One Church—A Thing Hard to Accept

Many older Americans alive today can remember years ago when O. J. Simpson was arrested and put on trial for the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.  I remember a comment I heard on TV at the time that simply astounded me.  One lady that was being interviewed, for what reason I no longer recall, made the comment that if she had seen O. J. commit the murder with her own eyes she would not believe it.  I guess her idea was that she could not trust herself, she would have to be hallucinating, her mind would have to be playing tricks on her.  Assuredly, her mind was made up on the subject and any truth brought to bear upon it contrary to what she wanted truth to be would bounce off it like a rubber ball dropped on a hardwood floor.  Truth to her was what she already believed, what she wanted the truth to be, and do not bother me with any contrary facts even if they exist.  I will not believe them.

Is it any wonder people cannot or will not accept truth in religion?  Is it any wonder they will not accept clear statements made in scripture on various subjects?  There was a time in my life when I was yet relatively young and naive that I thought if a person was in error as it related to a religious matter correcting him or her would be as easy as going to the Bible and finding the book, chapter, and verse that told them the truth.  I learned over time that the real problem is not a matter of the mind but one of the heart and thus much more difficult to deal with. 

The kind of people I am talking about will not be convinced of the truth no matter how many scriptures you show them.  They would flunk out of a high school or college class for they will not accept factual statements or any kind of sound reasoning.  Show them a passage like Acts 2:38 on baptism for the remission of sins (add to that Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21) and they will say the text cannot mean what it says, that would be impossible from their point of view, for like the lady with O.J. it simply cannot be so.  It cannot be so for the heart has already made up its mind and evidence will not change it.  That was the way it was with Jesus' miracles, even his resurrection did not convince those who had already made up their mind that he could not be the Son of God (Matt. 28:11-14).  

In his last recorded meeting with the Jews in Rome during his imprisonment there Paul made this charge against the Jews, not all but some:

“So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: ‘The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, 'Go to this people and say: "Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown dull.  Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them.”  Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!’ ” (Acts 28:25-28 NKJV) 

Who had closed the eyes of these Jews who would not see?  Had God done it?  The text says "their eyes they have closed."  Why would a person do that?  Could it be they did not want to see?  Could it be they did not want to know?  Well, why would a person not want to see or not want to know?  Could it be because he or she was happy and satisfied with where they were at and had no desire to change, did not want change?

But this was not the first time the Jews had done such a thing.  Zechariah in talking about the Jews before the Babylonian captivity said of them, "They refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear.  Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit." (Zech. 7:11-12 NKJV)  It was not a matter of they couldn't hear but rather that they wouldn't hear. 

When Paul says the Gentiles "will hear it" (the reference being to the gospel) it is the same as saying to those Jews to whom he was speaking in Rome "you won't hear but they will."  Both could have heard.  The only difference between the two parties was the heart.  The Jewish heart had grown dull.  The New Living Translation uses the word "hardened" rather than the phrase "grown dull."  The Jewish heart had been hardened but it was of their own doing, of their own will.  Man hardens his own heart and we are warned against doing that, "Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." (Heb. 3:15 NKJV)  The Jewish heart was that way because they were happy with their present state of affairs, their present state of being, and hardened against any disruption of what was satisfying to them.  It is hard to get a satisfied person to change. 

One also must remember that the human mind, one’s thinking, is influenced strongly by the emotions and will of man.  The heart the Bible speaks of consists of a man's mind, emotions, conscience, and will collectively (depending on the context).  It is hard for the mind to overcome the emotions.  Many marriages that have failed would never have been made in the first place had the mind ruled over the emotions and will.  Many have been able to see a failed marriage before the ceremony but the bride or groom couldn't see it for the emotions overrode rational thought and the will was strong.  The eyes were deliberately closed.   

This brings me to what I really want to talk about it.  I have recently taken an interest in reading books on the history of Christianity from the first century up to the present.  The most recent book I have completed on the subject was a book by Stephen Tomkins who has a Ph.D. in church history from the London School of Theology.  In his book entitled A Short History of Christianity, copyrighted in 2005, he states on page 245 that "there are 34,000 Christian denominations worldwide."  In doing a little Internet search on the subject of numbers I came up with an even greater number—38,000.  The number you come up with will vary due to the criteria you use to distinguish one denomination from another.

Why is it and how is it that when Jesus said "I will build my church" (singular, Matt. 16:18) and when Paul speaking by the Holy Spirit says "there is one body" (Eph. 4:4 NKJV) and has told us in two different places that the church is the body of Christ (see Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18) that men seem to think that one is equivalent to thirty some thousand?

How is it we have here in the Bible a plain statement of scripture as plain as anything Paul spoke to the Jews in centuries gone by and yet the eyes are closed today and the ears are hard of hearing and the hearts are grown dull so the plain statement of scripture cannot be understood and all mathematical laws are thrown out the window so that one is no longer equal to one but to thirty some thousand?  Yet, we think we are better than the Jews of old.  We think we are more rational.

Yes, I know the argument that all the thirty-some thousand different denominations make up the one church.  Where do you read that in your Bible?  What book is that in, what chapter, what verse or verses?  It is not in the parable of the vine and the branches as is sometimes said.  That parable is found in John 15.  Jesus was talking to individual disciples not denominations.  There was not a denomination on the face of the earth at that time.  When Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches" (John 15:5 NKJV) he was not speaking to a phantom that did not exist.

If it be said that the disciples Jesus spoke to at that time were representative of all future believers even though they are scattered throughout all the denominations I deny it.  Why?  Because the disciples Jesus spoke to on that occasion were the 12 apostles and the occasion was the Last Supper (compare Mark 14:17-18 with John 13:1-18:3).  Were the apostles divided in doctrine like the denominations?  It is the disciples united in doctrine, not divided, who are the branches in that account.  It is disciples who are in full fellowship with one another who are the branches, disciples who are unified, not divided.

