On The Lighter Side…

As my job is constantly evolving, I am now doing grapic design work for my boss’ new screen printing business.  Here are some designs I did for the youth group at my congregation:

So whattaya think?  By the way, if you’re interested in getting t-shirts, sweatshirts, etc. made for your church (or business or whatever) we can ship to anywhere.  The main design guy is way better than I am, so if you don’t like my work, maybe you’d like his.  Our website is http://www.imageinksp.com

Were the Apostles Re-Baptized in Water?

A couple of questions have been posed on another site that I would like to try and answer – were the apostles ever baptized (in water)?  Were the apostles re-baptized after Pentecost?

We must start off by acknowledging the obvious – there is no explicit statement within the New Testament to answer either of these questions.  While there are many who base their whole theology upon something never explicitly stated in scripture (namely that one is saved by faith only/alone), the fact that the two questions we’re dealing with aren’t clearly answered will always be a source of contention.  However, for those who are willing to honestly deal with the evidence that we have, I think these questions can be sufficiently answered.

Let us begin with the first, and in my opinion, the easiest question – were the apostles ever baptized with water?  Let us look at the evidence:

In John 1: 40 we see that Andrew was a disciple of John the Baptizer.  To assert that someone was a follower of John the Baptist without submitting to the ordinance that was key to John’s ministry would be foolish.  We can reasonably conclude by this alone that Andrew had been baptized with water.

In John 4:1 the Pharisees acknowledge that Jesus’ disciples were baptizing more than even John the Baptist.  Are we to conclude that those who were administering staggering numbers of immersions had never submitted to it themselves?  That would be a foolish conclusion.

Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, the Lord Himself submitted to John’s baptism to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15).  If the One who had no sins to be forgiven thought it important enough to be baptized, how much more so those who followed Him who definitely did have sins that needed to be remitted.

We can logically conclude, without any explicit statement, that the apostles were indeed baptized with water.

The second question may not seem as simple, and I am sure that I have brethren that would disagree with my conclusion, but I will attempt to explain how I’ve reached my conclusion.

I think all of the controversy regarding whether or not the apostles (and everyone baptized with John’s baptism) were re-baptized centers on the Ephesians of Acts 19.  If it weren’t for that one passage, I think there would be little dispute.

Before we deal with the apostles, there is another category of people that is worth considering – the faithful Jews who had died prior to the birth of the Christ.  While they never had the opportunity to believe in the gospel or obey it, I know of few who would deny that Jesus’ sacrifice covered those godly individuals.  Jesus did for those individuals what the law could not do (Romans 8: 3) – provide actual, permanent forgiveness of sins.  We conclude that Jesus giving His life “made good” their law-keeping.

I believe that Jesus’ sacrifice did the same for those who were baptized with John’s baptism (and this would include the apostles).  I am convinced that John’s baptism was “made good” by Jesus’ death.  Keep in mind that Hebrews 9: 22 tells us that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.  The keeping of the Law (prior to the death, burial & resurrection) and the baptism of John were “forward-looking”.  The baptism that Jesus instituted after the DBR is “backward-looking”.  In other words, those Jews who died prior to Jesus and those who were baptized with John’s baptism prior to the DBR were being obedient, looking to something that was yet to happen.  Those who are obedient in faith, repentance, confession and baptism today are looking to something that has already happened.  If Jesus sacrifice could validate the law-keeping of those who died before Him, it could certainly validate those baptized with John’s baptism while He lived.

I would hope that it is a given we understand that the Law of Moses is of no effect today.  Jesus has fulfilled that Law and replaced it with a better law.  This brings us to John’s baptism and the Ephesians of Acts 19.  If we understand that John’s baptism was preparatory to the coming of the Christ, we can understand why the baptism of the Ephesian men of Acts 19 was not valid – because they were baptized in anticipation of the coming Messiah, not knowing that He had already came and accomplished His mission.

Logic must be applied here – In Acts 18 we see Apollos correctly teaching concerning Jesus, but he is teaching incorrectly about baptism (teaching John’s baptism – Acts 18:25).  Aquilla & Priscilla take him aside and teach him fully.  However, we have no record of Apollos being re-baptized.  Why?  Does it not seem logical that Apollos had been baptized with John’s baptism prior to the DBR?  I can see no other valid explanation.

Then, in the next chapter, we are introduced to the Ephesians who were re-immersed by Paul.  Why?  Again, it seems that logic would dictate that these men were baptized with John’s baptism after the DBR.  These men didn’t even know about the Holy Spirit being given.  Paul tells these men that John’s baptism was to prepare the people for the one who would come after him (Acts 19:4).  Since the one who John was preparing the people for had already come, John’s baptism had been rendered obsolete.  Regardless of your conclusion of why these men were baptized twice, this is a powerful lesson on the importance of knowledge as it relates to baptism.

So, given the scriptural evidence that is available to us, I must conclude that the apostles (and all baptized with John’s baptism prior to the DBR) were NOT required to be re-baptized.  Just like the faithful Jews who died prior to Christ, I am confident that Jesus’ giving of Himself validated those baptisms.  There is only one example of individuals baptized with John’s baptism being re-immersed, and the reason for it seems clear (at least to me).

