, the trinity, salvation, authority and worship.

GOAL TWO: EDUCATE OTHER FAITHS ABOUT US

When we began this series of articles, our initial mission was to publish 24 articles to see what kinds of responses, if any, we would receive. Because of the limited number of articles, we decided to write about some of the beliefs that separate us from other faiths. This way, people in the community could learn first hand what we believe, and the Scriptural basis supporting these beliefs (1 Pet. 3:15). Before we wrote the first article, we chose the topics we would write about, and in what order. Along the way, some of the responses we received led us to write additional articles.

GOAL THREE: ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO DUST OFF THEIR BIBLES

At Spring Warrior, we stress individual responsibility for studying, teaching and sharing God’s word (2 Tim. 2:15). One of the more subtle messages we tried to convey by having six men who weren’t preachers write articles is to give the readers some idea about Bible literacy at Spring Warrior. We have classes for children starting at 15 months. We have no nurseries. One Catholic said it best when he said, "Give me a kid until he is 5 years old, and he will be Catholic for life." There is a lot of truth in that. We do not stress games and events, but Bible knowledge. Children can tell you where God lives before they are able to speak in complete sentences. Three year olds are encouraged to memorize the books of the Bible. Adult men are encouraged to preach from the pulpit.

Our belief in individual accountability even influenced our series title. Over the years, it has been our experience that when studying with one who is troubled by a particular passage in the Bible that they will commonly say that they will need to "ask their preacher about that." We encounter this so often that before we wrote the first article some in our congregation suggested that the title of the series should be, "Ask your preacher." We ultimately decided against the title because we wanted to encourage people to read the Bible for themselves instead of relying on someone else’s opinion to shape their beliefs.

JUDGING OUR WORK

By focusing on the differences between our beliefs and that of other various Christian faiths, we knew we would provoke thought. We received some many responses, the vast majority of which contained citation to Scripture. Although some of the responses did not agree with our interpretation of the Scriptures, we have nonetheless been heartened by these responses because they proved to us the following: (1) that individuals read our articles; (2) they felt passionate enough about what was written to respond (thus they had faith); (3) their citation to Scripture indicated that they opened their Bibles; and (4) from all appearances the writers prepared their own responses and did not rely on a preacher or someone else.

REASONS FOR ENDING FOR NOW

As anyone who has ever written a weekly series of articles can affirm, it is much easier to publish articles when you know months in advance what will be written, and by whom. We have exhausted our initial list of topics. We may decide to resume our articles again in the future. In the meantime, however, we encourage our readers to continue writing us about our past articles, or any other topic they wish to discuss.

If you know of a topic that you would like us to address, or a question you would like answered, you may send me an email to the above address with the phrase, "Prove All Things" in the subject line. If we resume publication of the articles, we may incorporate your suggestion or question (anonymously) into a series of planned articles.

If you want to read any of the past articles, you may find them reprinted in Adobe Acrobat (*.PDF) format at the following web site: http://www.bibleweb.com. Please note that the web site is my personal site, and nothing other than these articles have been endorsed or approved in any way by the elders at Spring Warrior.

Premillennialism: The Nation of Israel by Scott Mixon

On May 14, 1948, Israel was officially declared a state. Supporters of Premillennialism look to this moment as a sign of the beginning of the end. This was further encouraged by the Six Day War in June of 1967 when Israel would triple its possession of land. Premillennialism also promises a return of the Jews that is yet unfulfilled, that Jews will once again occupy sacred cites, rebuild the temple and restore their ancient worship. Specific beliefs vary between religious groups but that is the basic theory.

God’s covenant with Abraham included three Promises. First, God promised Abraham and his descendants land. In Genesis 15:18, God told Abraham "to your descendants I have given this land, from the River of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates."

Inspired witnesses say the land promise has been fulfilled. Joshua, in Joshua 21:43-45 said, "the Lord gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give unto their fathers and they possessed it and lived in it. Solomon reigned over the correct boundaries, 1 Kings 4:21. Moses gave instruction concerning cities of refuge in Deuteronomy 19:7-9 that were to be kept only if God fulfilled his promise. Joshua 20:7-9 confirms that those cities were built.

Retention of the land was always conditional, based on Israel’s obedience, Joshua 23:12-13, 15-16. The land was an everlasting possession. However, the word everlasting in Hebrew meant "age lasting", meaning there was no guarantee that possessing the land would be forever and possession could come to an end. The same word is used for other covenants, like circumcision in Galatians 5:1-4 and the priesthood in Hebrews 7:11-25, that were abolished at the Cross.

Second, God promised Abraham "I will make you a great nation" in Genesis 12:2. In Genesis 15:5; 22:17, God promised to "multiply his seed as the stars of heaven and as sand by the seashore."

Genesis 21:3, 12 confirms that Isaac was the son in whom this promise was fulfilled. Though Israel was destroyed and later driven from the promised land because of sin, they were never totally destroyed. According to Jeremiah 25:11; 29:10; 30:11, Israel was promised "a full end" would not be made of them as of other nations. A remnant would return after 70 years. God fulfilled the nation promise to Abraham and kept His promise to restore the remnant in Nehemiah 1:3-11.

Isaiah prophesied the Lord would set His hand "the second time" to recover the remnant of His people in Isaiah 1:10-11. The first time was when they returned from Babylonian captivity in Ezra 1. The second time is in the church age according to Paul’s quote and applications of this verse, Romans 15:12. There is no promise of a third time. In Christ a remnant of Israel is saved as well as any Gentiles who obey by faith. Therefore, the Church is the spiritual remnant of Israel, according to Grace, Romans 11:5.


Third, God promised Abraham that "in you all families of the earth will be blessed", Genesis 12:3. In Genesis 22:18, God said, in your seed all nations will be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice."

According to Galatians 3:8-16, Christ is the seed. God’s blessing upon Israel was not for their sakes alone, but in order that "all nations would be blessed." According to Galatians 3:26-29, all who obey Christ are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise." Christians are now the spiritual Israel of God, Galatians 6:16; Romans 9:7-8. Therefore, Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of this covenant and the hope of Israel, Acts 26:6-7; 28:20.

The theory of Premillennialism is a false teaching based on many misused Bible passages. A thorough study of the Bible leaves no room for a literal "1000 year reign." There is no warning of his coming by predictions of the world events or tribulations that will precede the event of His coming. His coming will be sudden, unexpected and without warning. Therefore we must be ready. Let us remember the warnings of adding to what is already written, Revelation 22:18, 19 and "prove all things" by the scriptures.

Premillennialism: When Is the 1000 Year Reign of Christ? by Scott Mixon

According to the theory of Premillennialism, the Lord will return to the earth after seven years of tribulation to fight the battle of Armageddon against the devil and his army. Christ and His army will be victorious and He will execute judgment upon the ungodly. The Lord will then usher in His Kingdom on earth that will last for 1,000 years. Specific beliefs vary between religious groups, but that is the basic theory.

The battle of Armageddon, as taught in Premillennialism, is based on a misinterpretation of Revelation 19. In Revelation 19:11-19, the King of kings comes forth to do battle with the beast and the false prophet. The beast and the false prophet are seized and defeated in Revelation 19:20-21.

The context of Revelation 19 should be interpreted figuratively. The book of Revelation was written to assure Christians in the first century of victory over evil and to keep them from giving into emperor worship during the existence of the Roman Empire. Christians who refused to worship the emperor as Lord were being persecuted, some to death. When the Roman Empire fell and false emperor worship ended, the battle of Armageddon was over. The beast and the false prophet were defeated (Revelation 19:20-21). Therefore, Armageddon is a symbol for the battleground where the army of God clashes with Satan and overcomes.


Armageddon means "hill of Megiddo," a real place that existed in the Valley of Jezreel where a number of famous battles were fought. At Megiddo, Barack and Deborah defeated the kings of Canaan in Judges 5:19. In Judges 6:33, Gideon defeated the Midianites. Saul was defeated by the Philistines at the hill of Megiddo in 1 Samuel 31:8.

The term "Armageddon" is only mentioned once in Revelation 16:16, and should be interpreted figuratively. If "Armageddon" is to be interpreted as a literal place, then we would have to be consistent and interpret everything else in the book of Revelation literally. For example, the generals in verse 13 who fight for the devil would all look like frogs. There would need to be a space that would hold 200 million horsemen, Revelation 9:16. There would also be a great river of blood 200 miles long, Revelations 14:20.

The 1000 year reign of Christ, as taught in Premillennialism, is based on a misinterpretation of Revelation 20. Revelation 20 was written after the cross and during the Roman persecution of the church. Like the battle of Armageddon, the context should be interpreted figuratively.