The one church has one doctrine, not thirty-some thousand different doctrines.  When John, Peter, or Paul, or any of the apostles went anywhere preaching one did not contradict what the other one taught for every one of them was guided in his speech by the Holy Spirit (see Matt. 10:19-20, John 14:16-17, 26, 16:13, Gal. 1:11-12, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Cor. 7:40, etc.).  The idea that we have thirty-some thousand faithful denominations all chockfull of saved Christians is the thinking of hearts that have been hardened to the point they can no longer reason rationally.

If denomination A believes one thing, denomination B believes another, and denomination C believes something else and yet I have concluded that a man can be saved in any denomination then the reality is truth no longer matters.  Error is as good as truth for one will be saved either way—by believing and obeying truth or believing and obeying error.  Hardened hearts no longer think rationally.

It is sometimes said that all that really matters is that one believe in Jesus.  That sounds good until you ask people to define what that means.  What does it mean to believe in Jesus?  Does it just mean that all one must do is believe with the mind that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?  That was the confession Peter made in Matt. 16:16 and Jesus said that he would build his church on that rock.  Are all such believers then in the "one church" Jesus built?

If so what do you do with a passage like John 12:42 where John says, "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue"? (NKJV)  Granted this was before the one church was established on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 but just for the sake of our discussion let us say we have a similar group of men or the same group of men do the same thing after Pentecost.  What then?  They are believers that Christ is the Son of God.  Is that all that matters?  Are they then in the "one church?"  Are they saved?  The failure to confess Jesus is the same as denying him.

I think you can see you have to be very careful in defining what it means to believe in Jesus when you talk about saving faith or belief.  When you begin to define saving faith in stricter terms than just an intellectual faith then you are putting yourself into a position where you are saying that doctrine does make a difference after all and if doctrine does make a difference then you do not and cannot have thirty-some thousand denominations with different doctrines making up the "one church."  The one church most of the denominational world today believes in cannot exist if doctrine matters.  

The same process, for want of a better word, that makes one a Christian also adds him to the one church Jesus built.  God adds you when you obey the gospel.  The Bible says, "The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV)

Well, who was being saved?  In Acts 2 in the verses prior to verse 47 (just quoted) we have Peter preaching the first gospel sermon ever to be preached.  It was the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit that had been promised to the twelve (Acts 1:1-5) had arrived, and Peter via the Holy Spirit preached the first gospel sermon ever to be preached by man in which by belief and obedience to it men were saved and added to the one church of which Jesus is the Savior (Eph. 5:23).  Added by the Lord.

What did Peter preach?  He preached Jesus concluding that part of his sermon with the words "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36 NKJV)  Based on the next verse, verse 37, it is clear men were brought to faith in Christ by what Peter had preached.  Did Peter then tell them their sins had been forgiven and to go on home and henceforth remain faithful?  Had he told them that we could safely conclude the Lord had added them to the one church and that an intellectual faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord and Savior, is all that is required for salvation.  If that is what had happened then the idea that all who believe in Jesus no matter what denomination they are in are in the one church and are saved would be a truthful doctrine but that is not what happened.  He next tells them to "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

Here is the point where men who claim to believe in Jesus get their back up and refuse to believe Jesus' words (John 16:13-14) spoken via the Holy Spirit through Peter.  So you have a situation where men supposedly believe in Jesus but won't believe what he says.  That is why I said earlier you have to be very careful about how you define "belief in Jesus."  There is such a thing as belief in Jesus that does not save (see John 12:42 again as just one example).  No one wants that kind of faith.  We are interested in saving faith, in the faith where the Lord adds us to his one church because of our faith.

Men will generally accept what Peter said about repentance as essential for their salvation but not baptism and that despite as plain a statement as one can find in scripture on any subject.  You can point them to other scriptures that say the exact same thing as what Peter said in Acts 2 (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Mark 16:16) but a thousand plain scriptures on the subject will not change their minds.  They have closed their eyes and hardened their hearts.  It will take far more than a few passages on baptism or a few passages on the one church to get them to believe either.  They will only believe "one church" if the number one can somehow be made the equivalent of thirty-some thousand.

I would like to ask a question.  Sometimes we cannot wrap our minds around concepts because the concepts are too big for our finite minds to comprehend and when that happens our defensive mechanism is to cast thoughts about such matters aside.  Here are some examples:  the universe, distances in space, the national debt, our own death, hell, eternity, etc.  These are some things that are hard to grasp hold of.  These are the kinds of things our minds do not dwell on long because they overwhelm the mind.

Now to my question.  Which concept is the hardest for the mind to believe, that there are 30,000 plus churches all of them right and in which any person can be saved in any one of them even though none agree and all teach different doctrines or on the other hand that there is only one church?  I grant you both concepts are kind of mind-boggling.  It is hard to believe there is only one church when the world has such a diversity of churches but is it any harder to believe that than to believe there are 30,000 plus churches all teaching different doctrines and yet it doesn't matter in the least to God and you can be saved in any one of them?  Which is the most outlandish belief?

The Bible does not teach what denominationalism teaches on the subject of the one church.  I include Catholicism as just another denomination.  It is true in the New Testament many of the congregations were not what they ought to be (check out the 7 churches of Asia for both the good and the bad).  But, this much they all had in common, in every congregation the membership had obeyed the gospel Jesus taught via the Holy Spirit through Peter (on the Day of Pentecost) or through the other apostles and inspired teachers and prophets and were thus made up of people who were a part of the one church Jesus built.   That is simply not true of modern-day denominationalism.

The doctrine taught by the apostles and inspired prophets and evangelists was a unified doctrine.  Every congregation was to abide in it.  There was no such thing as every man having a church of his choice each differing in doctrine.  It is not man's choice to make when it comes to the church.  It is God's choice and he has said there is but one church.  If that church is not found in your community why not restore it?  You will find the pattern for it in the pages of your New Testament, not in a book on the history of Christianity which is more the history of apostasy than of New Testament Christianity.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

  

Abuse Of The Old Testament

There are many things practiced in the name of Christianity today that have no scriptural basis in the law of Christ, in the new covenant.  The Old Testament, the old covenant, at times is appealed to as the source of authority.  Does the Old Testament have the same authority for Christians today as the New Testament?  How should Christians today relate to and handle the Old Testament scriptures?  These are questions we all ought to be interested in for we are saved by truth, not error. 