In the end, it really boils down to this – there is only ONE baptism today (Ephesians 4:5), and that is the baptism instituted by Christ (Matthew 28:19) and preached by Peter in Acts 2:38 (for the remission of sins).  It is this baptism that Paul would tell us that puts us “into” Christ (Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27).  There should be no confusion as to which baptism applies to us today (although I know there is).

Addendum:  I would like to offer some thoughts on John’s baptism that I think relates to this discussion.  First, I see a difference between the purpose of John’s baptism and the baptism Peter commanded in Acts 2:38.  Look:

Mark 1:4
John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 3:3
And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;

Those passages describe John’s baptism for us.  Now look at what Peter said in Acts 2:38:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I see an important difference here, be it ever-so-slight.  John’s baptism was “of” repentance – to visibly demonstrate that one was repenting in preparation for the coming Savior.  When we see Peter preach the baptism the Lord issued, repentance and baptism are separated.  While both actions are tied to the remission of sins (by the word “and”), they are not tied together with “of” as in John’s baptism.  This is important today as many will say that baptism is for a sign of repentance – this is not true (at least directly).  Repentance is repentance.  Baptism is baptism.  These actions are not tied together as they were with John’s baptism.

That said, both John’s baptism and the Lord’s baptism have the same goal – forgiveness (or remission) of sins.  However, as I discussed earlier, there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood*, so those who submitted to John’s baptism wouldn’t have had their sins remitted until Jesus shed His blood for them (and us).  Consider this – if John’s baptism could provide remission of sins then there would be no need of Jesus’ sacrifice.  Individuals then – and even throughout the coming ages – could submit to John’s baptism and have their sins forgiven.  I am convinced that John’s baptism couldn’t enable anyone to have remission of sins without the shed blood of the Christ, just as a baptism today would have no power without the blood of Jesus.

Properly stated, John’s baptism was “unto” the remission of sins – bringing the individual near to the remission of sins.  Likewise, today baptism is “unto” the remission of sins, yet it is also that which places us “into” (actually within) Christ, allowing the sins to be taken away forever.

I would not bind my conclusions on John’s baptism on anyone, and I am willing to consider evidence to the contrary.  I would not bind these conclusions because, in the end, they have no bearing on my salvation or the salvation of anyone else living today.  John the Baptizer has been long dead and the overlapping of his baptism and the Lord’s is not an issue (or shouldn’t be) for anyone now alive.

*We must acknowledge that the Lord directly forgave sins while He walked upon the Earth, but as Lord, only He had that right and ability.  It could be argued that He could do so knowing of His impending sacrifice (so technically blood would be shed for those individuals forgiveness).

King David – the First Don?

I had the privilege last quarter of teaching a class on first & second Samuel.  Studying those books in depth was very beneficial for me and I hope for those in my class.  I sometimes feel that I am woefully ignorant of Old Testament history and I am resolved to correct that.

During one class my father-in-law made an observation that I was struck by – he said he saw a television program where one of the speakers noted that King David ran his kingdom much like a mafia don.  The more I’ve thought about it, the truer that statement seems.

Some of King David’s actions seem to be much like the mafia kingpins of the movies:

He was at times strangely merciful, while at other times displaying what appears to be arbitrary cruelness (like when he made the men lie down, drew lines around them, and killed some at random in 2 Samuel 8).

Like the mafia code of not killing a “made man”, he deferred to the relentless Saul and spared him when he could have killed him (although, of course, David refused to kill Saul because he always viewed him as the Lord’s anointed).  David’s guilt after cutting off part of Saul’s robe (1 Samuel 24) is a strange incident.  While few of us could blame David for taking Saul out, David deferred to a higher “code”.

King David kept his army and his bodyguards separate.  That is the kind of move that a Mafioso could appreciate.  When you see how little it took for Abner and Ishbosheth to fall out (2 Samuel 3), you can appreciate David’s decision to keep these groups separate.

Like any smart “godfather” would tell you, you can’t succeed in times of war without some dangerous and loyal men serving under you.  For David, Joab was like a merciless “capo”.  Joab was determined that David, not himself, would get the glory for the taking of Rabbah (2 Samuel 12).  Joab was willing to say what needed to be said, even if it put him in danger, to ensure that David retained his power (2 Samuel 19).  At the same time, Joab was a ruthless and vengeful man, which is seen in the vendetta that ended in Abner’s murder (2 Samuel 3).  He also (against David’s wishes) killed the defenseless Absalom, which while defiant, was probably in David’s best interests.  Could David have been the successful warrior that he was without Joab at his side?  I doubt it.

The end of King David’s days as recorded in 1 Kings brings to mind the day of reckoning where all of the old scores are settled in the Godfather movies.  Basically on his deathbed, David has Solomon take care of some unfinished business – namely the executions of Joab and Shimei.  Joab is supposedly to be killed for the murders of Abner and Amasa (although I’d venture a guess that the real motivation was the murder of Absalom).  Shimei had probably gotten comfortable considering that David spared him in 2 Samuel 19 for cursing him as he fled.  After violating the conditions that Solomon had laid out, Solomon finally had his excuse to execute Shimei.  If David was Vito Corleone, then Solomon was Michael.