The book of Revelation is unlike any other book in the New Testament because it is written in signs and symbols. The number 10 was used as a symbol for fullness and completeness. The number 1000 is a multiple of 10, meaning a reign with Christ that is unbroken and complete.

Revelation 20:4 states "they" sat on thrones and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The "they," not us, in verse 4 are the souls of martyrs who had been slain for refusing to worship the beast. Again, Revelation was written during a time when it seemed like the cause of Christ would be crushed by Roman persecution. Earlier in Revelation 6:9-11, these Christians were under an altar crying for vengeance. In Revelation 20:4, the martyrs are on now on thrones. Despite the fact these martyrs were murdered for the cause of Christ, Christianity flourished. Christianity did not falter under persecution. Instead, the cause of persecution, emperor worship and the Roman Empire was defeated. The "first resurrection" mentioned in Revelations 20:6 is therefore the cause of Christ emerging out of certain defeat.

The 1000 Year reign of Christ is now being fulfilled. According to Matthew 12:28-29 and Hebrews 2:14-15, Christ bound Satan and limited his power over sin and death when Jesus was crucified and arose from the grave. Through Christ, we can resist and be delivered from the power of Satan (1 Peter 5:8-9; James 4:7). Christ reigns from resurrection to the second coming (1 Corinthians 15:22-28). Therefore, the 1000 year reign of Christ in Revelation 20 is not an "earthly" reign of the Lord, but a spiritual reign with victorious saints (Revelation 20:4).


In the next and final article, we will address the Premillennial teachings concerning the Nation of Israel.

Premillennialism: Is There Going To Be A "Rapture"? by Scott Mixon

The word rapture comes from the Latin, rapare, which means to "take away" or "snatch out." The Rapture is a vital link in the Premillennial theory. The Rapture doctrine teaches that Christ will come again to silently and secretly remove from the earth all of the saints, both resurrected and living. This is followed by a tribulation on earth that will last for seven years during which time the Lord will pour out His wrath upon all those who have rejected Him. At the end of the tribulation, the Lord will return to the earth again with ten thousand saints and a great battle will be fought. The Lord will then usher in His Kingdom on earth, which shall last for 1,000 years. Afterwards, God will execute final judgment on all who remain, followed by heaven and hell. Specific beliefs vary between religious groups but that is the basic theory.

When compared to the word of God, we find undeniable discrepancies with the theory of Rapture as taught in the doctrine of Premillennialism. If I entitled this article, "What The Bible Says About The Rapture", it would be blank. The word Rapture isn’t found anywhere in the Bible.

Premillennialism uses 1 Thessalonians 4: 16-17 to support the Rapture theory. "For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." However, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and many other scriptures contradict the theory.

When Christ comes, it will not be a secret and it will not be silent. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states, "For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God." In addition, 1 Corinthians 15:52 states, "for the trumpet shall sound and the dead will be raised."

According to the Bible, there will not be a tribulation on earth. 2 Peter 3:7-10 tells us that, at the end of time, the earth will be destroyed and God’s judgment will occur in the "last days", John 12:48. 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 states that "at His coming, then cometh the end…" 1 Thessalonians 4:17 states that when Christ comes, "So shall we ever be with the Lord."

The theory of a "tribulation" is based upon an erroneous interpretation of Matthew 24. In Matthew 24, Jesus described a perilous time for His disciples, "not one stone will be left upon another, which will not be torn down". In verse three, the disciples asked Jesus when this would occur. Jesus describes the tribulation in more detail with, "wars and rumors of wars", "famines and earthquakes". In verse 34 Jesus says, "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" and all that is described in Matthew 24 came to pass with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Premillennialism teaches that a second resurrection will take place at the end of the "tribulation". All who remain from the time of Adam will be raised at the second resurrection to receive their just desserts. However, John 5:28-29 describes both wicked and righteous being raised at the same time. 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 states blessing and punishment both occur at his coming.

Finally, the idea of a "1000 year" reign of Christ on earth is a misinterpretation of Revelation 20:1-7. The context of Revelation 20:1-7 is a highly figurative context within a very symbolic book. The "1000 year" reign viewed in Revelation 20 is not an "earthly" reign of the Lord. It is a spiritual reign with victorious saints (Revelation 20:4). This was a prophetic indication that Christianity would be triumphant over its enemies. The 1,000 years is a symbol of the completeness of that victory. The number 1,000 is used more than 20 times in the book of Revelation, but not in a literal sense.

In the next article, we will address in more detail the "1000 year" reign and other contradictions of Premillennialism with plain and simple Bible passages.

What is Premillennialism? by Scott Mixon

The basic theory of Premillennialism teaches that we are now living in a period before the 1000-year reign of Christ. Christ originally came to establish his kingdom but the world was too wicked and crucified Him. The church was established as an after thought until He returns. A rapture of the saints will occur at His coming, followed by seven years of tribulation on earth caused by the Anti-Christ. The battle of Armageddon will be the time Christ puts down all evil. He will then establish His Kingdom on earth and reign for 1000 years. Finally, there will be judgment, followed by Heaven and Hell. Specific beliefs will vary between different religious groups and denominations, but that is the basic theory.

When compared to the word of God, we find undeniable discrepancies in the theory of Premillennialism. For example, Premillennialism teaches that the Kingdom has not yet been established because the world was not ready for it when Christ came. The Church was established as a substitute or an after thought until the Kingdom can be established. However, Jesus speaks of the Church and the Kingdom as being one and the same in Matthew 16:16-18.

In Ephesians 3:10-11 Paul declares the Church was in God’s eternal plan. According to Daniel 2:31-45, the Kingdom was established during the Roman Empire. Isaiah 2:2-4 also predicted that the "mountain of the Lords house" (God’s rule) would be established in the "last days." Peter would later state that they were living in the "last days" in Acts 2:16-17. Jesus said the Kingdom would come with power in the lifetime of some then living in Mark 9:1 and it did. When the Holy Ghost came on Pentecost, power came, and with it the Kingdom, the Church, was established in Acts 2:4.

According to Premillennialism, Christ is not yet King. However, Zechariah prophesied Christ would sit and rule as King and Priest in Zechariah 6:12-13. Acts 2:29-36, Ephesians 1:20-23 and Hebrews 1:8 all declare He is now ruling. John 18:36-38 says He reigns in a Kingdom that is not of this world, but spiritual.

If the Kingdom is not already established, then Paul the Apostle did not know it, for brethren at Colosse were described as being in the Kingdom in Colossians 1:13. The Apostle John taught he was in the Kingdom in Revelation 1:9. John also described those purchased by the blood of Christ as being a part of the Kingdom and Priesthood in Revelation 1:5-6; 5:9-10.

Many people would like to have the ability to predict the future. Many religious leaders have taken advantage of man’s desire to know the future by promoting and teaching "Premillennialism." Premillennialism has become popular because it claims the Bible has foretold both current world events as well as those soon to occur. Whenever a catastrophic or highly visible world event occurs, such as the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, people who believe the theory of Premillennialism begin to anticipate the "beginning of the end."

Premillennialism ignores what God’s word says about date setting. The Bible is very specific about the time of the Lord’s coming, "For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night. For when they say, ‘peace and safety!’ then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape" I Thessalonians 5:2-3 and II Peter 3:10.

This is an overview of a few areas where Premillennialism contradicts the Bible. In a series of future articles, we will explore in more detail the many contradictions of Premillennialism with plain and simple Bible passages.

THE SERVICE OF A CHRISTIAN by Randy Baker

How is a Christian to live such that he can be confident of God’s pleasure toward him? Are there patterns in Scripture to provide us clear guidelines about our lifestyle, or are we left to do as we please?

Is it good enough just to live in good conscience before our God? Paul indirectly answers this question through a comment he made in Acts 23:1, "And Paul, looking stedfastly on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day." Paul had always believed what he was doing was correct, however, in his defense to the people in the previous chapter he states that he had been doing much damage to the Lord’s cause. "… I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women" (Acts 22:4). Paul was living contrary to God’s will while feeling that he was right before God. Jeremiah admits, "O Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (Jer. 10:23). We are not able to determine how to live correctly based on our own conscience, or our own feelings. God knows what we need and provides that guidance through His word. Only doing what we feel is right easily leads to error.

