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.]