It really is a fascinating comparison – King David and the modern mafia (at least as we see them in movies and television).  Perhaps Mario Puzo got some inspiration from Israel’s greatest king.  The era of the kings of Israel is a rewarding, and fascinating, study.

Changes I’d Like To See in the Churches of Christ

I am conflicted in my desire to write this article. There are some who, no doubt, will see this as an attack on my brethren within the churches of Christ. That is not at all my motivation. I think it is arrogant to think that there aren’t things that we could do better, though. There are some changes that I wish we could make and I want to talk about them. I hope that some of my brethren will discuss these things with me here, but there is something of a “mafia mentality” that exists within our brotherhood that I find troubling at times. What I mean by that is that there are many who think and say, “don’t talk about the church outside of the church”. I wish that all matters could be discussed and resolved without any public discussion, but once division occurs, it isn’t always possible. What I’d like to discuss here are three areas in which I’d like to see change take place within the churches of Christ.

Removal of the “Professional Christian”

To be certain, those who preach the gospel are entitled to live by it. The apostle Paul said, “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 9:14). Those who spend their lives preaching the gospel of Christ have every right to be supported financially in their work. I am not disputing this in any way. What I do have a problem with is the concept of a “professional Christian”. This is where the preacher is paid to do all of the work that the entire congregation should be doing (teaching, visiting the sick, etc.). I am convinced that this is borrowed from the denominational “pastor” system.

There has been debate in the past over the issue of the “located preacher” – one who stays in one place for long periods of time, or permanently. I think that the scriptures teach that the located preacher is definitely an approved Biblical expediency. Timothy, I think, is a good example of this. He was left by Paul in Ephesus to teach, while Paul continued his work as a missionary in Macedonia (1 Timothy 1:3). Does this mean that this is the ideal situation? I am convinced that it isn’t necessarily. Look:

The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17)

This is a passage that teaches that elders are worthy of financial compensation, especially when they are devoted to preaching and teaching. How many congregations pay their elders to preach and teach? How many balk at the notion of a man serving as both an elder and a preacher? I am not saying that you can’t find congregations that pay their elders, or congregations that have elders who are also preachers. I am saying that this appears to be the exception, rather than the rule. Look again:

Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; (James 5:14)

Who should the sick call for? James says that it is the elders of the church. In many congregations it is the preacher who is called when someone is sick or in the hospital. This isn’t to say that the elders are not called, but we expect to see the preacher at the hospital bed. There are many other passages that I could post to show that the responsibilities that are often put primarily on the shoulders of the preacher are responsibilities directly given to elders and to each member of the Lord’s church.

I think that the big problem with this is that it leads to the hireling mentality. Look at what Jesus said about hirelings in John 10:

12But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

When a man is hired to do all of the work that the entire congregation is charged to do, we end up with hirelings. We end up with men who view the position of the preacher as just another job, constantly searching for the highest pay and the best benefits. Since this is their profession, they may feel compelled not to preach the whole counsel of God for fear of losing their livelihood. Again, this is not to say that this is what all of those who are located preachers do, but it does happen.

There are a couple of things about the apostle Paul that I think are noteworthy:

Acts 18:  2And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome) and came unto them. 3And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers. 4And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Here is the apostle Paul, boldly preaching the word, and yet working with Aquila and Priscilla as a tentmaker. Granted, Paul had the benefit of inspiration and didn’t have to study as we do, yet I find it telling that he was able to preach as he did and yet still work a “regular” job like the rest of us. Also:

2 Thessalonians 3: 8…nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you;

Again, the apostle is shown working a job just like those he was around so he wouldn’t be a financial burden to them. Did he have the right to ask them to compensate him? Absolutely. Even though he had that right, he didn’t demand it. How many today would do the work of the great apostle and not ask to be financially supported for it?

So what is my solution? I would like to see more congregations encouraging the men within the congregations to preach the word. I would like to see more elders being financially supported to do the work they are called to in God’s word. I would like to see members of the church actually be zealous for good works as we are expected to be (Titus 2:14). I would like to see the money that is often spent on preacher’s salaries used to care for and support our brethren around the world. Let me be clear, I am not calling for the elimination of located preachers, but I am hoping that we might one day see that position as expediency, and not the way it must be.

Abandoning the “Just Get Them In The Water” Mind frame

Let me define what I mean by the “just get them in the water” mind frame – too often, in my opinion, there is a rush to baptize individuals without making sure that they realize what they are getting into. Many seem to think that a person can become a Christian at an early age, continue to live just like their peers (in a worldly fashion), and “get serious” about their faith later. This is completely contrary to what following Christ is all about. Consider this:

Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Jesus is the mediator of a covenant. A covenant is a contract. How often are we warned of not signing a contract until we have read it in full? How foolish would we be if we signed a financial contract without first understanding the responsibilities that we are taking on? How much more so is it foolish to allow people to enter into a covenant with Jesus without understanding what He expects of us? Look:

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Becoming a Christian involves denying self, taking up our cross and following Christ all of our days. How many of our young people understand this? Entering into a covenant with God because their friends are, because their parents expect it, or for any other reason other than to serve and follow God is not acceptable.