Is our outlook toward serving God one of, "I’ll serve God when it’s convenient or when I have spare time?" Those words may not be openly spoken often, but the attitude that God gets our leftover energy seems prevalent. We fool ourselves if we think that we can leisurely and half-heartedly serve our God and still please Him. God says, "A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I am a master, where is my fear? saith Jehovah of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? … when ye offer the blind for sacrifice, it is no evil! and when ye offer the lame and sick, it is no evil! Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? or will he accept thy person? saith Jehovah of hosts" (Malachi 1:6-8). Quite the contrary of the shallow service exhibited here, Paul gives us the proper outlook, "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service" (Romans 12:1). Paul also says "present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God" (Romans 6:13). In Hebrews 6:11, the writer says, "And we desire that each one of you may show the same diligence unto the fulness of hope even to the end: 12that ye be not sluggish.…" Ours is not to be a casual approach, but rather a fulltime ambition that involves effort and energy. It will lead to a job "well done" if we stay the course until death.

Sometimes we hear comments like "there is no direct command that says I have to do that." Are we trying to feel better about doing less? If so, is that the kind of servant God will welcome into heaven on judgment day? Is the Christian’s duty simply to avoid the sins that everyone recognizes? James 4:17 says, "To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." He also says "be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves" (1:22). Our faith is to be a working faith, not that we "earn" our salvation, but rather that there are conditions to be met to receive the gift of everlasting life. "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? …Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead…But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?…You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only…For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:14-26). There is more to living godly than just avoiding the "big" sins and living morally acceptable before men.

Too often we serve God on our terms and do what seems right when it is easy to do. Let us be sure we are presenting ourselves a living sacrifice before our Lord. Let us be sure we know Him by humbling ourselves to listen to His word. Let us serve Him as He has shown and not as we would prefer. We are His servants, His creation - let us honor Him!

THE SIN OF GOOD INTENTIONS, part 2 by Bill Blue

Last week we discussed the fact that there are no "little sins," and observed that God punished sin on occasions where intentions, at least from man’s point of view, appeared good. Before considering applications of these lessons, let’s revisit the story of Uzzah.

There was an occasion when Israel was moving the Ark of God. During the journey, "Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the ark of God" (2 Sam. 6:2-7). Uzzah tried to prevent the Ark from falling. Some would argue that Uzzah was trying to do a good thing, even trying to assist in God’s work, but to God Uzzah was irreverent and God killed Uzzah "because he put his hand to the ark" (1 Chron. 13:7).

Uzzah probably wasn’t the first person who sinned while trying to do right, nor is he the last.

Consider the merchants and the moneychangers that Jesus drove out of the Temple. On the first occasion we read that, "He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. And He said to those who sold doves, ‘Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!’" (John 2:14-16)

Three years later, Jesus cleansed the Temple again, but this time He said that the moneychangers and merchants had turned the Temple into a den of thieves (Matt. 21:12-13).

Have you considered how the moneychangers and merchants were able to set up their tables inside the Temple walls? After the Israelites were taken captive by the Assyrians and Babylonians, many Jews never returned to Israel to live. However, many would visit Jerusalem to take part in different festivals. Because of their long journeys, many Jews did not bring with them the right animal to offer as a sacrifice, and would have to purchase the animal in Jerusalem. Because some Jews came from foreign lands, they needed to exchange their currency for legal tender in Palestine; thus, the need for the moneychangers.

Considering this, which explanation seems more plausible: (1) That the merchants and moneychangers set up shop against the will of the people, priests and Pharisees and had the explicit intent to cheat fellow Jews, or (2) That the merchants and moneychangers saw an opportunity to serve their fellow Jews in their worship to God and had at least the implicit consent of the people, priests, and Pharisees? Perhaps no one knows for certain, but it seems unlikely that the merchants and the moneychangers could set up shop without public approval. Thus, it is possible that no one at the time thought anything was wrong with these practices.

Remember, the first time Christ cleansed the Temple, He did not accuse the moneychangers of being thieves, nor did He cite any Scripture that they had violated. The problem wasn’t that the moneychangers had violated a specific law. Rather, they did not have authority from God to set up their tables inside the Temple in the first place.

Do people like Uzzah or the merchants exist today? What about churches that host common meals like Wednesday night suppers? What about church softball teams or gymnasiums? No one suggests these activities are being done with an evil intent. To the contrary, the churches doing these things are trying to reach the lost or keep the converted. These churches have the best of intentions at heart – just like Uzzah.

The problem with these activities, like that of the moneychangers, is that there is no authority for church sponsored meals, softball teams, gymnasiums, fitness centers, daycare centers, or movie theaters.

In fact, where congregational common meals are concerned, we have an express prohibition. Paul condemns the eating of common meals when people "come together as a church" (1 Cor. 11:18-34). He first asks, "What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?" (1 Cor. 11:22). Then he instructs that, "if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment" (1 Cor. 11:34). Clearly, the Corinthian brethren were confusing the Lord’s Supper with a common meal, and were adding to their problems of factionalism by their conduct during this meal. To remedy this, Paul said that we should not eat common meals when we come together "as a church" (1 Cor. 11:18).

There is no express condemnation of gymnasiums or church-sponsored softball teams. The problem here is not the lack of a specific prohibition, but the absence of Bible authority. One may argue that, "The Bible doesn’t say not to." However, Biblical silence isn’t authority. Just ask the moneychangers.

Others argue that offering these services encourages attendance. However, if someone will only attend church to participate in these activities, then he really isn’t interested in serving God in the first place.

Some seek to justify these practices by arguing that they help spread the Gospel. Of course, Uzzah probably thought he was helping out also, but God didn’t see it that way. Instead of believing the myth that "different times call for different methods," and deviating from the Divine standard of worship found in the New Testament, we should simply obey God’s instructions in the manner He has authorized. Only then can we be certain that our well-intended actions will not one day result in condemnation.

THE SIN OF GOOD INTENTIONS, part 1 by Bill Blue

Popular culture tells us that we can do no wrong so long as we do not hurt someone else. The Bible, however, does not teach this. Not only can we sin when no one suffers harm, we can sin even when we intend no wrong. Let’s consider some examples.

There was an occasion when Israel was moving the Ark of the God. During the journey, "Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the ark of God" (2 Sam. 6:2-7). Uzzah tried to prevent the Ark from falling. Some would argue that Uzzah was trying to do a good thing, but to God Uzzah was irreverent and God killed Uzzah "because he put his hand to the ark" (1 Chron. 13:7).

Other Bible characters have also been punished for doing things that some men would consider good, but which God considered disobedience. Nadab and Abihu burned incense to God and God killed them (Lev. 10:1-2). King Saul offered a burnt sacrifice to God and God took his kingdom away (1 Sam. 13:5-14). King Uzziah burned incense to God and God made him a leper (2 Chr0n. 26:16-21). The lessons here are clear:

1. Our intentions are meaningless if not joined with obedience.
2. God will not accept just any sacrifice or form of worship.
3. Since God’s perception of our actions is different from men’s (compare Isa. 55:8-9) we should strive to learn God’s word for our own safety (Psalm 119:104-105).

Besides good intentions, popular culture also says that we should not worry about "little sins." The Bible, however, does not make a distinction between so-called "big" sins and "little" sins. In the Bible, sin is sin.

Let’s consider the consequences of Biblical examples of sins that men might consider little. Adam and Eve suffered death for eating fruit (Gen. 3). Pharaoh and his house suffered great plagues because he took Abram’s wife Sarai even though Abram and Sarai led Pharaoh to believe that Abram and Sarai were siblings and not a married couple and Pharaoh had "treated Abram well for her sake" (Gen 12:11-10). In the wilderness, God killed some of the Israelites with fiery serpents for complaining (Num. 21:4-6). Moses was prevented from entering the land of Canaan because he struck a rock as opposed to speaking to it (Num. 20:7-12). In New Testament times, Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying about what portion of their money they had given to the church (Acts 5:1-10).

In the foregoing examples, some of these sins might be considered little by men, but God’s punishment in each case was severe. Again, the lessons are clear:

1. There are no "little sins."
2. God’s ways are not our ways (Isa. 55:8-9).
3. Therefore, we should strive to learn God’s word for our own safety (Psa. 119:104-105).

One commentator had this to say about little sins:

But if you reflect for a moment you will see that there are no little sins,
because every sin is a rejection of God's authority: every sin is a
renunciation, for the time being, of allegiance to the Divine government. Of
course there can be no little sins, for every sin involves a breach of the whole
law, in the spirit of it; every one of them involves a refusal to love God with
all the heart, and our neighbours as ourselves; every one of them involves a
setting up of our own interests above that of Jehovah. There are no little sins
then under the government of God; for everyone one of them involves rebellion
against his authority. When we come to look at human society, and judge of the
actions of men only as they effect it, we get comparative ideas of sin; but when
we come to look at sin as a violation of the law of God, then we can see that
every one who commits sin, in any degree as judged by human society, is an open
enemy of God. [Finney, C. G., "Little Sins." Monday, January 5, 1851.]