God has commanded us to rightly divide the truth (2 Tim. 2:15) and Peter says that the scriptures can be twisted to our own destruction (2 Peter 3:16) thus we must be careful and not make assumptions or just give our opinion.  We can only rightly divide the word of truth by following what God has said about how to do that.  Only then are we on safe ground. 

That the Old Testament scriptures have value for us today there can be no doubt for Paul says, "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." (Rom.15:4 NAS)  We thus learn that we can receive instruction from the Old Testament scriptures and encouragement that combined with perseverance gives us hope. 

No better example can be given than what James said in illustrating this point.  He says, "Behold, we count those blessed who endured.  You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord's dealings that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful." (James 5:11 NAS) 

Hebrews chapter 11 is another good illustration.  We are taught by the examples of Old Testament characters what faith is and what it means to have faith.  We are encouraged to persevere as we see what some of those men and women were willing to do and endure to be faithful to God.  We compare our trials with theirs and ours seem but little things and we are given the strength to go on and not give up.  The Bible speaks of these as being those "of whom the world was not worthy." (Heb. 11:38 NKJV) 

We are told to remember Lot's wife (Luke 17:32), told in so many words that we ought to learn from the fact that "anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses" (Heb. 10:28 NKJV) and consider that in relation to our treatment of the Son of God (Heb. 10:29) where the punishment will be worse.  This list could be extended but the point has been adequately made that there is much to learn from the Old Testament as the New Testament reveals lesson after lesson we ought to learn from the more distant past. 

Furthermore, much of what we learn about God, who he is, his character, his attributes, his expectations for man, and his purposes are found in the Old Testament.  We find in the Old Testament the history of man.  We find the history of God's chosen people.  We see his eternal purpose set forth both in historical development and in prophecy. 

And then there is the book of Psalms.  Who is there among God's people who have not gone to the book of Psalms time and again to find comfort and hope, especially in times of sadness and sorrow? 

Want to learn how to pray?  Read David in the Psalms to see prayer from the heart.  Learn how to praise God in prayer and how to petition him for his blessings.  Learn how to thank God.  All of this can be learned by close attention in reading the Psalms. 

Need wisdom?  Go to the book of Proverbs.  Many, many New Testaments that one can buy also include as an addition the books of Psalms and Proverbs.  They are books that are often consulted by men today and rightly so. 

I have said many good and true things in praise of the Old Testament scriptures.  I believe everything I have said has been scriptural and so much so that I do not believe anyone who calls himself a Christian would disagree with me to this point. 

However, we have now come to the time where we need to divide the word—the old from the new--and make a distinction.  The Bible is very clear that the Old Testament is not meant for us today as law.  We readily see this when it comes to animal sacrifices but we too often want to bring in from the Old Testament other things that should have been left there as well. 

The Hebrew writer says, "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." (Heb. 7:12 NKJV)  Read in context the argument has been that Jesus is now our high priest and he is not of the tribe of Levi as were all the priests under the old Law of Moses.  Jesus was of the tribe of Judah. 

But our point is that the inspired writer tells us as clearly as words can make it that the law has changed.  There is now a new law.  The Law of Moses is gone, fulfilled, completed, and is now history.  There is now a new law, the law of Christ.  In Gal. 6:2 Paul says, "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (NKJV) 

Everyone readily admits that Jesus gave man commandments to obey.  A commandment is nothing other than a law to be obeyed.  Disobey a law of God and you sin.  As the old King James translation puts it in 1 John 3:4, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law:  for sin is the transgression of the law."  In our day the law that is transgressed bringing sin is the law of Christ, not the Law of Moses. 

Hear God the Father speak from heaven on the Mount of Transfiguration when Peter wanted to make 3 tabernacles, one each for Moses, Elijah, and Christ.  "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.  Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5 NKJV)  Christ was not to be put on an equal plain with Moses and/or Elijah.  Neither was to be heard any longer as present-day authorities.  Henceforth Christ was the one to be heard and followed. 

In Hebrews 3 the Hebrew writer has been talking about Moses and Christ and how Christ is superior to Moses and then in verses 7 and 8 says, "Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says:  'Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts." (NKJV)  The day of hearing Moses is over as regards law to be followed.  Hear the voice of Christ which is the voice of God.  Hear it today.  Jesus says, "the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." (John 14:24 NKJV) 

Paul says of himself in Gal. 2:19, "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God." (NKJV)  He goes on to say "if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." (Gal 2:21 NKJV)  And in Rom. 7:4 "Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead." (NKJV)  The law referred to in these passages is the Law of Moses. 

And, then, in Gal. 3:24-25 he makes it clear enough that an older elementary school student ought to be able to easily understand it.  He says, "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." (NKJV)  The law (the Law of Moses) was our tutor; we are no longer under a tutor, thus no longer under the law.  (For that matter the Gentiles were never given the law anyway nor were they under it.  The law was for God's chosen people, the Jewish nation.) 

Part of the problem the Galatians were having was that they wanted at the very least an admixture of the old Law of Moses with Christ.  Paul called it a perversion of the gospel of Christ in chapter 1 verse 7.  Some were going so far as to want to go back to the Law of Moses for Paul says, "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law." (Gal. 4:21 NKJV)  The desire was wrong.  Remember, God said this is my beloved son, hear him, him not Moses (the Law of Moses). 

Paul goes so far as to say that being under the works of the law (reference to the Law of Moses) is a curse.  "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." (Gal. 3:10 NKJV)  He says, "Do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." (Gal. 5:1 NKJV) 

I could go on and on with proof texts for the book of Galatians and the book of Hebrews both deal extensively about the change of the law telling us clearly that we are not under the Law of Moses today.  The book of Romans also gives us much the same.  But, my main interest is making an application as to how all of this affects us today as Christians and believers. 