Part of my problem with this mentality is the inconsistencies that go along with it. For example, most churches of Christ (rightly) reject denominational baptism. We will take an individual who had a great deal of Biblical knowledge at the time of their denominational baptism and tell them that they should be immersed again in the proper mode and for the proper reason. I am convinced that we are right to do this based upon Acts 19. We will not consider that person a brother in Christ until they do so. However, we will take a child of 9 or 10 years of age who has no real understanding of what they are doing and baptize them. As they grow older, they will be allowed to serve and lead in the church without any scrutiny of their original commitment. This is inconsistent.

Again, I think there is a solution to this. When we are dealing with the young we need to make sure they understand what they are committing to before we baptize them. We need to make sure that those who want to give themselves to Christ have the knowledge that they need beforehand. I would definitely say that we must err on the side of caution – not refusing baptism because we don’t think that the person lacks the mature knowledge we may possess, or because we think we know the individual’s motives better than they do. This is a difficult subject, and must be handled with extreme caution, but I think we have a great responsibility to our young people in this matter.

Truly Pursue Unity With the Brethren

This last area in which I would like to see change made is perhaps the most difficult. Once division occurs it is often nearly impossible to repair. We often quote Jesus’ prayer for unity:

John 17:  20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;  21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

I am concerned that many, while professing their desire for unity, aren’t truly willing to take the steps to ensure it. Look at what Paul said:

1 Corinthians 8: 13Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

Paul would have preferred giving up meat altogether before he would allow it to cause his brother to stumble. I think this shows us the lengths that we must be willing to go to if we’re going to have the unity Christ prayed for. Occasionally we’re going to have to give something up, usually our pride and self-righteousness, in order to maintain unity.

The division between the so-called “institutional” and “non-institutional” churches of Christ is a blight upon our brotherhood. This division should have never occurred. It is that simple. If a brother feels that the congregation should use its funds to support only Christians, then the rest should bear with him and not ask him to violate his conscience. If a brother is convinced that the church should not eat in the church building, then no one should ask him to do that which he is convinced he shouldn’t through the word of God. Is it not easier to tell the congregation that if they want to give as individuals to orphan homes or Christian schools that they should do so, but the congregation will not be doing it out of the treasury? Is it not easier to just say that the congregation will meet at a home or a restaurant to share a meal? Look how far Paul was willing to go:

Acts 16:  1Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Paul knew that circumcision no longer had anything to do with a person’s relationship with God, but he was willing to have Timothy circumcised in order to avoid confrontation with the Jews. Never mind Paul, look at what Timothy was willing to endure! They did something I would call “drastic”, yet brethren were unwilling to take simple steps years ago to maintain the unity that we are called to.

Look at the results of this division – the denominational world points their fingers and says, “you say you want unity, but you don’t even have unity among yourselves”. Even worse, this has gone from being a matter of opinion in many minds to a matter of salvation. Non-institutional brethren damn their mainstream brethren over the support of orphan’s homes. Mainstream brethren damn their non-institutional brethren for “extremism”. How can unity be achieved when the division has run so deep?

If it could bring about unity I would tear out every kitchen that offended my brothers. I would partake of the Lord’s Supper from only one container if it would bring us together. I would (and do) give personally to orphan homes and Christian schools and allow the treasury of the congregation to be used only for the saints if it would heal wounds. I would make any concession, as long as it didn’t violate the will of God, in order to maintain unity with my brethren. While I could never teach that using multiple containers for the Lord’s Supper, or using the treasury to help non-saints is a matter of salvation, I would bear patiently with my brother who felt strongly about those matters, doing all I could to keep the bond of peace.

Conclusion

I love the church of our Lord because He gave His life for it. I love my brothers and sisters in Christ and I know that we are not perfect. There are things that we could work on, things that we could strive for, to make sure that we are pleasing to God. The things I have written about here are some of my concerns that I felt like sharing with my brethren. If you have thoughts on these issues, I’d like to hear them. If you’ve made it this far, I thank you for your time and apologize for the lengthiness of this post. May God bless you.

Is “Original Sin” a Biblical Doctrine?

One mistake that is commonly made is to assume that all people within a denomination hold to all of the beliefs of that denomination. I am an example of that fallacy. I was raised in the Baptist denomination, yet I never believed the doctrine of original sin. Of all of the denominational doctrines that people will cling to, in spite of the Biblical evidence to the contrary, “original sin” is one of the most baffling to me. “Original sin” (claiming that everyone is born with the sin of Adam upon them) seems to me a toned-down version of Calvin’s total depravity. I like to call original sin “total depravity light” ™. I would like to briefly look at this unbiblical doctrine.

I would like to begin by trying to determine how people think that original sin might be inherited. There are only two possible explanations:

#1. Through the blood. This possible means of transmitting original sin would be physical – in other words, it is somehow genetic and transmitted physically from parent to child. This possibility can be defeated with one word – Jesus. If original sin were transmitted physically, then Jesus, born of woman, would have inherited this sin. We know that Jesus had no sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). Notice that Psalm 51 (a favorite passage for those who teach original sin), if used to teach original sin, states that it comes from the mother. Jesus clearly had an earthly mother who carried Him like our mothers carried us. Sin cannot be transmitted physically, for if it is, then Jesus Himself inherited this sin.