Do churches and individuals make these same mistakes today? Consider Wednesday night suppers, gymnasiums and church sponsored softball teams. We will consider some possible example next week

What About the Sabbath? Part 2 by Jeff Himmel

Does God require Christians to observe a Sabbath day - a day of rest? If so, what day - Saturday or Sunday? Some religious groups say one thing, some another. What does the Bible say?

A New Covenant

When Jesus ate the last supper with His disciples and instituted a memorial of His death, Matthew writes, "Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins’" (Matthew 26:27-28). Jesus' death fulfilled and ended God's covenant with Israel through Moses, and it established God's covenant with all men through His Son (see Hebrews 8:13; 9:13-17).

The Old Law has been replaced - "nailed to the cross," as Paul put it. It is no longer in force. Its commandments are no longer binding on men. When a person writes his will, it is final and irrevocable until he writes a new will. The new will then becomes his "last will and testament," and the old one is no longer authoritative. In the same way, the Mosaic Law (the "Old Testament") was binding until it was replaced by the Law of Christ (the "New Testament"). That New Covenant in Christ is now our standard of conduct and worship.

The Question for Us

Is the Sabbath part of the New Testament? The laws for Israel concerning Sabbaths were part of the Old Covenant that was taken away. The New Testament repeats many commandments from the Old (e.g., against murder, adultery, idolatry, etc.). But it gives no Sabbath law. That means we have no mandate from God to keep the Sabbath as the Jews did. We have no more Divine authority for Sabbath observance than we would for animal sacrifices, burning of incense, or any other element of the Old Law, which "has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things" (Hebrews 10:1). "Therefore let no one act as your judge . . . in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day - things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ" (Colossians 2:16-17).

The First Day of the Week

The New Testament shows that the first day of the week - what we now call Sunday - is the special day of worship for Christians. Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week (Luke 24:1ff.; Mark 16:9). The beginning of the church (when the Holy Spirit fell on the apostles, they preached, and some 3,000 people were converted) occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1ff.), which fell on the first day of the week (see Leviticus 23:4-5,15-16). Luke writes of the disciples meeting on the first day of the week to "break bread," or observe the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7). Writing to the Corinthians about the collection for the needy saints, Paul instructed, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him . . ." (1 Corinthians 16:2). All of this points to the first day of the week - what we call Sunday - as the day for worship among Christians. Ancient historians confirm that this was the day on which Christians met to worship their Lord.

However, the New Testament does not equate the first day of the week with the Sabbath day of the Jews. That is, Sunday is not "the Christian's Sabbath." It is a day of great significance for Christians, the day on which we meet to observe Christ's memorial. And God expects us to assemble together thus for worship (see Hebrews 10:24-25). But He has not designated the first day of the week as a mandatory day of rest, as was the Sabbath day of old. As we observed, the Sabbath is not part of the New Covenant. Christ did not merely move the Sabbath to a different day; He removed it altogether. For men to demand of Christians on Sunday everything that God required of the Jews on Saturday is to bind where He has not bound.

Conclusion

The New Testament does look forward to a "Sabbath" yet to come - a time when we will rest from our labors. "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God. . . . Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest" (Hebrews 4:9,11). That rest is the eternal peace of Heaven, and it is for the faithful, obedient people of God. Will you be there?

What About the Sabbath by Jeff Himmel

Does God require Christians to observe a Sabbath day - a day of rest? If so, what day - Saturday or Sunday? Some religious groups say one thing, some another. What does the Bible say?

Old Testament Sabbaths

The word Sabbath is from a root meaning "to rest, to cease from labor." The Bible tells us that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh (Genesis 2:2). "And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which He had done" (verse 3).

When God made His covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai, He commanded them: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work . . . For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:8-11). The seventh day of the week was thus ordained as the Sabbath, set aside for worship and reflection on God's word.

God also decreed that the Israelites should observe every seventh year as a Sabbath. In that year they were not to plant or harvest crops, in order to provide a Sabbath (rest) for the land (Leviticus 25:1-7). God further ordained that after every seventh Sabbath year (i.e., every 49th year) be followed by a year of jubilee (Leviticus 25:10-13). In that year, houses and lands were to be returned to their original owners and the debt erased (verses 23-34; cf. 27:24). Also, any Jew who through poverty had become the hired servant of another Jew was to be released (verses 39-41).

It's clear, then, that Sabbath wasn't just a day, but a principle. All of these statutes served both to honor God's rest from creation and to promote the welfare and well-being of all the people of Israel. As Jesus would later comment, "The Sabbath was made for man's sake, and not man for the Sabbath's sake" (Mark 2:27).

A New Covenant


But remember, all these Sabbath commands were part of the Law of Moses, the Old Covenant of God with Israel. When Jesus died on the cross, that covenant was fulfilled, taken away, and replaced with His New Covenant for all men. Note the following passages:

"For He is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of division between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity" (Ephesians 2:14-16).

"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" (Colossians 2:13-14).

"But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor" (Galatians 3:23-25).

The Sabbath was a fundamental part of the Mosaic Law. But the Mosaic Law was taken away when Jesus died on the cross. The whole book of Hebrews shows how the New Covenant in Christ is superior to the Old Covenant through Moses. After quoting God's ancient promise to establish a new covenant (see Jeremiah 31), the writer of Hebrews adds, "In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first one obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13). Jesus is the mediator of that New Covenant; He died to bring it into force (Hebrews 9:13-17). He Himself called it "the new covenant in My blood" (1 Corinthians 11:25).

We live under God's new covenant through Christ. The Old Testament is very valuable, written for our learning (Romans 15:4). But it is no longer in force as God's law. We must look to the New Testament as our source of Divine law now. What does the New Testament say about the Sabbath? We'll examine that next week.

Lord’s Supper by Todd Baker

The Lord’s Supper is a feast that Christians around the world participate in. What is it? Why is it observed? By whom is it observed? When is it observed? These are all questions that can be answered simply by turning to the Lord’s word.

WHAT is it? The Lord’s Supper, as it is commonly referred to today, is a time for Christians to remember the great sacrifice Jesus made on the cross in our place for our sins. The Lord’s Supper is a time when each Christian should meditate on why it is we need Christ in the first place, namely "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). During the Lord’s Supper, we partake of unleavened bread which is to remind us of Jesus’ body which was pierced and hung on the cross, and we partake of the fruit of the vine which is to remind us of Jesus’ blood that was shed on the cross, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me" (I Corinthians 11:23- 25).

WHY is it observed? The Lord’s Supper is observed to serve as a memorial to help each Christian remember Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross for us. The Lord recognizes that we are forgetful and easily sidetracked in life. This memorial is a time of both sadness and joy; there is sadness because the only sinless man to ever exist, the Son of God, died an extremely cruel death of crucifixion for people who do not appreciate or understand His sacrifice, and there is sadness from each who partakes because we know that it is because of our own sin that Jesus was crucified. "He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our grief’s He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted" (Isaiah 53:3,4). Yet, at the same time, it is a time of great joy in that He was the perfect sacrifice having had no sin. He was crucified in our place for our sins and that through that sacrifice Christians have the hope of eternal life in Heaven with the Lord. "As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors" (Isaiah 53:11,12).

By WHO is it observed? It is observed by Christians to remember the great sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf. We have a great responsibility to observe it properly, "whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must first examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly" (I Corinthians 11:26-29).

WHEN is it observed? Christians gather on the first day of the week, just as the First Century Christians did, "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread…" (Acts 20:7). It is also observed on the first day of the week to commemorate the day Jesus rose from the grave, "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus…. He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again" (Luke 24:1-7). From Scripture, we cannot find any example of partaking of the Lord’s Supper only once or twice a year, we only have the example of a weekly observance in order to remember Jesus’ great sacrifice on the cross in our place and to celebrate His victory over death, thus giving Christians around the world tremendous hope for eternal life in Heaven with the Lord beyond the grave. What a victory!

Tarzan Underwear is Dangerous

Only a parent knows the mind of a child, especially a parent who has tried to potty-train a two-year old boy. Lori and I are currently trying to potty-train William. We have tried everything. Currently we are simply putting underwear on William and hoping for the best. Should the worse occur, we hope that discomfort will (eventually?) persuade him that going in the potty is preferable to going in his undies.

If parents are born as opposed to made, I clearly lack the potty-training gene. When Lori and I attempted to entice – persuade – order William to wear a pair of briefs adorned with the Lord of the Jungle, we were rebuffed with the wild and dramatic cry, "I can’t wear them; they’re dangerous!" I am presently searching the Internet to see if Depends makes sizes appropriate for little people.

