Living With One's Conscience

A good conscience is a wonderful thing to have. Without it, there is no peace -- only anxiety, turmoil, and restlessness. Anyone who has ever violated their conscience knows the truthfulness of this statement.

A bad conscience pricks us continually without let-up. It is the perfect tormentor. Day and night, we suffer from its attacks. Wherever we go, it travels with us. We cannot lose it. It is determined to give us no rest or relief.

Rest can only be had at what is generally felt to be a hard price to pay. That price is the shame and humiliation of admitting (confessing) our sin and making whatever restitution, if any, that can be made for it. It is awfully hard to put oneself through that, but that is exactly the price the conscience requires of us before it will let us go free.

I know of a man who went before the church confessing his unfaithfulness. Afterwards, he spoke of what a burden was lifted from his shoulders. The conscience was now clear, and life could move forward with the inner turmoil now gone and peace restored. That is a common reaction from those who finally decide to quit fighting the conscience they have violated and pay the price conscience demands.

The apostle Paul said, "I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day." (Acts 23:1 NAS) He made this statement the day after his arrest in Jerusalem. How many of us can say what Paul said? Can you? Can I? My guess is that very few can.

Peter, who denied Christ, could not say it. David, who committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband killed, could not say it. Aaron, in making the golden calf, could not say it.

Paul's statement that he had lived in all good conscience before God simply meant that he had never knowingly done anything that, at the time he was doing it, he knew to be in violation of God's law, knew it to be sin while he was doing it. To live then in good conscience before God is to live in such a way as not to knowingly do anything that is in violation of God's will.

There is certainly such a thing as sinning without violating one's conscience, a thing we have to be aware of. Paul is the perfect example. He said, in Acts 22:4, "I persecuted this Way to the death" (NAS), the way being Christianity. Then he says in Acts 26:10, "not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them." (NAS) This was great sin, absolutely, but it was not a violation of his conscience, for at that time he believed with all his heart it was the right thing to do according to his religion, a Jew of the Pharisee sect. (Acts 26:5)

There is probably nothing in a person's life harder to change than their religion, a thing Paul ended up doing. There is so much emotion involved in it, often much family history, friendships, and so on, so that it is very hard to be fair, that is, objective, with the scriptures, so we end up reading them the way we desire them to read versus what they actually say. We need to study the scriptures objectively, but our human emotions will not allow it. Our faith is the correct one just because it has to be that way; there are no other possibilities, at least none we are willing to consider.

Another factor that makes it very difficult for a person to change their religion is that of human pride. How hard it is for any of us to be man enough, as they say, to say we are wrong? We will not even allow the thought. As soon as even a tiny doubt enters our mind, we cast it out as far from us as possible. The degree of humility that is required to admit one has been wrong is very great. It is too much for many to even entertain the thought. The stakes are too high, or so it seems.

But I am drifting away from the subject at hand, so back to it—the conscience. Paul was not the only man in the Bible whose good conscience did not keep him from serious sin. One of the most tragic cases in the Bible was that of the prophet described as "a man of God" (1 Kings 13:1) who was sent by God to Jeroboam to prophecy against the altar on which Jeroboam was planning to make sacrifices to the two golden calves he had made. On his return trip back home, the prophet was met by "an old prophet" whom the Bible says "lied to him" (I Kings 13:18), claiming an angel had spoken to him, countermanding God's original command.

That original command to the younger (we assume) prophet had been, "'You shall eat no bread, nor drink water there; do not return by going the way which you came.'" (1 Kings 13:17 NAS) When the younger prophet, again we assume he was younger, believed what the old prophet told him about an angel countermanding the original command, the assumption being that God himself had sent the angel, he went back with the old prophet and did the very things God had told him not to do. As a result, he was met by a lion on the way back home and lost his life. He disobeyed God's command in all good conscience, believing he was doing God's will.

There are a couple of lessons we ought to learn from this account. First, as it relates to the conscience, this younger (?) prophet sinned in all good conscience. The conscience cannot be our guide. We must strive to have a good conscience for "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23 NKJV), but a good conscience proves nothing about the righteousness of the beliefs one holds to. The Islamic terrorists of our own day have a good conscience. Having a good conscience is no guarantee that you are right in either your thinking or your actions.

Secondly, I believe the young (?) prophet wanted to do what was right and thought he was. His conscience was clean in returning with the old prophet. He wasn't expecting to be lied to by a man of God, by a genuine prophet. One's good conscience and doing what one believes to be right is no guarantee of God's approval. God is a God of truth. He is not a God of lies or of falsehood, no matter who the speaker is (not all who teach error are deliberate liars). This prophet, who sinned and met his death, believed a religious man's lie.