#2. Through the spirit of man. This possible means of inheriting original sin would be spiritual – somehow our souls are created with the stain of Adam’s sin and we have it the moment we are born. Those who would take this position find themselves guilty of attacking the creation of God the Father. Notice:

Ecclesiastes 12:7 then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.

Hebrews 12: 9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?

Our spirits come from God. Shall we say that sinless God Almighty is guilty of creating sin? 1 John 1:5 says that in God there is no darkness. If He attaches sin to the spirit He gives us, certainly there IS darkness in Him. This notion besmirches the very character of our Creator.

If original sin were true, then it must be transmitted either physically or spiritually and neither option is viable in light of the scriptures.

I don’t think it would be fair to simply dismiss this doctrine and say that there are no verses that might be misinterpreted to substantiate it. Let us look briefly at a few “proof texts” used to back up this teaching.

Psalm 58: 3The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

To ignore the poetic language of this Psalm is dangerous, and really makes no sense. Many will point out that the wicked go astray as soon as they are born, yet ignore the impossibility of a newborn “speaking lies”. If this verse is to be taken literally, then what literal poison (like that of a poisonous snake) do they possess, as the next verse would indicate? Also, if this verse is to be taken literally, then what do we make of this verse:

Job 31:18 For from my youth he was brought up with me, as with a father, and I have guided her from my mother’s womb

Was Job literally caring for widows from his birth, or is this poetic language? Why would Psalm 58:3 be literal and Job 31:18 be figurative? This is a glaring inconsistency.

The Bible tells us elsewhere that, while we may become evil at an early age, it takes a period of learning the difference between good and evil before one is truly wicked in the eyes of God:

Isaiah 7: 15Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

The apostle Paul wrote of a time when he was “alive without the law” (Romans 7:9). When, other than his childhood, could this have been? Since the garden of Eden there has been law – Patriarchal, Mosaic and the law of Christ. You cannot find any period in the Bible in which God had no law for man. How then could Paul have been alive without the law? I see no other good explanation than the fact that the law (of Moses) was not over him until he was old enough to understand it. This goes back to Isaiah 7: 15-16.

Perhaps the greatest verse used to support the doctrine of original sin is Romans 3:23:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

There it is – all have sinned. Does this verse have no qualifiers? Does “all” simply mean “all”? Let us look just two chapters over in the book of Romans (chapter 5):

18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Did this free gift (salvation) come upon all men, or must we qualify this statement based upon the whole of scripture? Does “all” mean “all” here? I think we are forced by the whole of scriptures to conclude that “all” who receive the free gift are those that obey Christ. We must also conclude that the “all” who have sinned are those that have reached the age where they understand good and evil.

Closing Thoughts

I guess one of the strangest things about the doctrine of original sin is the way it is applied by many who teach it. I have read Methodists and Pentecostals (and others) say that while we inherit original sin, it is not imputed to us until we reach an age where we can cognitively be held accountable for it. In other words, you have this sin, but God doesn’t hold it against you until you reach an age of accountability. I guess those who follow Calvin over Christ are at least consistent when they assert that non-elect babies will be held accountable for, and condemned for, original sin. What sense does it make to claim a person has sins, but won’t be held accountable for them? Does it not make more sense to simply acknowledge that we are without sin until we are able to know the difference between good and evil as the scriptures teach? Look:

Ezekiel 18:  20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Your wickedness or righteousness is determined by you and your relationship with God. I don’t bear the sins of my father Adam – his sins are his, mine are mine. The doctrine of original sin is in complete contradiction with Ezekiel 18:20.

Perhaps there is no passage that shows us any more clearly that children do not inherit sin than Matthew 19:14:

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Are we to believe that the kingdom of heaven is comprised of totally depraved souls, or those that have inherited sin in some fashion? Children are born without sin. To be certain, once we have reached the age where we understand what God wants from us (and that age will differ from person to person) then we will sin, thus making Romans 3:23 universally true. Until that time, we are “alive without law”, bearing no sin of our own, and certainly not the sin of Adam.

How Does God Answer Our Prayers?

Prayer is one of the greatest blessings that God has given us. It is so important that the apostle Paul wrote that we should pray “without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17). This is clearly an exaggeration to show us how much time should be spent in prayer. While prayer is such a wonderful part of the Christian’s life, I think that there are misconceptions about prayer that need to be addressed. I have publicly taught the things in this article and had them met with resistance even from my own brethren. While I understand why some would disagree, the whole of scriptures must be taken into view on all subjects – prayer included.

Many people seem to view God as a type of Santa Claus – just ask Him for whatever you want and you’ll get it. Because so many people believe and teach this falsehood comedian George Carlin said that he prays to the sun and gets the same results as when he prayed to God. This belief probably comes from a misunderstanding of John 14:13, “And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”

To simply take this verse and run with it, you might conclude that whatever you ask of God will be granted, but this ignores many other passages. While much time could be devoted to the many misconceptions about prayer, allow me to move on to the issue I wish to expand upon.