William does not understand the necessity of potty training. After all, everything has worked well for him so far. He goes. We change him. He goes again. What could possibly be easier and more convenient for him? Clearly, William is thinking as a child. One day, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, William will believe that he should use the potty.

The Bible understands that people mature, and grow in knowledge (Heb. 5:12-6:2). The Bible describes those in need of instruction as "babes" (Heb. 5:13; 1 Cor. 3:1). Paul and the writer of Hebrews (quite possibly Paul again) use our familiarity with children as an illustration to describe new converts because we understand that babies are ignorant of many things they must learn to survive in this world such as walk, avoid hot stoves, and (hopefully) how to use toilets.

Nonetheless, there are those who believe and teach that unless a baby is baptized, it will not go to heaven even if it dies as a baby. Thus, uninspired men have created the unbiblical doctrine of infant baptism.

The Bible describes baptism as an "elementary principle" that must be taught (Heb. 6:1-2). Philip undoubtedly explained baptism to the Ethiopian Eunuch because Philip had to explain the necessity of belief before baptism (Acts 8:36-37).

William is having a difficult time understanding the necessity of toilet training and wearing underwear. As his father, I am confident he cannot appreciate the necessity of baptism, what it accomplishes, or why. William believes wearing Tarzan underwear is dangerous, but he will survive this. However, teaching people that infant baptism saves children, now that is dangerous.

Original Sin, Blaming it all on Adam by Bill Blue

Some people believe in "original sin." Although this phrase is used nowhere in the Bible, it is defined by one encyclopedia as follows:

"(1) The sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."

Believers of original sin cite Romans 5:12ff as support for their theory. Multiple faiths believe in original sin. According to this doctrine, everyone is born in sin as a result of Adam’s sin and children are born without grace (the thing that saves us, Eph. 2:8):

Encyclopedia: "The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us."

The above encyclopedia also says that infant baptism is necessary because of original sin and infants who are not baptized do not go to heaven, but are excluded from the presence of God.

Encyclopedia: "The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The … teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. … Moreover … those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven…."

One church’s creed book restates these principles as follows:

Creed book: "Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the ‘death of the soul’. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin."

The Scriptures say that as a result of Adam’s sin, sin and death entered the world (Rom. 5:12). Romans 5 does not teach that man inherits sin, but because of Adam’s sin we suffer the consequences of both our own sins, and the sins of others.

Consider drunk driving. The sinner may suffer arrest, fines, or jail. He may have an accident and kill himself. Others may suffer as result of the drunk’s sin. He may accidentally injure or kill someone else. The driver’s family may suffer loss of income or shame as result of his sin, or should he die, suffer the loss of a father, husband, or son. Similarly, the family of the person he struck may suffer loss of income, or the loss of a loved one. Thus, many people may suffer immediate consequences as a result of one person’s sin.

Another consequence of Adam’s sin is the death of the spirit, or the second death, if we die in our sins (Rom. 6:23). However, we die spiritually for our own sins, not Adam’s. The Bible says, "The soul who sins shall die" (Eze. 18:4). It does not say, "The soul shall die for the sins of the father."

The doctrine of original sin illustrates how some people support one false belief, however innocent and well-intentioned, with another false doctrine such as infant baptism. Although neither doctrine is supported by Scripture, they each support the other because one cannot exist without the other. If infants are born in sin, then logically these sins must be washed away for the infants to go to heaven. Similarly, if infants must be baptized, it must be because they are sinners. If original sin is true then Mary, the mother of Christ, was born in sin and so was Christ Himself. To get around this dilemma, proponents of original sin had to create still other theories to explain why Adam’s sin was not imputed to Mary and Christ, but everyone else.

Many Protestants believe in aspects of original sin, even if it is called something else such as "inherent depravity." Others may deny original sin or total depravity, but nonetheless believe that man is born a sinner and is incapable of not sinning. This is very appealing because it removes personal responsibility and accountability. After all, it is easy to find an excuse for sin if man is inherently sinful. People could simply say, "God made me this way," or "the Devil made me do it."

"All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 6:23). People sin, but sinners are made, not born. The justness of God is not displayed through the universal and (purportedly) unconditional redemption of man, but through the fact that no one, not even Satan, can make anyone sin. God will not tempt anyone (James 1:13), nor will He allow anyone to be tempted beyond that which he is able to overcome, but with each temptation, provide an avenue of escape (1 Cor. 10:13). We sin because the devil tempts us with our own desires (James 1:14) and we choose sin and pleasure over righteousness and the avenue of escape.

We cannot, like Eve, blame Satan for our sins (Gen. 3:13), or like Adam blame someone else (Gen. 3:12). In the end, we will give an account for our sins (Rom. 14:12), and we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Traditions Versus the Word of God by Bill Blue

I have observed two interpretations of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and the sufficiency of God’s inspired word versus the authority of manmade traditions:

One view:
16All Scripture and tradition of men is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Scripture alone is incomplete to thoroughly equip man for doctrine, salvation or works.

Bible view:
16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Only traditions approved by the Apostles and recorded in the Scriptures are authority for acts and practices of the Lord’s church.

The Apostles derived their authority from Christ and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 16:19; John 16:13).

The Holy Spirit taught the Apostles all things one needed to know about the will of God (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). Thus, the Apostles were uniquely able to guide the early church (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 15:3-11). The Apostles and other inspired writers used this knowledge to write the New Testament (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

The Scriptures instruct us to follow the traditions of Christ and the Apostles, but no one else. Paul said "keep the traditions as I delivered them" (1 Cor. 11:2; see also 2 Tim. 2:2). He instructed the Thessalonians to "hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15). Inasmuch as Paul established the church in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-4), and wrote the church two epistles, it is evident that he was referring to the traditions taught by his inspired "word" or "epistle." Paul also instructed the Thessalonians to "withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). Thus, we are not free to follow any tradition, but only a tradition established by apostolic authority.

Some people advocate following a tradition because it was observed a long time ago, perhaps as early as the second century (101 A.D. – 200 A.D.). Where is the authority for that? If that were the rule, how would we decide which of the uninspired early Christians to follow? After which century will we no longer trust a tradition? Will we follow traditions that can be traced back to the third century, but not traditions of the 4th century? Where is the authority for a cut-off date?

How do you decide which traditions to keep that are not mentioned in the Scriptures? Chicken sacrifices? Snake handling? Torture? War? Baptizing dead people? All of these have been done in the name of Christ; some are still practiced. The Bible doesn’t say one wit about them.

Some people equate tradition with Scripture. A creed book and encyclopedia for one faith have the following to say about tradition:

• Creed Book: "Do you have to believe in Tradition? Yes, because it is the Word of God and has equal authority with the Bible."
• Encyclopedia: "Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition. …"

Unfortunately, both the creed book and the encyclopedia contradict the Bible.

Even if it was a historical fact that multiple churches during the time of the Apostles practiced a certain tradition, authority for doing the same today would not exist unless it was supported by Scripture. Could you comfortably follow a tradition of the church of Corinth, given all its problems? How about the churches in Sardis or Laodicea (Rev. 3:1-6, 14-22)?

If a tradition is not supported by Scripture, we must assume the Holy Spirit did not deem it "profitable" for us (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Otherwise, we must assume that the Holy Spirit and the Apostles were incapable of carrying out their missions.

Jesus condemned, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men," (Mk. 7:7) and said that worship based upon the tradition of men (Mk. 7:8) as opposed to the commandments of God was worthless (Mk. 7:7). Paul warned that we can be cheated through, among other things, the "tradition of men" (Col. 2:8).

Why would we worship the God of the Bible in a way not mentioned in the Bible? One who worships Christ with a tradition not authorized by Scripture is no better off spiritually than Nadab and Abihu, who were destroyed by God for worshipping Him in an unauthorized manner (Lev. 10:1-3). Although people who worship God as they choose, irrespective of God’s will, do not burn today, they risk an eternity of hellfire to come (Rev. 22:18-19). Therefore, we should call Bible things by Bible names, do Bible things in Bible ways, and not practice unscriptural traditions of men.

Biblical Miracles by Steve Browning

We hear stories about incredible events such as an individual being cured from cancer after their doctors have given up, or an individual surviving an avalanche against incredible odds, and then have these events described to us as "miracles". Although these are wonderful events and can show the providence of God, do they constitute miracles as performed in the Bible? Vine’s Bible Dictionary defines a miracle as: "power, inherent ability, is used of works of a supernatural origin and character, such as could not be produced by natural agents and means."