The idea seems to be prevalent today that the Old Testament gives us authority to worship in ways we please if we can find an example for our practice in the Old Testament.  But, does it? 

Paul says of certain Galatians, Gal. 5:4 (NKJV), "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."  They wanted to bring over into Christianity circumcision, a requirement under the old covenant.  "Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.  And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law." (Gal. 5:2-3 NKJV) 

The only way these people could justify themselves, even in their own eyes, was by an appeal to the Old Testament scriptures, justification by Old Testament law.  It won't work.  Why not?  Because it is not a part of the law of Christ, not a part of the new covenant.  We do not have a problem with the issue of circumcision today but we often seek to do what that group did, the group who wanted it.  We attempt to justify our practice that cannot be found in the law of Christ, the New Testament, by an appeal to the Old Testament. 

We are given a choice of whose law and authority we will live by.  Will it be Moses' law or Christ's law?  We cannot mix them.  What Christ wanted from the old law to be observed today he brought with him and had it recorded in the pages of the New Testament.  We can go back to Moses or we can move forward to Christ.  That is our choice. 

There are things that seem so right to a man, how can they be wrong?  The writer of Proverbs says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death." (Prov. 16:25 NKJV)  God speaking in Isaiah 55:8-9 (NKJV) says, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord.  'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.'"  We greatly error when we think that because a thing pleases us it is automatically going to please God. 

We also ought to learn from this that we ought not to just accept without question the things that have been handed down to us from men who lived in the past but whose teachings have come to be accepted as a sort of a standard--it doesn't matter whether the man was Calvin, Luther, or the Pope, or whomever it might be.  Isaiah said in Isa. 2:22 (ESV), "Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?"  Good question.  I think Isaiah answered his own question, did he not? 

Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10 "offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them" (verse 1) and the Bible says "so fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD." (Lev. 10:2 NKJV)  They had no authority from God to use profane fire or as some versions put it "strange fire." (NAS)  

What is the application?  To Nadab and Abihu worship was worship as long as it was directed to God and meant for his praise.  It seemed right to them.  Who could object to worshipping God?  Well, we found out.  God does not think as man thinks.  

What Nadab and Abihu did was no different than what we do today when we add to the worship things we cannot find in the law of Christ, the new covenant, the New Testament.  Col. 3:17 reads as follows, "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." (NKJV)  How does one do a thing in the name of the Lord Jesus about which the Lord Jesus spoke nothing? 

A careful reading of 1 Chron. 21:18-19 will show you that the phrase "in the name of the Lord" means by the Lord's authority.  The angel of the Lord had commanded Gad to go speak to David about building an altar and verse 19 says, "So David went up at the word of Gad, which he had spoken in the name of the Lord."  This clearly shows that "in the name of the Lord" means by the Lord's authority and that authority is expressed in his word, not outside it.  We are to do what we do "in the name of the Lord Jesus," by his authority found in his word.  Now reread Col. 3:17 and you will see this involves everything we do in religion and most assuredly in our worship.   

Nadab and Abihu were doing a thing in the name of God which God had spoken nothing about.  Nadab and Abihu were not condemned for doing a thing that was written or given but for what was not written or not given and doing it anyway because it pleased them.  Do you think for a single moment that Nadab and Abihu thought it would matter?  You know they didn't. 

Peter says, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God."  You will need an oracle of God to do that.  When you have to go outside the word of God for your practice it is because there is no oracle.  

The New Testament tells us exactly how far we are allowed to go.  We can go that far and no farther.  How far?  In 1 Cor. 4:6 Paul says, "not to exceed what is written" (NAS)--"not to go beyond what is written" (ESV).  John says, (2 John 1:9 NKJV), "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God."  When we step outside what Christ has said, his written word, we step outside his doctrine and adopt the doctrine of man.  On the Day of Judgment you do not want to find yourself trying to explain to God why you did that. 

Today all kinds of things have been brought into the typical worship of churches for which man cannot find a New Testament book, chapter, and verse for and we all know that.  I am not telling anyone anything they do not know.  Most will readily admit it.  They say God will not care.  It makes no difference.  It is still worship to God they say.  It pleases him.  But what do you do with John 4:24 that says, in part, that worship must be in truth and then John 17:17 which says God's word is truth?  You then search the New Testament and cannot find a word about your practice, what then? 

Sometimes they say they did it in the Old Testament; Moses did it or David did it so it has to be okay. Instrumental music in worship is an example.  Which law did Moses and David live under?  Instrumental music was a command of worship under the Law of Moses (see 2 Chron. 29:25), that is to say during that era or under that dispensation of time.  Does one seek justification by an appeal to the Law of Moses?  God said to those with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, "This is My Beloved Son. … Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5 NKJV)  

(You are aware that the church we find in the New Testament existed for hundreds of years before man brought the instrument into worship.  This in itself tells you where it came from, God or man.) 

But, the things brought from the Old Testament over to us today go far beyond just instrumental music.  Things like the special robes and/or priestly attire worn by those who are considered to be somewhat in the church, the idea that there are two classes of brethren--one priests and then the rest of us, the ritualism we find often in the churches, and so on all from the days of the Law of Moses and none of which can be justified without an appeal to it.  Will we hear Moses or Christ? 

The title of this article was abusing the Old Testament.  How is that done?  I think we see now it is by seeking justification from it, especially in the realm of public worship.  That is not where you will find justification, not today. 

I close with the words of God the Father on the Mount of Transfiguration.  "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.  Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

  

Born Again At The Point Of Faith? - John 1:12-13

Many believe and many teach and preach that a person is born again (becomes a Christian) at the moment they come to believe in Jesus as the Savior. This is a common misconception. At first glance, without some thought, John 1:12-13 seems to support that idea. The reality is far different. But, let us read the passage.