The real issue that I wish to deal with is whether or not our prayers change the mind of God. For example, your friend has been diagnosed with cancer. If you pray for this friend, will God heal them of their disease? The thing that is so often overlooked when we discuss prayer is the foreknowledge of God. Consider Isaiah 46: 9: Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10: Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure”

There are many other passages that could be given to show that God knows all things before they ever happen. Since most people already believe in the foreknowledge of God, I don’t think it is necessary to list many other passages to confirm that which we are probably in agreement on.

Now we must ask the question – if God already knows what He is going to do, or allow to happen, what is the purpose of praying for a change in someone’s health, our personal troubles, etc.? What would be accomplished by prayer if the outcome is already known by God?

I think that part of the problem comes from a lack of appreciation of what we’ve been given through prayer. Picture this – President Elect Obama invites you to visit with him. He wants your opinion on what direction the country should take. You are given personal, one-on-one time with the President of the United States. Even if he chooses not to pursue your suggestions you would probably tell everyone about the time you got to sit down with the President and tell him what you’d like to see happen. Friends, the President of the United States is just a man and most of us will never gain personal access to him. We are given unlimited access to the one, true, living God! If we do His will, his ears are open to our prayers (1 Peter 3:12). Why don’t we appreciate this like we should? Shouldn’t we have a sense of awe that, even if our petitions are not granted, that we are given the opportunity to speak to the Creator of the universe?

Consider this – if God does not know what He will do until we ask something of Him, then He does not possess true foreknowledge. If God literally changes His mind based upon our requests then He has no real plan – He would be tossed to and fro by the wants of mankind. Some people will point to the conversation between Abraham and God regarding Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18: 20-33) as an example of God changing His mind (and there are other examples that could be cited).

We must ask – did God truly change His mind because of Abraham’s petitions? Again, if God did change His mind, then He had no clue as to what He would really do. I submit to you that this is anthropomorphism – deity being represented as having the traits of man in order to deal with man. This exchange shows the great mercy of God – if only 10 good souls were found God wouldn’t have destroyed those wicked cities. We must understand the implications of our beliefs. If we believe that God’s mind has even been truly changed (as men change their minds), then He does not possess the foreknowledge that He has stated He has. If He does not possess foreknowledge then He is a liar and all that we read of in scriptures cannot be trusted.

To fully understand how God answers prayer, let us look at two great examples:

2 Corinthians 12: 7Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me–to keep me from exalting myself!

8Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me.

9And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness ” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

Here we see the apostle Paul, who probably did more for the cause of Christ than anyone in history. Three times he prayed for his physical ailment to be removed, yet this request was not granted him. And why? Because God’s power is perfected in weakness. Simply put, it was not the will of God that Paul’s problem would be removed. This is not even the best example! Look:

Mark 14:36 And He was saying, ” Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.”

Like Paul after Him, Jesus prayed three times that the suffering of the cross might be avoided. Just like Paul, this request was denied. These examples shatter the notion that any request will be granted. The prayer of the Son of God was denied, so we must realize that our prayers will also be denied from time to time.

It is in Jesus’ prayer above that I think we can see the true aim of prayer – to speak with God in order to bend our will to His. We must get to the point where we can always say, “not what I will, but what You will”. If we can get to that point we can say that we are like our Savior in our prayers. We acknowledge that the important thing is that the will of the Lord be done. Our focus shouldn’t be getting the things that we want, but that we have the strength to accept what God has decided should be done.

To be certain, even though He already knows what we want, God wants us to ask Him for these things. Let us make sure that our motives are pure when we ask things of God that we might receive them (James 4:3). Let us not be selfish in our requests, and let us pray that we might be able to accept whatever His will may prove to be. I think this is the true goal of our prayers.

Why Do They Bother?

I know how hard it can be to find things to watch on television that are appropriate for Christians.  The National Geographic channel, and some other channels, often offer programs that appear (simply by their title) to be interesting viewing for the Christian.  I’ve seen titles like “The Early Years of Jesus”, “Decoding Exodus” and the like.  What most of these programs amount to is pure blasphemy.

Most of the people who they interview for these programs are seated in what appears to be a church building (with obligatory stained-glass windows in the background).  They are people with educations from notable universities.  They often have impressive sounding titles following their names like “doctor of divinity”.  To quote Gary McDade, I’ve never know God to be sick and in need of a doctor.  What this amounts to is trying to so impress you with the education of the speaker that you must take their word for whatever they say.  After all, they’re clearly smarter than us, right?  This is the same type of intellectual bullying that goes on in college campuses accross the nation.

I actually watched part of a program I think was titled “Decoding Exodus”.  This program sought to scientifically explain the miraculous events of the book of Exodus.  I was left wondering, “why bother?”  It makes no sense to me to say, “okay, these things happened, so let’s try to take God out of it and explain how these things could have happened without divine intervention”.  Does it not make more sense to simply say, “this is just a fairy tale.  None of these things actually happened”?  I watched supposedly educated individuals trying to explain how natural events could have caused the Red Sea to part, allowing the Israelites to cross.  Isn’t it amazing that this natural phenomenon occurred precisely when hundreds of thousands of individuals needed to cross?  Isn’t it equally amazing that this natural phenomenon would stop the moment that Pharaoh’s army tried to pursue them?  Again I ask, why bother?