From this definition we see that a miracle must be from a supernatural origin and must not be producible by natural agents or means. The event of the creation where God (supernatural) spoke the world into existence (unnatural means) is an example of a "true" miracle (Genesis 1:1). Another is when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:11). Jesus (the supernatural) and the act of raising someone from the dead (can not be reproduced by natural means) is a Biblical miracle. The avalanche victim survived by chance. This is not a miracle. The cancer patient as certain defense mechanisms that can fight off cancer thus has a natural means of defeating the cancer. This does not constitute a Biblical miracle either. So now that we know what constitutes a Biblical miracle, why were they performed, who performed them, and are they still occurring today?

Miracles were performed as proof. Proof that people were who they said they were, and proof that what they taught was from God. Jesus performed miracles to prove He was the Son of God (Matthew 11:2-5, John 20:30-31). The apostles performed miracles to prove they were preaching God’s message (Mark 16:19-20, Hebrews 2:3-4). And in the absence of God’s completed revelation, some of the first century Christians performed miracles to edify the early church (1 Corinthians 14:12). Without these miracles as proof we would not have our faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (Romans 1:4), or know God’s will for us today (1 Corinthians 2:9-12).

In the New Testament we have examples of four types of people performing miracles: God, Jesus, the apostles, and people on whom the apostles laid their hands. The latter group could not pass on the gift to others, so when the apostles died there was no one left to pass on the gifts (Acts 8:5-6,14-18). And when these people died, there was no one left on earth to perform miracles. The people who could perform miracles all died out shortly after the first century.

Biblical miracles are not performed today, since there is no one here who can perform them. There is also no need for proof. We have the completed revelation of God in our Bibles. The Bible speaks of a time when miracles would end (Zechariah 13:1-2). Also, 1 Corinthians 13:8 states, "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

"That which is perfect" is not Christ. The verse states "that which" and not "he who," therefore it does not indicate an individual. Also notice that even when the perfect arrived, faith, hope, and charity were to abide (v. 13). Therefore, the perfect cannot be Jesus, for when He returns, faith and hope will not be needed. The "perfect" is God’s completed revelation, the Bible. It is that which allows us to "know even as we are known." Since we now have that complete word of God, the time of miracles is past (James 1:25; 2 Peter 1:3). No further proof is needed, as they are recorded for our benefit in the Bible.

We believe every recorded miracle in the Bible; we must if we believe in God. Since we believe the Bible, however, we must also believe that miracles have ceased, since that is what is taught in the Bible (Zechariah 13:1-2, 1 Corinthians 13:8). People claiming that they perform miracles today are false teachers and they deceive many who do not understand what is a miracle, who performed them and why they were performed.

Are Those Who Are Once Saved, Always Saved? by Scott Mixon

Many sincere religious people believe that once a person has been redeemed by Christ, it is impossible to sin, fall from God’s grace and be lost. However, the Bible does not teach that a believer has total security. The Bible prophesied some would sin and fall away in 1 Timothy 4:1. In fact, there are numerous Bible passages that refute the theory of "once saved, always saved."

God is consistent and emphatic about His expectations and the consequences of not remaining faithful. In Ezekiel 18:24 we read, "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds, which he has done, will not be remembered for his treachery, which he has committed, and his sin, which he has committed; for them he will die."

In Hebrews 3:12-14, brethren are exhorted to guard against departing the living God with a heart of unbelief. In verses 15-19, the Hebrew writer continues to emphasize the seriousness of the warning by using the Israelites, who perished in the wilderness because of their unbelief, as an example. As stated in Hebrews 4:1 and 11, we too can have the promise and then fall short of it. Satan is looking to devour the Christian who has become over confident, I Peter 5:8. II John 1: 8-9 tells us, "watch yourselves that you might not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward."

The Bible provides many examples of Christians who fell from grace. In Act 8:5-24, we read of Simon who practiced sorcery in Samaria. In verse 13, Simon believed and was baptized.

Simon wanted to purchase the gift of imparting Holy Spirit in verses 18-20. Paul rebuked Simon for his sin and described him, in verse 23, as being in the "gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity." We can conclude from verse 23 that he was then in a lost condition.

Another example is that of Ananias and Sapphira. In Acts 4:32, we read, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul." Ananias and Sapphira were members of the congregation. Acts 5:1-11 describes how Ananias and Sapphira lied to God about the sale of their property and God struck both of them dead for their sin.

Other examples of Christians who fell from Grace include Hymenaeous and Alexander. Paul describes Hymenaeous and Alexander, in I Timothy 1:19-20, as shipwrecked in their faith and he delivered them to Satan for their blasphemy.

Supporters of "once saved always saved" have responded to examples like that of Simon the sorcerer and others with the position that, if they fall away, they weren't saved in the first place. However, Jesus illustrated that it is possible for one to believe temporarily in the parable of the sewer, Luke 8:11-15. Hebrews 6:4 and II Peter 2:20-22 also confirm that Christians, by there own choice, can fall back into a sinful life style and be lost. Jesus said in Luke 9:62, "No one, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

God loves us very much. In Romans 8:35-39, we read that nothing can separate us from that love. However, Romans 8:35-39 does not teach that we can never be separated from salvation in Christ by our own actions. Not providing for your family in I Timothy 5:8, the love of money in I Timothy 6:10 and false teaching in II Peter 2:1; 3:17 are all examples of how our actions can separate us from Christ.

In Romans 7: 14-25, Paul wrote of the struggle between good and evil within himself. "I find then the principle of evil is present within me, the one who wishes to do good." For this reason, Paul wrote, in I Corinthians 9:27, that he "buffeted his body lest he become disqualified." He wrote in I Corinthians 10:12 to "take head lest ye fall". In Galatians 5:4, Paul told brethren "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." If "once saved always saved" were true, there would have been no need for Paul to write two thirds of the New Testament warning Christians about the consequences of sin.

Our Salvation in Christ is not based on one action but the consistent attitudes and actions of our new life. Saving faith is one faith that follows God’s word and brings forth fruit, Luke 8:15. "If we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remained no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries," Hebrews 10:26-27.

Instrumental Music in Worship: Final Notes bu Jeff Himmel

In three past articles we've studied the issue of instrumental music in worship through the writings of historians and religious leaders from the third century through modern times. To summarize: Early Christians sang in worship because that alone is what Christ authorized them to do. They recognized instrumental music as a relic of the Mosaic system. There was no recorded use of it until the 7th century-and no widespread acceptance of it until the 13th. When the Reformation came, most of those who left Catholicism abandoned the practice as unscriptural. Musical instruments were not used in most Protestant denominations until the early 1800s.

Everything's different now. The majority of modern "Christian" religious groups use musical instruments in worship-anything from a simple piano to a full orchestra. Many people mistakenly think it's a long-established practice in Christianity. It would never occur to them to question it. So when folks like me object to it, they think we're - well, sort of weird.

Frankly, whether or not people have been using musical instruments in worship for very long is not what's important. Nor is it whether or not Luther, Calvin, or any other scholar supported their use. Nor is it how disciples in the second or third century viewed them. These things are enlightening, but they are only the words and deeds of uninspired men and are a sandy foundation on which to build (Matthew 7:24-27). They only reflect the real issue at hand: Has Christ authorized His disciples to use instrumental music in praising Him?

To answer the question, many go to the pages of the Old Testament, where Miriam and the women of Israel praised God "with timbrels and with dances" after the Red Sea crossing (Exodus 15:20), and where the psalmist wrote of praising God with trumpets, lutes, harps, timbrels, dances, stringed instruments, flutes, and cymbals (Psalm 150). But Christ came to fulfill that old covenant (Matthew 5:17-18), and he died to replace it (Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 9:15; 10:9). The Old Testament is no longer binding; it is not our standard of authority. The New Testament is what will judge us (John 12:48). And it says not one word of playing instruments in worship.

". . . be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:18-19).

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord" (Colossians 3:16).

"Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms" (James 5:13).

"What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding" (1 Corinthians 14:15).

New Testament passages about singing discuss just that: singing. No references to instruments are made. Some think the word "psalm" includes instruments. But if instruments are necessarily implied in the word, then God is telling us that we must use them at least part of the time. I have yet to hear anyone affirm that. "Psalm" does not imply musical instruments, nor does "making melody" (the verb form of "psalm") in Ephesians 5:19. Paul says there that it is the heart with which melody is made. The spirit and the voice are the only instruments implied.

When all is said and done, it is a question of Divine authority. Worship is devotion to God. Its purpose is to honor and please Him. What appeals to our tastes or gives us pleasure is not the issue. Had God merely said, "make music," we would be free to make whatever kind we like (and I'd probably be in the band). But He has told us to sing, and that is the only thing we can do with full assurance of His approval. To add musical instruments, however we might enjoy them, is to "exceed what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6); it "goes to far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ" (2 John 9). It is a dangerous assumption that puts souls at risk. Let's be content instead to do what God commands and "worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).