John 1:12-13, from the New American Standard Bible, New Testament Reference Edition, Version 1963, reads as follows: "(12) But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name: (13) who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

You can immediately see, if you are a careful student, that the text in verse 12 is in conflict with verse 13. Verse 12 says that those who believe have the right to become God's children, meaning they are not yet — not at the point of belief. Yet, verse 13 says they were born of God.

How does one deal with this apparent contradiction? If you have a New American Standard Reference Edition Bible from 1995, or for that matter the New Testament reference edition I quoted from above, you will find in the reference notes on verse 13 that the word "born" could have been "begotten," it was a translator's choice. In fact, the Analytical-Literal Translation uses the word "begotten," as does the Literal Standard Version and Young's Literal Translation. Use the word "begotten" and the conflict between verses 12 and 13 disappears.

How do we know the word "begotten" is the correct word to use here when either "begotten" or "born" can be used with justification as a translation of the Greek? There are three reasons. (1) The Bible cannot contradict itself and be true. Use the word "born" here and you have a contradiction between the two verses. (2) There is always a begetting before a birth. (3) By Paul's conversion experience.

Paul, known as Saul at that time, most certainly believed when confronted by Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 22) but when Ananias came to him 3 days later he told Paul to "'Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'" (Acts 22:16 NAS) Do you not find it strikingly strange that a man who believes with his whole heart still has sins 3 days later? According to the doctrine that one is born again, that one becomes a Christian, at the point of faith there should be no sins in Paul's life to wash away, not if he was born again on the road to Damascus.

This issue is easily resolved when we realize Paul was begotten on the road to Damascus. When Jesus appeared to him on the road Paul immediately came to faith and repentance but he was not yet born again. He still had his unremitted sins clinging to him.

Jesus says water is a part of the new birth (John 3:1-7). One must be "born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5 NKJV) Paul was in need of water when Ananias came to him. "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16 NKJV)

When we understand what is involved in the new birth, thus understanding how one becomes a Christian, we will know when to use the word "begotten" versus "born." Remember as a correct translation of the Greek either word is correct but there are times when the context demands one or the other. In John 1:13 there is really no choice unless you desire a Bible contradiction, in which case the Bible cannot be true.

When you understand John 1:12-13 you will understand that faith alone is not enough to make you a child of God, no matter what anyone tells you. If you are saved by faith alone, Ananias lied to Paul in Acts 22, for Paul, being a strong believer in Christ, had no sins to be washed away.

The believing world may hate it, but baptism is a part of what makes one a Christian, born again. Jesus says so in John 3:5, for being in the kingdom of God is equivalent to being a Christian. If you disagree, you are disagreeing with Jesus, not with me.

We might ask one question before closing. Why did the translators not use the word "begotten" instead of the word "born"? It has already been pointed out some translators and translations did. But, you also must keep in mind, everyone has their biases. Almost all translators believe one is saved by faith alone. Do we find it strange they translate that way when they must choose?

To download this article or print it out click here.]

Christianity and Multiculturalism

How does Christianity relate to the concept of multiculturalism? The answer to that depends in large part on one's definition of multiculturalism. For this article, I will define it as the idea that all cultures are of equal value, none to be judged as superior to another, that society should be oriented around groups versus a common concept of a single united "we" working as a unit, that diversity is more important than unity. It is a desire not for assimilation and oneness but for diversity. Often proponents of the concept argue that in democracies the majority rule and thus minorities are held down and discriminated against. It often ends up being an ideology of grievances.

What does the Bible have to say, if anything, on the topic? 1 Cor. 1:10 reads as follows: "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (NKJV) Here we have a plea not for diversity but rather unity which brings up the question of whether or not Christianity is a multicultural religion. If it is then in what sense is it?

That the gospel should be taken into the entire world and preached to every creature is clearly taught in the Great Commission. "And he (Jesus--DS) said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.'" (Mark 16:15-16 NKJV) God is "the Savior of all men" (1 Tim. 4:10 NKJV), not just the Savior of one nationality, or one language, or one race of people. In this sense then certainly the gospel is multicultural.

Where you live, what color your skin is, what language you speak, whether or not you are rich or poor, handsome or plain, educated or uneducated, young or old, the way you dress, or what you eat, or the kind of work you do, etc., has nothing at all to do with God's desire to see you be saved. "God our Savior…desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:3-4 NKJV) Neither does any of that have anything at all to do with a true Christian's love for you as a brother or sister in Christ or in his/her desire to see you have the opportunity to become a fellow Christian if you are not already one.

However, the word multiculturalism as it is often being used today (2011, the date I originally wrote this article -- DS) in our society conveys the idea that every culture is to be embraced as it is and that all have equal value. Does the Bible teach this to be the truth?

When Paul came to Athens, in Acts 17:16, the Bible says, "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols." (NKJV) Was Athenian culture to be embraced? In Ephesus their culture called for the worship of the goddess (idol) Diana (see Acts 19). Was this a culture Christians ought to value or embrace?

If every culture has value in its own right why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? If every culture is good why did God drive out the inhabitants of Canaan before the Israelites? If you do not know you can find out by reading Lev. 18 and Lev. 20. God in both chapters list a long list of sins and then says in Lev. 18:24-25, "Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants." (NKJV) In the next verse, he says of those sins, "You…shall not commit any of these abominations." (Lev. 18:26 NKJV) Compare this with his statement in Lev. 20:23 of similar import after reading the sins listed in the earlier part of that chapter.

What were some of these sins? Here is a sample--burning one's children to death in fire as a sacrifice to the idol god Molech (Lev. 18:21, Lev. 20:2-5), having sexual relations with animals (Lev. 18:23, Lev. 20:15-16), cursing one's father or mother (Lev. 20:9), homosexuality (Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13), and you can read the rest if you so desire to turn to those chapters and read them for yourself. Now here is the point--did God value these cultures he destroyed? Did he think one culture was as good as another?