I recently flipped over to a program I believe was titled “Jesus the Preacher”.  It took roughly 20 seconds of viewing before someone attacked the Biblical record.  The man who was speaking said that the Sermon on the Mount wasn’t really one sermon, but a collection of sayings of Jesus that Matthew assembled to parallel Moses on Mt. Sinai.  Why bother?  If this person is correct, then Matthew is a liar.  If he was a liar, then why believe that Jesus ever spoke any of these words?  The New Testament is often the realization of the shadows of the Old Testament.  So many things we read of in the New Testament find paralells in the Old.  The book of Hebrews demonstates this over and over again.  Why is this so hard to accept?

Perhaps the best example of the agenda of the people who make these programs is seen in the special on the so-called “Gospel of Judas”.  This false gospel proclaims Judas as the most favored among the disciples, a hero even.  The easiest way of determining the inspiration of a writing is to compare it to the other writings.  These folks would have you disregard the fact that all of the other gospel writers refer to Judas Iscariot as a traitor.  Nevermind Acts 1:25 which says, “…to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place”.  Again, if the Gospel of Judas is true, then the other gospel accounts and Acts cannot be trusted.  If they cannot be trusted, then why not just dismiss it all as the imaginations of men?  Isn’t that what many atheists do anyway?

2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”.  Literally, all scripture is God-breathed.  Who shall we believe, the musings of modern intellectuals or the word of God?  When we examine these programs we see a clear-cut agenda – to destroy belief in the inspiration of the Bible.  If the Bible isn’t inspired then what we have is no more than a book of good teachings.  If you like them, follow them.  If you don’t like them, don’t follow them.  Pick and choose as you see fit.  By adopting this philosophy Christians can be coerced to abandon the moral absolutes found in God’s word.

There are many vile things on television but I find these programs among the worst.  At least most shows will come right out and be upfront about their agendas (”gay” rights, feminism, etc.).  A show filled with profanity and overt sexuality isn’t masquerading as beneficial to your spirituality.  That is exactly what the shows I’m talking about do – they purport to give the Christian valuable information and insight into God’s word, yet all they do is discount it or try to explain away the wonderous things God has done.  I don’t know why they bother, but I doubt these types of shows will disappear anytime soon.  I would encourage everyone to avoid them.
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path (Psalm 119:105).  Allow the word of God to be your guiding light, not the words of mere men.

A Note About Comments On This Blog

I just wanted to let any of my readers/regular commentors know that I’ve made some changes to the comments system of this blog.

From now on all comments will have to be approved by me before they show up.  I know that this will somewhat stifle the free-flow of conversation, but I’m willing to deal with that.  I have repeatedly tried to explain that this blog is not designed to be a place of contentions, bickering and the like.  If that is what you want, I trust that you know of other places where that is acceptable, and you can go there to do that.

I am willing to answer questions and engage in meaningful dialogue.  I am not willing to debate every minute point for days on end.  I have too much going on these days to deal with what amounts to foolishness.  I am not angry with anyone, I just don’t have the time to deal with that kind of stuff, nor do I have the inclination to do so any longer.  I write these articles to try and help people and to strengthen my brethren.  I don’t want the message of the articles to be lost on a new reader as the discussion following the article devolves into childish arguing.

Some things to keep in mind – if you disagree with something I’ve said, but are certain that your mind will not be changed, then just move along.  There is no need to start a fruitless argument here.

Little “one-liners” as comments will not be approved.  I recently deleted 3 comments that were basically saying “I know you are but what am I?”.  That kind of comment will not be allowed.

Asking questions is encouraged here.  That said, if you refuse to acknowledge the answers and essentially spam me with an endless barage of questions, jumping from topic to topic, your comments will not be allowed.

Long, rambling, incoherent posts will not be allowed.  The only person allowed to bloviate here is me.

I hope that everyone will understand and respect these limits on discussion.  If things improve, perhaps I will go back to allowing all comments through without moderation.  For now, it appears to be a necessary change.

Corey

When That Which Is Perfect Comes…A Study of 1 Corinthians 13:10

In 1 Corinthians chapter 12 the apostle Paul writes about miraculous spiritual gifts. In chapter 13 he speaks about the duration of those gifts and says:

10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

In other words, when “the perfect” comes, or “that which is perfect” (KJV) comes, the miraculous gifts will cease. The first time I read that verse I thought it referred to what many of you probably think it refers to – Jesus. I took it to read as, “but when Jesus comes, the miraculous spiritual gifts will cease”. I now understand my original interpretation to be incorrect, and I would like to explain why “that which is perfect” cannot refer to Jesus.

First, post-incarnate Jesus is never referred to as an object (“that”). He is referred to by name or by Lord, Christ, savior, etc. Whatever “that” which is perfect is, it is not an individual, and certainly not Jesus.