We now live in a time when we are not dependent on what religious men teach us for the simple reason that just about everyone, at least in America, has ready access to God's word, where God speaks directly to us on the printed page. There is no reason we should be led astray by "religious men."

It is obvious, to those who think about it, that few preachers teach the whole truth. Yes, they may teach some truth, most of them probably do, but also sadly, error as well. How many different denominations are there in the world today, all teaching (preaching) something different? I recently heard there are 45,000 denominations, but I have no way of confirming that number. The world is full of these "old prophets," so to speak, who lead people astray.

I do not say they are liars, like the old prophet, but a mistaken preacher can kill you just as quickly as an old prophet if you allow it. Would you not agree also that most teachers of error have a clear conscience, not realizing their error? I will grant them that much sincerity.

We ought to demand of preachers more and more book, chapter, and verse preaching. Just tell us, preferably, far preferably, even to the extent of quoting directly, what the Bible says. Many preachers seem to assume we want to hear what they have to say. Why would we? Why, when we go to services to worship and to hear what God has to say, would we want to hear a man just giving his ideas and opinions?

We must have a clear conscience toward God, but that conscience must be educated in truth, as we have already shown. John says, "Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God." (1 John 3:21 NAS) That then is our goal, a conscience properly trained, with accurate knowledge, clear of conscience wrongdoing. When we have that, we have inner peace.

However, as was first pointed out in this piece, most of us are not in Paul's camp. We cannot say we have never violated our conscience; quite the contrary. In fact, the very nature of temptation and sin leads men into the violation of their conscience and into sin. James says, "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." (James 1:14-15 NAS)

We generally know when we are sinning. We know when we have been tempted. We know when we are giving in to it. We know that while we are doing it, it is wrong. Can a conscience violated, which is another way of saying a heart that has become impure, be restored to cleanliness again? If not, why did Jesus die? Did he die just for those sinners who were like Paul, or did he die for sinners of every stripe?

When David had sinned with Bathsheba and had her husband killed, the prophet Nathan came to him and confronted him. David knew his sin (2 Sam. 12), so it took but little to convince him of his evil. Psalm 51 is a record of David's reaction when confronted by his sin. Could he ever be restored? Could his conscience ever be made clean again?

Let us listen to a little of what he had to say in prayer to God. "Be gracious to me, O God, according to Thy lovingkindness; According to the greatness of Thy compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, And cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me." (Psalms 51:1-3 NAS) Then verse 7, "Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." (NAS) And, finally, verse 10, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me." (Psalms 51:10 NAS)

Do you think God did that? Ask yourself why God wanted this passage recorded in holy writ? Why did he want it worded the way it was? For whose benefit was it written?

I think Paul answered that question in Rom. 15:4, "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." (NAS) Do you not believe along with me that Psalms 51 and the things written therein were for you and me? Do the things written there not give us encouragement?

Can you be forgiven and once again live with a clear conscience? What do you believe the Bible teaches? What do you believe God did with David? Did he forgive him and restore within him a clean heart as David had asked? Do you think David will be in heaven?

What does God require of us when we have violated our conscience and sinned as did David? David says, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." (Psalms 51:17 NAS)

The teaching of the Bible is not that we can totally forget the past. Paul always remembered what he had done in persecuting the saints unto the death, but he also said unto us, "one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 3:13b-14 NAS)

Memory will not be erased, but we can put the past behind us and move ahead with confidence that God will forgive us. We can once again walk with a good conscience.

For one like Saul, who became Paul the apostle, one who was not a Christian, we can do as he did. He came to faith in Christ, repented of his sins, and was baptized into Christ for the remission of sins. (Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38) His conscience was now trained correctly, and he could henceforth walk by faith rather than by the traditions of the Pharisees. Had he not obeyed the gospel, he would have violated his conscience, for he now knew the truth.

I am convinced thousands and thousands are walking around even today who know they ought to obey the gospel, for their conscience tells them so. Their conscience is not clear. They are paying a price even now for their disobedience, for the conscience will not be quiet. They are not like Paul, but they could be. It is only a matter of the will, so simple but so hard for so many.

But there are others, Christians already, who have violated their conscience. Like David, who was once a faithful child of God under the Law of Moses, they have violated their conscience by sin. God will have them back and restore to them a clean heart and a clear conscience as they walk on down the road of life, but first, they must make the same decision David made. David wanted to come back. He repented. He prayed to God. He ceased to sin and walked in righteousness. That is what it will take.