Now do not get me wrong. Every man has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and there is no doubt the same can be said of all nations. None are perfect. But are we to say because of that all are equally good or equally bad? Whether we are talking about nations, cultures, or congregations some are better than others, at least at a given point in time, or if you want to put it another way some are not as bad as others. As you read about the seven churches of Asia in Rev. 2 and 3 you immediately see not all were equal in standing before God at that particular time. Compare the church at Philadelphia, for example, with the church at Sardis or the church at Laodicea.

Does one wish to value Nazi Germany and its culture back during the reign of the Nazis? How about Russia under Stalin? Does one honestly believe that sharia law is as good as democracy (say Afghanistan versus the U.S.)? What happens to Christianity if Islamic law ever becomes the law of the land? Are the women in democratic countries looking forward to that time with eager anticipation?

Is one culture, one belief system, one ideology just as good as another? What if the other guy's culture (say Iran's for example) says you ought to be destroyed (in Iran's case destroy Israel)? If one guy's culture says it is a glorious thing to strap on an explosive device on your son or daughter and have them go off and kill themselves what difference does it make if you are a multiculturalist who believes all cultures are to be equally valued for who are you to judge?

When the children of Israel entered the Promised Land the idea was not incorporating two cultures into one but destroying one--the one that for that moment was most evil. God was not a multiculturalist. It is utter folly to value equally every culture and to say no culture has any claim to be superior to another. Some cultures need destroying, not embraced and built up--Nazi Germany, the Japanese culture of WWII days, the Khmer Rouge, and you can probably add to the list without any additional help from me.

By its very nature multiculturalism is antagonistic to Christianity for it puts sin and righteousness on an equal plane; it basically says there is no sin for there can be no value judgment. One can say the Bible supports not being judgmental. Generally, Matt. 7:1 is quoted as a proof passage where Jesus said, "Judge not, that you be not judged." (NKJV) This is one of the most abused and misrepresented passages in the Bible. Read in context one very quickly comes to verse 6 which says, "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." (Matt. 7:6 NKJV--Jesus speaking) Who is to judge who the dog is or who the swine is? You are the one who is to do it. You have to make that judgment. The Bible does not, contrary to popular opinion, prohibit judging but only unjust judgment. "Judge with righteous judgment," Jesus said (John 7:24 NKJV).

To make no judgments at all, and yes I am speaking of value judgments, opposes everything taught in the New Testament and in life. The New Testament praises those who because of full age are able to absorb solid food, "that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Heb. 5:14 NKJV) To discern is to judge. "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? … We shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?" (1 Cor. 6:2-3 NKJV) Paul was being critical of the church at Corinth because they refused to judge. "I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?" (1 Cor. 6:5 NKJV)

In life in general do we desire that our children go out into the world unwilling or unable to make value judgments? Do we send them out without guidance or direction? Is it our desire that they place the same value on the culture of a gang in an urban area as they do on the culture of a Christian brotherhood of believers? We sometimes hear talk of the drug culture. Are all cultures of equal value? Should no judgments be made?

Christianity is multicultural in the sense that was earlier stated in this article in that it is a gospel made for all without restrictions based on race, sex, nationality, economic, or social status, etc. However, once one becomes a Christian we are to become "one" people. "He himself is our peace, who has made both one (a reference to Jew and Gentile of which all mankind is one or the other--DS), 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." (Eph. 2:14-16 NKJV) The end is not humanity divided as it once was between Jew and Gentile but now united as "one new man." "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28 NKJV)

Jesus' long prayer in John 17 includes this, "I do not pray for these alone but also for those who will believe in me through their word; that they all may be one." (John 17:20-21 NKJV) I would also recall to the reader's memory the verse that began this article, 1 Cor. 1:10, where the plea was (should we say command?) "that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (NKJV)

Christianity does not do away with culture, not mine, not yours, not anyone's. We all do not have to start eating the same foods, observe the same holidays, learn to speak the same language, wear the same style of clothes, etc. However, our allowance for diversity must end where the pages of the New Testament speak giving us law to abide by, the law of Christ.

Some might argue for multiculturalism in view of the fact that Christendom is divided into hundreds, if not even thousands, of denominations. It is a poor argument to make. Why? Because God condemned anything but unity and it is an utter failure in men and their character, or an acknowledgment of their ignorance of scripture, when they rejoice that every man has a church of his choice different from all others in items of faith and practice when Christ prayed for just the opposite. When men prefer division to unity the failure is in the men.

Some multiculturalists fear that to not accept multiculturalism will only lead to trouble, division, and possibly even to violence or war. The truth is just the opposite. People have not gone to war because they were united as one but because they were divided. Two people that agree and see eye to eye are not in danger of conflict with one another. The American Civil War did not start because of unity of belief and practice but because of disunity.

Neither America nor any other nation has anything to fear from within when all are in general agreement. We have been a strong country in a large part because every family that came to our borders came not to remain what they once were (you name the nationality or country) but because they wanted to be something new--an American. My family background is British by DNA but German in more recent descent. My family has not considered itself either British or German for many generations. We are not Germans living in America, not German-Americans, we are Americans.

I fear while hoping I am wrong that we are trying to promote in multiculturalism an ideology that will lead those living in our nation as immigrants to have first allegiance not to America but to the nation or culture from whence they came. What then? Trouble! Disunity! A warring among ourselves! That is certainly a possibility.

So it is in Christianity. When we become a Christian we are supposed to leave the old world and its ways from whence we came behind us. We are to become a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17, Gal. 6:15, Rom. 6:4). "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV) One cannot be a new creation without being literally a new creation meaning he has to put off the old man and put on the new man (Eph. 4:21-24). The old life, the old way of thinking and doing as one pleased, of doing what everyone else around us was doing is over. The new life is one of faith and obedience to the word of God, to Jesus. Insofar as Christians bring their lives into accordance with that standard of conduct there will be unity of faith and practice.