Second, the word “perfect” here does not mean “sinless” like Jesus is sinless. Let me show you 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in the King James version:

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 perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Now look at the same verses in the New American Standard version:

16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The word that is often translated as “perfect” in the King James Version is usually translated as “adequate” or “complete” in most modern translations. When we think of a person being perfect (as we use that word) we know that only Jesus was perfect in that sense. We are commanded to be perfect (2 Cor. 13:11) in that we are to be complete, but if we say that we are perfect like Jesus (sinless) we lie (1 John 1:10). Perhaps if most translations used the phrase “that which is complete” instead of “that which is perfect” we wouldn’t automatically assume that this refers to Jesus.

The third reason that this cannot refer to Jesus is perhaps the most clear-cut and convincing reason. Hear Paul:

1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

When that which is perfect (complete) has come the spiritual gifts will cease, but faith, hope and love will remain. Now read what Paul says about hope:

Romans 8:24-25 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

Paul says that we don’t hope for what we already see. A married man doesn’t hope for a wife – he already has one. As Christians we hope for Jesus’ return and entrance into Heaven. When he returns we will not hope for these things, they will be in our grasp! There will be nothing left to hope for since all of the Christian’s hopes will be realized.

Because of these three points we see that “that which is perfect” cannot refer to the Lord and His second coming. So, what does it refer to? I am convinced that this most likely refers to the completion of the New Testament canon. Why do I say that? Because the very things Paul had been discussing (miraculous spiritual gifts) were used to confirm the word (Mark 16:20, Heb. 2:3-4). Since we now have the word, why would miraculous gifts be needed to confirm that which we already have?  If hope remains when the miraculous gifts cease, then we can know that the age of miraculous gifts was to end before the return of Christ.

While this is an interesting, and sometimes confusing, passage of scripture, we can be certain that “that which is perfect” does not refer to the Lord and His second coming.

Greet One Another With a Holy Kiss?

In four different verses the apostle Paul admonishes his readers to “greet one another with a holy kiss”. The subject of the “holy kiss” usually comes up at two times; when one is attempting to show that the name “churches of Christ” is a scriptural name for the church, and when someone is trying to point out something that those bearing that name today supposedly don’t do. The verses where the phrase “holy kiss” appears are Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12 and 1 Thessalonians 5:6. Let me post Romans 16:16 for you:

Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.

So the question we now ask is, “what is this holy kiss”? There can only be two possibilities as far as I can tell:

1. It is a special kind of kiss that we are commanded to give one another
2. It is Paul telling us the manner in which we are to greet one another (in a holy fashion)

Let us begin with the first possibility. There are some, such as the Eastern Orthodox church, that believe this to be a special type of kiss. However, if this is true, where is our scriptural explanation for such? Is this kiss to be on the cheek or on the lips? If this is indeed a specific commandment of God that endangers our souls when we don’t follow it, why are there no instructions on how to perform such an act? It is equally interesting that most who accuse the churches of Christ of failing to follow this supposed “commandment” do not practice it.

Since there are no instructions for, or explanation of, the “holy kiss” in scriptures the second possibility becomes the more likely explanation.

We know that greeting one another with a kiss would have been the social norm for those congregations that Paul wrote to. Wikipedia says:

Superficially, there was nothing new in the practice of Christians greeting one another with a kiss: cheek kissing was the normal way that men in the ancient western Mediterranean would greet one another.

In other words, those who first read the letters of Paul wouldn’t think that he was introducing a new method of greeting; rather it was a specific manner that he referred to. The practice of greeting people with a kiss is still the norm in many of these locations.

Let me draw a parallel for you – look at 1 Timothy 2:8:

8Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.

Now, if a holy kiss is a specific type of kiss, would it not stand to reason that “holy hands” are a specific type of hands? Anyone know where I might purchase a pair of holy hands? All jesting aside, most people understand that “holy hands” are not a special type of hands. There are Old Testament scriptures that can help us understand what Paul meant by “lifting up holy hands”:

Psalm 141: 2May my prayer be counted as incense before You; The lifting up of my hands as the evening offering.

Nehemiah 8:  6Then Ezra blessed the LORD the great God. And all the people answered, “Amen, Amen!” while lifting up their hands; then they bowed low and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

Lamentations 3:  41We lift up our heart and hands Toward God in heaven;

There are many scriptural postures for prayer, including standing, with knees bowed, with eyes lifted to Heaven, flat on the ground, etc. It would be impossible to do them all at once. To insist upon a specific posture is to ignore the point – to acknowledge that we are speaking to the Creator of all, which is a privilege that is amazing to ponder.

This same principle applies to the “holy kiss”. Paul is instructing us to greet one another in a holy manner, recognizing that the one we greet is a fellow laborer in the kingdom of God. Do we transgress this instruction by offering a handshake or a hug? Not at all. Do we transgress this instruction by not having the proper attitude toward our brothers and sisters in Christ? Absolutely. I think the apostle Peter shows us that it is the manner of greeting, not the method, that matters:

1 Peter 5: 14Greet one another with a kiss of love Peace be to you all who are in Christ.

For those of us that seek to please God, Paul’s instruction to greet one another with a holy kiss stands as example of the manner in which we should always receive our brethren. For those that wish to argue endlessly (over a practice they don’t observe themselves), the holy kiss will remain an area of contention that it need not be.