Instrumental Music in Worship: More Voices by Jeff Himmel

In two past articles we've reviewed statements of both historians and early religious writers concerning music in worship. Both attest that singing was the only kind of music in Christian worship for centuries. The Roman Catholic church began adopting musical instruments during the Middle Ages, but that hardly closed the debate on their use. The Greek church in the East continued to reject them; and even as late as the sixteenth century there was enough protest within the Roman church that the Council of Trent (1545) came very close to abolishing their use (Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, II, 1702).

The sixteenth century also saw the dawn of the Protestant Reformation, and with it a renewed vigor of opposition to instrumental music as unscriptural. That opposition continued in many denominations for several hundred years. Consider the words of a few major figures from the Reformation era and the denominational religious world. Some of them may surprise you.

Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536), Dutch scholar: "We have brought into our churches a certain operose and theatrical music; such a confused, disorderly chattering of some words, as I hardly think was ever heard in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them . . . Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled" (Comments on 1 Corinthians 14:19).

Martin Luther (1483-1546), reformer and founder of what is now the Lutheran Church: "The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal" (Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia, VI, 762).

John Calvin (1509-1564), another reformer, founder of modern Prebyterianism: "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the [Mosaic] law . . . Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us . . . is far more pleasing to Him" (Comments on Psalm 23).

John Wesley (1703-1791), an Episcopal and a founder of Methodism: "I have no objection to the instruments in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen" (Quoted by Adam Clark).

Adam Clark (1762-1832), Methodist commentator: "I am an old man, and an old minister; and I here declare that I never knew them [musical instruments] productive of any good in the worship of God; and have had reason to believe that they were productive of much evil. Music, as a science, I esteem and admire: but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music; and here I register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity" (Commentary, IV, 686, on Amos 6:5).

Charles Spurgeon, renowned nineteenth century Baptist preacher: "We do not need them [musical instruments]. They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto Him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice. . . . What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, the refined niceties of a choir, or the blowing off of wind from inanimate bellows and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it" (Comments on Psalm 42:4).

Andrew Fuller, another Baptist scholar of the 1800s: "The history of the church during the first three centuries affords many instances of primitive Christians engaging in singing, but no mention (that I recollect) is made of instruments. (If my memory does not deceive me) it originated in the dark ages of popery, when almost every other superstition was introduced. At present, it is most used where the least regard is paid to primitive simplicity" (Complete Works, III, 520).

Questions on the Confession of Faith and Form of Government of The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (1842): "Question 6. Is there any authority for instrumental music in the worship of God under the present dispensation? Answer. Not the least, only the singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs was appointed by the apostles; not a syllable is said in the New Testament in favor of instrumental music nor was it ever introduced into the Church until after the eighth century, after the Catholics had corrupted the simplicity of the gospel by their carnal inventions. It was not allowed in the Synagogues, the parish churches of the Jews, but was confined to the Temple service and was abolished with the rites of that dispensation" (55).

Why is all of this important?

All these quotes represent a very definite view on music in worship: in the New Testament age, instrumental music is without God's approval. I wonder what these men would think if they could see what their modern counterparts are up to. Today the vast majority of Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, and Baptist churches (and any number of others) use instrumental music. Why has their belief and practice changed so much in just the last couple of centuries? Is it due to some new revelation from Heaven? If not, then what has caused it?

Next time: the rest of the story

Instrumental Music in Worship: Voices from the Past by Jeff Himmel

Last week we took a look at what history books say about instrumental music in Christian worship. Their testimony is summed up by Anglican writer Joseph Bingham: "Music in churches is as ancient as the apostles, but instrumental music not so" (Works, III, 137).

Singing was the only form of music in worship for hundreds of years after the time of Jesus and His apostles. Not only do historians confirm it, but also early Christian writers. Here’s what some ancient disciples had to say.

Justin Martyr (A.D. 139): "The use of [instrumental] music was not received in the Christian churches, as it was among the Jew, in their infant state, but only the use of plain song. . . . Simply singing is not agreeable to children [the aforementioned Jews], but singing with lifeless instruments and with dancing and clapping is. On this account the use of this kind of instruments and of others agreeable to children is removed from the songs of the churches, and there is left remaining simply singing."

Tertullian (c. A.D. 200): "Musical concerts with viol and lute belong to Apollo, to the Muses, to Minerva and Mercury who invented them; ye who are Christians, hate and abhor these things whose very authors themselves must be the object of loathing and aversion."

Eusebius (A.D. 260-340): "Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshiping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and kithara . . . But we in an inward manner keep the part of the Jew, according to the saying of the apostle . . . [Romans 2:28f]. We render our hymns with a living psalterion and a living kithara, with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument" (Comments on Psalm 92:2-3).

Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407): "Just as the Jews are commanded to praise God with all musical instruments so we are commanded to praise him with all our members — the eye, the tongue, ear, the hand. These instruments were then allowed because of the weakness of the people, to train them to love and harmony" (Comments on Psalm 150).

Some Roman Catholic churches began using instrumental music (usually an organ) during the Middle Ages. But the practice was largely opposed as unscriptural and was slow to gain acceptance. Not until the 1200s could it be found in widespread use. And even then the Catholic scholar Thomas Aquinas wrote, "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize" (Bingham’s Antiquities, III, 137).

All right, so why is all of this important?

"It is evident . . . that the post-apostolic churches did not worship with musical instruments because they recognized that the practice was part of an out-worn system that ended with the coming of Christ. For them, the use of such instruments was not an advance, but a step back in history" (Paul Earnhart in Christianity Magazine, 9/87, 10).

No, these men of old were not divinely inspired. But if they so clearly believed instrumental music to be unauthorized and inappropriate in New Testament worship, how is it that so many professing Christians today see no problem with it?

Next week we’ll hear the statements of leaders and scholars from the Protestant Reformation and beyond. Some of them may surprise you. Stay tuned!

Instrumental Music in Worship: The Voice of History by Jeff Himmel

The Spring Warrior Church of Christ doesn’t use musical instruments in worship to God; we just sing. To many folks in the religious world, that’s something new and unusual. But did you know that for centuries after Christ’s time, Christians just sang in their worship assemblies? It is playing instruments that is relatively "new." Don’t take my word for it; listen to the voice of historians.

Donald Grout in History of Western Music, a standard music history textbook: "Hymn singing is the earliest recorded musical activity of the Christian Church" (13).

Emil Nauman in The History of Music: "There can be no doubt that originally the music of the divine service was everywhere entirely of a vocal nature" (I, 177).

Paul Henry Lang in Music in Western Civilization: "The development of Western music was decisively influenced by the exclusion of musical instruments from the early Christian Church" (53-54).

The New Oxford History of Music: "The Christian community held the same view, as we know from the apostolic and post-apostolic literature: instrumental music was thought unfit for religious services; the Christian sources are quite outspoken in their condemnation of instrumental performances" ("The Music of Post-Biblical Judaism", I, 135).

Lars Qualben in A History of the Christian Church: "Singing formed an essential part of the Christian Worship, but it was in unison and without instrumental accompaniment" (112).

The Catholic Encyclopedia: "The first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or use them to accompany the human voice. Clement of Alexandria severely condemns the use of instruments even at Christian banquets . . ." (X, 651). "For almost a thousand years, Gregorian chant without any instrumental or harmonic addition, was the only music used in connection with the liturgy" (X, 657).

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The rejection of all musical instruments for Christian worship is consistent among the Fathers [early Christian writers]. They were associated with pagan, orgiastic rites" ("History of Sacred Music", X, 106).

Voices and Instruments in Christian Worship, published by The Liturgical Press: "From the standpoint of ritual action, liturgical music can only be monodic and vocal. Throughout nearly ten centuries of its history, Christian worship was in principle, and nearly always in fact, celebrated una voce ["one voice"— unanimously] and a capella [without instrumental accompaniment, lit. "as the chapel"]. . . . The abundance and clearness of the texts in which the Fathers of the Church have discussed the questions can leave us in no doubt about the content and firmness of their teaching: musical instruments are to be excluded from the worship of the New Alliance" (142, 150).

The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia: "There is no record in the NT of the use of instruments in the music worship of the church. In this regard, early believers followed the practice of the Hebrew synagogue music" ("Music", 1163).