A good, clean, clear conscience is a wonderful thing to have. Inner peace is better than inner war. God has left us the choice as to which we have. We get to decide. We can have whichever we prefer. It is our choice.  

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

Religious Titles Forbidden in Christianity

Years ago, I got into a discussion with a messianic Jew who insisted he had the right to use the title "Rabbi" without any violation of scripture. I pointed him to Matt. 23:8, "but you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren" (NKJV) to no avail. He is not alone, for you could point a Catholic priest to Matt. 23:9, "do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (NKJV), and it would have no effect upon him either.

Not only are men accepting religious titles, contrary to Jesus' teaching, but the general public is just as guilty in consenting to these titles. I have never seen a single instance in my lifetime of a Catholic priest being interviewed on TV without the interviewer calling him Father. Indeed, I suspect any interviewer who neglected to do so would lose his job. There is little doubt his superiors would call him on the carpet and accuse him of being disrespectful. There is no problem being disrespectful to Jesus and his command, but just do not offend the Catholic priest or the Catholic Church.

What did Jesus teach on this subject? The answer is found in Matt. 23:1-12:

"(1) Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, (2) saying: 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. (3) Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. (4) For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. (5) But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. (6) They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, (7) greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.' (8) But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. (9) Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. (10) And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. (11) But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (12) And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.' " (NKJV)

In his condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus says (verse 5), "all their works they do to be seen by men." The desire to be seen as a man superior to his fellowman, a man who ought to be bowed down to figuratively, if not literally, was the desire of the heart and the sin of the pride that resided within them. Jesus gives several examples of things they were doing and things they enjoyed that manifested this attitude. One of those things was to be called Rabbi, Rabbi. These men were being called Rabbi and loved it. It was wrong then to do this, but my messianic Jew says it is fine to do it today.

Albert Barnes, in his commentary on Matthew, says of the word Rabbi used here that, "It was a title given to eminent teachers of the law among the Jews; a title of honor and dignity, denoting authority and ability to teach." No doubt Barnes was correct in also saying that each time the word was used, "it implied their superiority to the persons who used it." (comments on Matt. 23:7) They thus reveled in having the title, for their desire was to be seen (recognized) by men (verse 5).

Jesus clearly gave the command, in verse 8 of Matthew 23, to not accept the title of Rabbi, for he says, "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren." (NKJV) He gives two reasons. (1) Christ only is our teacher. (2) You are all brethren. The individual I was in discussion with says that what Jesus wanted us to understand from this passage was only that Christ is our ultimate teacher, that we need to keep that in mind, and that we are not specifically forbidden from using the word Rabbi as a title. He never considers the second reason Jesus gave for forbidding the use of the title—"you are all brethren." We all stand on equal footing before God. No one is special, no one gets a pass, and no one gets to exalt himself above the rest of the brethren.

The reader might find it interesting to know that you will not find the word Rabbi in the Old Testament. The Bible commentator Adam Clarke says of the word Rabbi, "None of the prophets had ever received this title, nor any of the Jewish doctors before the time of Hillel and Shammai, which was about the time of our Lord." You will find this in his comments on Matt. 23:8. Man had come up with a title to give to himself that pleased his vanity.

Jesus likewise forbids our calling anyone Father, as a religious title, in Matt. 23:9 already quoted. The word father is used in the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament many times in many different ways. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words lists 9 different applications of the noun father as used in the New Testament alone. This means, obviously, that the word father can be used by men when used appropriately and not in the way Jesus condemned. What did Jesus condemn?

Jesus condemned me, you, and the neighbor next door from calling any man Father as a title in the spiritual realm. Reread Matt. 23:1-12 as many times as it takes to get the gist of what Jesus is getting at. There was a problem among men (the scribes and Pharisees in particular) in that they were seeking the praise, honor, and glory of men. They are proud and puffed up. They want to be recognized and acknowledged as superior. They desire titles. They do not want to be the servant of Matt. 23:11. They want to be exalted among men (Matt. 23:12). The warning to you and me is don't do it, don't allow it, don't call them what they want to be called, and don't reward their pride and vanity.

I am in full agreement with what Albert Barnes says in his commentary on the word father in Matt. 23:9 where he says, "But the word 'father' also denotes 'authority, eminence, superiority, a right to command, and a claim to particular respect.' In this sense it is used here. In this sense it belongs eminently to God, and it is not right to give it to people. Christian brethren are equal."

Yes, Paul said to the Corinthians, "For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (1 Cor. 4:15 NKJV) Paul also referred to Timothy as his "true son in the faith." (1 Tim. 1:2 NKJV) He referred to Titus (Titus 1:4) and to Onesimus (Philemon 1:10) in a similar way.