The goal of Christianity as it relates to culture is to make all people one, one in Christ. There is only one way to do that--teaching the gospel to those who are then given the option through free will of either the obedience of faith or a rejection of the faith. It is a personal choice that must come from the heart of the individual. There is no such thing as forced obedience to the gospel. Maybe the God (?) of Islam can accept converts at the point of a gun but the God of Christianity will not.

The God of Christianity desires man's love. Love cannot be forced. It comes through getting to know the one who will become, through our learning of him, the beloved. If a man sticks a gun in your back to convert you to his God you quickly learn what kind of God he worships--one who believes in bullets, blood, and guts.

Some (most?) misunderstand Christianity thinking it has caused wars in the past, the Middle Ages. It is simply not true for Catholicism is a religion separate from Christianity that does not depend on the Bible for its existence. The Bible alone will never make one a Catholic, will never give you a Pope, will never allow you to pray to or worship the Virgin Mary, etc., etc., etc. Catholics, if informed at all, will readily admit it is the teaching of their church that has the primacy and that the New Testament alone is insufficient. Christianity is found in the pages of the New Testament, not outside it.

Protestantism is not Christianity. No man can take the New Testament and show where Jesus ever established a denomination (you can fill in any denominational name you want). Every one of them was established hundreds and hundreds of years after Christ built his church starting on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 thus they are not the church he established. Furthermore, it takes along with faith, repentance, and confession of Christ, baptism to make a Christian which virtually every denomination denies and rejects. Peter said baptism was for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), that it saves us (1 Peter 3:21), but they deny it making Peter out as one who despite being inspired had no idea what he was talking about. As for Ananias telling Paul to "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16) he too was deluded according to denominational doctrine.

No, let the Catholics and Protestants war all they want back in the Middle Ages. It had nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is a striving for one culture (one belief, one mind) but only through teaching and persuasion as a means of obtaining that. When you find the passage in the New Testament that shows a disciple taking up arms to promote the cause of Christ please contact me and let me know where you find it. Jesus himself said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36 NKJV) "The kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21 NKJV) It is found in the heart of the man who has become a true disciple of Jesus, who has become a Christian.

Christians love people of all other races, nationalities, and cultures. I write as an American Christian but Jesus was not an American. Does his race or nationality matter? Does any man's race or nationality matter? No! Paul said, "We regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (2 Cor. 5:16-17 NKJV) As Paul said, "we regard no one according to the flesh."

One of the great experiences of my life was going to college and becoming acquainted with people of other races and from foreign lands and cultures. It greatly enriched my life, a country boy from rural white America. My personal doctor today, a man I like and a wonderful doctor, is from India. I am glad we have restaurants today specializing in food from almost every nation in the world. Cultural diversity is a wonderful thing in its place but we have to understand it has its place. There are limits to it. Go too far with it and it divides us into competing and warring factions and brings strife and trouble and sometimes even violence and war.

God's way is always best, "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Cor. 1:10 NKJV) In doing so we will have peace and tranquility, be happy with one another, and at peace with God. Both as a nation and as Christians there is much truth in the adage that united we stand and divided we fall or at least fail to achieve what could have been achieved had we stood together as one united people.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Faith Comes by Hearing the Word of God--the Implications

"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17 NKJV)

On its surface, this proclamation by Paul is simple and easy to understand, and yet the failure to grasp its implications has brought much division and strife among those who believe Jesus is the Son of God. Faith and opinion are mixed, and it seems no one is able to separate the two. It appears to the casual observer that one man's faith is another man's opinion and that it is nearly hopeless to find objective truth. This confusion comes not from God but from man. God's word is quite clear.

Faith is that which comes from hearing God's word; thus the direct and necessary implication is that if there is no word from God on a religious matter, there can be no faith but only opinion. Faith and opinion are not equal in God's sight. A man is saved by faith, not by opinion. A man is to walk (live his daily life) by faith (Rom. 1:17, 2 Cor. 5:7). The Christian religion is based on faith, but it is an objective faith in that it is based on direct testimony as found in the word of God, testimony given by God himself.

Where God has spoken on a matter, I can take his word to the bank, as the old saying goes. I need not doubt. His word is not just as good as gold; it is better, more valuable, perfect in purity and truth. "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold." (Psalms 19:9-10 NKJV) Faith based on word from God is faith put on a sure and solid foundation that cannot fail.

But some examples are needed to show the difference between faith based on God's word and opinion that is mistaken for faith by so many. I start with examples of things based on biblically defined faith (that which comes from hearing) as per Rom. 10:17.

I can have faith that a man must repent of sins because God's word says, "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30 NKJV) My faith is based on hearing the word of God. It is not a matter of opinion whether a man ought to repent. It is a matter of the revealed word of God.

I can have faith that as a Christian I should sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God. "And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." (Eph. 5:18-19 NKJV) There is direct word from God on the subject. My faith in singing comes from hearing God's word. It is objective, not subjective. "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17 NKJV)

I can have faith that as a Christian I should never speak evil of anyone, for God's word says, "speak evil of no one." (Titus 3:2 NKJV) "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17 NKJV) I am sure you get the idea. When you have the word of God that you can quote on a subject and you believe what the word says, it can be said of your faith that it came by hearing the word of God. It is scriptural faith defined as that which came from hearing God's word.

But things are often said to be matters of faith which clearly are only matters of opinion. Many years ago I knew a man that wanted to build — expand the physical building where local Christians met for worship (whether the church needed it was the big question). To objectors he would say, "Where is your faith?" His assumption was that God would be with this work, for it would please God, and thus God would see to it that the bills were paid and the work would prosper and the church would grow in numbers.

But here was the problem — God's word does not once speak of building a house to worship in, not in the New Testament under which we live today. One will read the pages of the New Testament until old age dims his eyes and never read one time of a church building such as you see on nearly every corner today. There is no word from God on building a material brick-and-mortar building to worship God in. It is not a matter of faith that God wants us to build or add on to a building, but pure opinion, the subjective opinion of man. If "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17), and that is what the Bible says, then where there is no word there is opinion only.