John Giradeau, professor at Columbia Theological Seminary (Presbyterian USA): "The church, although lapsing more and more into defection from the truth and into a corruption of apostolic practice, had no instrumental music for 1200 years . . . The Calvinistic Reformed Church ejected it from its services as an element of Popery [Roman Catholicism], even the Church of England having come very nigh to its extrusion from her worship. It is heresy in the sphere of worship . . . The historical argument, therefore, combines with the Scriptural and the Confessional to raise a solemn and powerful protest against its employment" (Instrumental Music, 179).

Why is all of this important?

God’s word. History in itself is no authority for religious practice, but these statements do indicate what Christians for centuries understood God’s instructions to be. The New Testament tells us to sing praises to Him (see Colossians 3:16). History shows that early Christians did just that — they sang. Instrumental music of any sort was not used in worship for several hundred years after New Testament times. Why? More importantly, why has it come to be so widely used now? What has changed — God’s will or man’s attitude toward it?

Next week we’ll look at what some early religious writers had to say about musical instruments in worship.

Elders in the First Century by Randy Baker

It is evident from many New Testament scriptures that elders were an important part of the first century church. Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge. . . . The first century churches were not considered complete without the proper local leadership that God prescribed. Paul understood the eldership to be an important topic and wrote clear guidelines for the church to follow.

In the 21st century, we commonly see the terms "elders," "presbyters," "bishops," "pastors," and "overseers" referring to different roles that man has developed. In the first century church, however, all of these terms referred to only one God-defined role. In Acts 20:17-38 Paul is instructing the elders from the church of Ephesus. They are referred to as elders in v17 (Greek word presbuteros) and he also calls them bishops in v28 (Greek word episkopos). Paul also describes that their work was to feed the flock (to shepherd or to pastor from the Greek word poimen). A similar interchangeability of terms is used in I Peter 5:1-2. All of these words, which describe different aspects of the role, refer to the same individuals – the elders. Men have turned this role into a variety of different offices, but there is no authority for this from scripture. (Elders and deacons are indeed different roles, but we won’t cover that topic in this article.)

As I Timothy 3:1 shows, theirs was to be a working role, not just a position of status or honor. They were to feed the flock, the local church which they were in charge of, as shown in I Peter 5:2. They were to rule over those in their charge (I Timothy 5:17), and to oversee their activities (Acts 20:28), and to watch out for those who would teach error (Acts 20:31).

The authority of the elders came not from themselves. They were not to believe or teach anything that had not been delivered to them (Galatians 1:7-8). Their function was to teach, demonstrate by example, and enforce what the Holy Spirit had showed them to be true. The Lord has not changed this role description.

How many elders were intended to be over each congregation? There is no precise number given. We do see, however, that there was always a plurality of bishops. Paul and Barnabas helped select "elders in every church" in Acts 14:23; the "elders" of Jerusalem are referred to in Acts 15:2; Paul talks with the elders of the church at Ephesus in Acts 20:17-38; Titus was instructed to appoint "elders in every city" (Titus 1:5); the sick were told to call for the "elders of the church" in James 5:14 - here James refers to those sick from a local congregation and they were to call for their elders to pray for them. The Scriptures never refer to one elder (pastor, bishop, overseer, or shepherd) being over a congregation of God’s people.

Neither is there evidence in scripture of elders presiding over more than one congregation. Peter instructed the elders to "tend the flock of God which is among you" (1 Peter 5:2). Paul told the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28 "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops." In this case, Paul was speaking to those who were elders of the congregation in Ephesus – the saints at Ephesus were the ones the Holy Spirit had entrusted to them. Nothing is ever suggested to show that elders were shepherding anyone but the members of their local flock.

Who is eligible in God’s sight to perform this work of oversight of local congregations of the saints? Paul was clear with two first century preachers about what to teach on this matter. The qualifications are clearly laid out in Titus 1:5-11 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7, 11 and they indicate that only a certain type of individual living a certain lifestyle met the requirements for pastoring over His flocks.

Can a woman rightfully perform the role of being one of the presbyters of a local congregation of God’s Christians? The inspired qualifications given in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 leave us answering "no" to this question. The woman cannot be the "husband of one wife." This scripture in no way gives any suggestion that men are better than women – only that God has differentiated their roles according to His will.

It is up to us to adhere to the authorized description of leadership for the Lord’s church. If we change, or update the qualifications that were given, we do it on our own authority and not God’s. We must follow that pattern that we know God finds acceptable just as the first century church did.

No More Inspiration, Miracles, Tongues or Healings by Bill Blue

In previous articles, we have discussed the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, their purpose, how they were distributed, and the fact that they no longer exist. This article will discuss the implications of the end of miraculous gifts.

Remember, there are two reasons why miraculous gifts do not exist: (1) no Apostles are alive to impart the gifts of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, and (2) miraculous gifts accomplished their purpose (1 Cor. 13:8-12; Eph. 4:11-14).

No more inspired men.

Because inspiration is a miraculous gift (1 Cor. 12:8), and the era of miraculous gifts has ended, then divine inspiration no longer exists. Thus, there is no one living today who is divinely inspired.

Remember, what purpose did inspiration serve, but to reveal God’s will (1 Cor. 12:7, 13:8-12, 14:12; Eph. 4:11-14; Mk. 16:20; Heb. 2:4; Acts 1:8)? Now that we possess the Bible, which was written by divinely inspired men (2 Pet. 1:20-21), we can learn God’s will by reading the Bible. Thus, inspiration is no longer needed.

Paul warns that false teachers (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; Acts 20:29-30) and men claiming to be inspired will come (2 Cor. 11:12-15). He also writes that the Scriptures are inspired and can assist us in dealing with "evil men and imposters" (2 Tim. 3:13, 16). Thus, it is our individual responsibility to search the Scriptures and determine whether what is being taught or preached is true (Acts 17:11). If we must do this for ourselves, of what value is modern day inspiration if it cannot alter what is written (Gal. 1:8-10; Rev. 22:18-19)?

Some faiths believe that their church is lead by someone living today who is divinely inspired. Others believe that their church was either started or restored centuries after Christ by someone who was divinely inspired. If inspiration ended shortly after the death of the last Apostle, then these faiths are based on a lie.

No more revelation.

No inspired men means no inspired writers. How can a book be divinely inspired if the person writing it was not divinely inspired?

Although this principle seems simple enough, consider all the faiths that claim to have "new," "further," or "additional revelations." Consider also the catechisms, disciplines, and creed books that churches study. None of these books are inspired because none were written by inspired men. At best, these books represent uninspired commentary and opinion; at their worst, they are fiction disguised as truth.

If we have God’s inspired word in the Bible, and it is complete, then we do not need catechisms, disciplines, creed books, or further revelations. If these books say more than the Bible, then the say too much (Gal. 1:8-10). If they say less than the Bible, then they say too little (Rev. 22:18-19). If they say what the Bible says, then we do not need them because we have the Bible.

Since the New Testament was written, there have been no more revelations (Jude 3). If peoples’ beliefs in what the Scriptures say are based on books not found in the Scriptures, and these books contain error, then they jeopardize their own souls (Matt. 15:13,14; Acts 20:29-30).

No More Tongues, Miraculous Healings, or Miracles

We have discussed tongues in previous articles. Tongues were not gibberish, but languages understood by others speaking the same language (Acts 2:4-11, 10:46; 1 Cor. 14:7-33). People received this gift not for the edification of a local congregation filled with everyone speaking the same language, but to assist someone in evangelism in areas where he did not speak the native tongue (Acts 2:6-11; 1 Cor. 14:22). Thus tongues, like inspiration and revelation, had their purpose in the initial dissemination of God’s word. That purpose having been accomplished, there no longer remains a reason for the gift to exist (and no one is alive today to impart it through the laying on of hands).

The same is true of miraculous healing and miracles. Their purpose was found in assisting in the spread of the Gospel. They accomplished this by proving that the person speaking was speaking on God’s authority (Mk. 16:20; Heb. 2:4). For if the preacher could miraculously heal the lame, then what he was preaching must be true because miraculous abilities come only from God and He would not give that ability to someone who was preaching a lie (Acts 3-4:22).

Although miracles no longer exist, this does not mean that God no longer cares or provides for us; He does, even in ways we may not understand or be able to explain. There is, however, a difference between miracles and providence. (There will be a future article discussing the difference between miracles and providence.)

Implications

If the era of inspiration, revelation, tongues, healings, and other miraculous abilities has ended, then belief that these things exist today is not based on truth. People who have their faith in these things do not believe the truth and churches that preach these things do not preach the truth. Although miraculous abilities existed in the First Century, their purpose in revealing God’s will has been accomplished. God’s inspired word is now recorded in the Bible. God’s word is truth. If we want to believe in something, and have our faith centered on something we can preach and teach, then let it be the truth, and not a desire for something that no longer exists.