In 2 Cor. 12:14, Paul implies that the church at Corinth is his children (making him their father), and likewise in Gal. 4:19 with reference to the churches of Galatia. John, the apostle, does the same sort of thing when he says, "My little children, these things I write to you." (1 John 2:1 NKJV) There are other passages with similar import.

It is said that Paul, John, and Peter also (1 Peter 5:13) are referring to themselves as spiritual fathers, so we can use the word father as a title in reference to priests who are spiritual fathers over their flock. There is a lot wrong with that line of thinking. Neither Paul, nor John, nor Peter was using the word as a title. They were rather simply describing the fact that by teaching and preaching the gospel, children of God had been begotten. That they felt some duty or obligation toward those whom they had taught the gospel, there is no doubt. Those who had obeyed the gospel under their preaching felt like children to them. They had a love for them and felt a kinship to them, much like a father toward his children, but that is as far as it went. They did not adopt the title Father and attach it to their name.

All three of these apostles would have recoiled in horror at the thought of being given the title Father. Paul says, "There is one God and Father of all." (Eph. 4:6 NKJV) Paul was not seeking the title of Father, had no desire to be called Father Paul, and that is just the opposite of the desire of the Catholic Church for their priests. I wonder what would happen in a Catholic congregation if all the membership suddenly stopped calling their priest Father and refused to do so. Would the fur start to fly?

[Paul compared himself and his companions not only to a father but also to a mother. In 1 Thess.2:7-8 Paul says to the church of the Thessalonians, "We were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children. So affectionately longing for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives, because you had become dear to us." (NKJV) Dear to us like a mother's children are to her.]

None of the apostles even took the word apostle as a title. They claimed to be apostles, for such they were, but not one time in scripture (I just searched my online concordance) will you find the word apostle before their name. An apostle was what they were, just as a man might be an elder (a bishop) or an evangelist in the church. These words were never meant to be titles or given as titles, but were rather descriptive of the work or role one had.

But there is more wrong with the Catholic position than just this. Their idea is that only certain men are priests (one per local church) and they have a spiritual priesthood over "their flock." Peter and John both teach that all Christians are priests, not just a select few. (Read 1 Peter 2:9 and Rev. 1:5-6.) There is also nothing in the New Testament giving authority to one man only to rule a congregation, or flock, if you want to designate it that way. This desire for position over others is what led to one man rule. If you will read your New Testament, you will find that every congregation was to be overseen by a plurality of elders (bishops), not just by one.

Paul and Barnabas, on their first missionary journey, "appointed elders in every church" (Acts 14:23 NKJV). Elders is plural, not singular. Every church was overseen by a group of men known as elders or bishops, not by a singular man designated the one and only priest of the congregation with the title of Father. Paul told Titus, "Appoint elders in every city as I commanded you." (Titus 1:5 NKJV) Remember, in New Testament times, there was only one church within a city, unlike today, so when Titus appointed elders in a city, he was appointing them within the church in that city. Every church had not a single elder but plural elders. The terms elder and bishop were used interchangeably and describe the same set of men (read Titus 1:5-7).

The Catholic position is thus wrong not just on a single count but on multiple counts. The desire for position and importance, for power and prestige, is what led to the concept of one man rule and the title of Father within the Catholic Church, but, as all know, it did not end just within the local congregations. Indeed, it only started there, for all know there is now a hierarchy within the Catholic Church. The next step up after becoming a father or priest in a local parish is to become a bishop, then archbishop, then cardinal, and ultimately Pope. But, I say, with a little sarcasm, it is not about titles, power, and position -- not in Catholicism.

It is said, by both the messianic Jew I was in discussion with and by the Catholics, that we cannot take the passages literally in Matt. 23. Why not? Jesus did. He was describing a real situation that then existed—men being called rabbi—and he said to stop doing it. That is as literal as it can get. He was attempting to stop a practice then in existence. It is still in existence because men desire the titles and the glory that go with them, and thus want to get around Jesus' command by trying to make his language out to be figurative. The context will not allow it.

In Matt. 23:10 Jesus says, "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ." (NKJV) The word rendered teachers here is in other versions rendered masters (ASV, KJV, HCSB), instructors (ESV, NRSV), leaders (NAS, LITV), or directors (YLT). All of these translations are helpful, when taken as a group, for they give us a better idea of the meaning of the Greek that is being translated, better than any single word alone would. God wants teachers of his word, or else the Great Commission cannot be fulfilled, but a man can go out and teach and preach the word without taking a title. It is good to teach, not bad. What is bad is to want to be exalted for doing so. Don't allow men to give you a title. You do not need it.