True, we are commanded to assemble together (Heb. 10:25), but that does not necessarily require a building owned by the brethren. The church could rent; they could meet in a shelter house at a local park; they could meet at the home or property a brother might own sufficiently large to accommodate them. In New Testament times we do not read even one time of the brethren investing in and building a structure to worship in.

Am I saying it is wrong to build a building? Not at all! Why not? Because we have a command from God to assemble together (Heb. 10:25), necessitating a location, a place to do this. Thus a place is required. We could build, or we could rent, or maybe come up with some other option to fulfill the command to assemble, but my point is that one cannot say a specific way of meeting this obligation is a matter of faith. There is no word from God. When we exercise our best judgment, as we must in this case, it still remains a matter of opinion as to whether it would be best to rent or build. We ought not to go around laying guilt trips on people about their so-called lack of faith when in reality we are dealing with matters of opinion.

One sees this error over and over again. Someone comes up with something that seems good or right but lacks direct word from God on it, often even lacking generic authority (which is what we had above — generic authority to build or rent in order to keep a commandment), and then if you do not go along with it or embrace it wholeheartedly, it is said, "Where is your faith?" My response is, "I know where your opinion is."

But I want to give some other examples of things that people say they have faith in but for which the word of God is lacking. They cannot point to book, chapter, and verse, nor can they appeal to generic authority. What they have is an opinion being passed off as faith, whether they realize it or not.

Earlier in this piece I spoke of how one can have complete faith in singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God, for we have word from God saying we should (Eph. 5:18-19). Where is the word of God saying we should play musical instruments in worship? We cannot find it in the pages of the New Testament — not one word. If we go back to the Old Testament we find it there under Judaism, under the Law of Moses, but we live today under Christianity and the law of Christ. I am sure you know there is a reason why our Bibles are divided into an Old Testament and a New Testament. Do we want to try and be justified under the Law of Moses? Read Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews and you will change your mind if you do.

What we have is opinion that instrumental music is pleasing to God under Christianity, under the law of Christ, under the New Testament, and something we should use to worship God. There is no word from God on using instrumental music, so we do not have and cannot have the faith that comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). For about five to six hundred years after the church was established there were no instruments of music used in Christian worship. When it is used today it is based on opinion, the assumption that it is okay. It was not always so assumed.

David said, "Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins." (Psalms 19:13 NKJV) Albert Barnes, the well-known commentator, said of the word presumptuous in this passage, "The prevailing thought is that of pride, and the reference is particularly to sins which proceed from self-confidence; from reliance on one's own strength. The word does not mean open sins, or flagrant sins, so much as those which spring from self-reliance or pride." If we dare presume, we may well find we have assumed wrong.

That is where we are today with so many practices that have evolved in the Christian life and worship. Things are just assumed, presumed, and all based on man's opinion without a word from God. It is said we have faith that this or that is okay, but there is no word from God. It is but man's opinion, but it is called faith by man.

"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17 NKJV)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]  

  

 

 

Faith Based On Deception--Gen. 37:31-33

"So they took Joseph's tunic, killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the tunic in the blood. Then they sent the tunic of many colors, and they brought it to their father and said, 'We have found this. Do you know whether it is your son's tunic or not?' And he recognized it and said, 'It is my son's tunic. A wild beast has devoured him. Without doubt Joseph is torn to pieces.'" (Gen. 37:31-33 NKJV) 

As much as we might wish it to be otherwise faith is not always based on truth.  As human beings, we can come to believe a thing that is not true.  While this is distressing it is also a fact of life.  Jacob developed a strong faith that his son Joseph had perished based on the deception of his other sons who willfully deceived him.  His faith was not based on truth. 

Faith can be based on incorrect or misleading information, on misunderstanding, even on lies one mistakenly accepts, and yet it is so strong that one is firmly convinced that the error he believes is the absolute truth beyond doubt.  Faith can also be based on the evil of one’s own heart – bias or prejudice, for example, against a person or group.  Man can come to believe a lot of things for one reason or another that are not the truth.  There is such a thing as faith based on truth but also such a thing as faith based on that which is not true. 

Because of the evidence presented to him (misinformation), Jacob was certain his son Joseph was dead, killed as he said by "a wild beast". (Gen 37:33 NAS)  He was fed disinformation and with good reason, based on the information he was presented with, believed that which was false. 

Why would he disbelieve?  Did he not get his information from people he had complete trust in?  Every Christian ought to immediately perk his ears up when he thinks back on this account and take heed and learn from it.  We can be misled by the very people we have the utmost trust in.  In Jacob's case, it was deliberate but certainly one can also be misled by those who themselves sincerely believe error and propagate it. 

Another tragic example of faith based on a lie is that of the man of God who was lied to by a prophet of God and lost his life because he believed the lie (see 1 Kings 13).  If you cannot trust a prophet of God who can you trust?  So, again, the admonition is Christians beware.  The only thing you can trust is the word of God, not man.  

In the case of the first sin ever committed the Bible teaches that Eve was indeed deceived, "But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." (Paul in 2 Cor. 11:3 NKJV)  So, a person can be honestly deceived.  One must understand that to believe error, as did Eve, is an exceedingly dangerous thing.  Eve learned the hard way.  There was no going back and doing it over again, no second chance, nor was there a second chance with the man of God in 1 Kings 13. 

This deception that leads to belief in error can be delivered by way of those who seem to be "ministers of righteousness." (2 Cor. 11:15 NKJV)  Paul says, "For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." (2 Cor. 11:14-15 NKJV) 

Satan quoted scripture to Jesus while tempting him after his baptism.  False teachers can quote scripture.  We today are gullible.  We believe about anything that is called Christian, whether in doctrine or works, is God approved.  We just accept it and go on and assume it is fine with God and in accord with New Testament teaching.  We need to keep alert. 

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1 NKJV)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]