Often, preachers are given titles like Reverend or Pastor. This is certainly a violation of the principle Jesus taught in Matt. 23 regarding the giving of titles. We can do the work God has given us to do without a title. Why desire a title? If I have a Ph.D. I can preach perfectly well without being called Dr. Smith. I do not need the title, and if my pride demands it and I want the attention, then I have a problem, don't I? If I want to be called Pastor or Reverend, I have a problem, don't I? To ask is to answer.

It is not wrong to say what we do. If I preach, it is not wrong to say I preach. If I teach, it is not wrong to say I teach. But the desire for a title and the recognition that goes with it is where the wrong comes in. Who am I? Who are you? We are just brothers and sisters in Christ, all equal within the body of Christ.

Finally, we have to recognize that Jesus was talking about the spiritual realm of life and not the secular in Matt. 23. He was talking about religion, not about medicine, not about education, not about the military, not about secular government, not about home and the family. We must have titles in the secular world. But I think that is so obvious that a child can see it. Jesus was not talking about the things of the world.

In this world, in secular affairs, we must have titles to designate knowledge and authority, but that is the whole point of Jesus' argument in Matt. 23 for he is saying in the spiritual realm it is different, as there is only one authority and that is God, so don't go around acquiring titles and making some pretense of authority you don't have. Don't accept a title and don't give one to others. That includes the uninspired Pope.

The teaching of scripture on these matters is plain enough, but men have sought out many inventions.

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

Whatcha Gonna Do When They Come For You

The title here is taken from part of the lyrics of a popular song years ago. It was a catchy tune, but it raises a question we all have to deal with, like it or not, and most of us don't like it. The undertaker and his helpers are coming for us, no doubt about it, one of these days. What are we gonna do?

In life, we confront things that are coming for us. We see them coming, and we do not like it, but being rational people, we do what we can to prepare for the arrival of that which we expect. It could be anything from a job loss we anticipate to a relationship going sour to a child heading for trouble, or whatever, but we see it coming. Whatcha gonna do? We are confronted with reality.

Often, we say why? Why me? Why this? Why now? And, often, there are no answers to be had. It is just that things come into our lives that we have to confront. Whatcha gonna do?

I am pretty certain of this: even though you may feel helpless, you will not just sit and mope; you will try to do something to alleviate the situation and make things more tolerable and less disastrous. You will give it your best shot, and that is what you ought to do.

For most people, the most fearful thing that is seen coming is death, and yet we often fail to make preparations to meet it. I overheard an older couple sometime back conversing with an older gentleman, and in mentioning the topic of death, first one then another said they just did not think about it. I doubt the total truthfulness of those statements for how does one just completely erase the thought from the mind? Nevertheless, trying to not think about it is a way many have of coping with that which is inevitable.

The Bible teaches clearly that one needs to make preparation for death. The Hebrew writer says, "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment." (Heb. 9:27 NKJV) A few verses later in chapter 10, verses 30 and 31, we read, "And again, 'The LORD will judge His people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb. 10:30-31 NKJV)

Paul says it this way in 2 Cor. 5:10-11 (NKJV), "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." Death is coming, and we must either go prepared for it or unprepared. Put another way, we must prepare to meet God in judgment. Whatcha gonna do?

Daniel Webster, the great statesman, said, or so it has been attributed to him, "One may live as a conqueror, a king, or a magistrate; but he must die a man. The bed of death brings every human being to his pure individuality, to the intense contemplation of that deepest and most solemn of all relations - the relations between the creature and his Creator."

We came into this world alone, and we will go out of it alone. There were people there when we were born, and there may well be people there when we die, but we go alone, even if a thousand others were to die with us in our presence. I think this is one of the things that makes it frightening for us. There is no one to go with us, no one who can help us; we must do it alone. When the day comes, it will just be the individual and God. It will not be my family and me, but me alone with God. The same will be true with you.

If this is all very depressing with you, it is the same for all of us. No one likes to contemplate that which is inevitable for us all. Life, life, life, that is the thing we want and desire, that is the good thing, not death.

The burden of this article is to declare preparation for life eternal and not dwell on death; however, without facing up to facts, we will never prepare for that which we must prepare if we are to have it – a life in heaven. In the book of Matthew, chapter 25, verses one through thirteen, we have an account of ten virgins who went out to meet the bridegroom after the manner of the custom of those days when Jesus lived. None knew exactly when the bridegroom would arrive, but some made adequate preparation for a long wait, while the others did not.

When the time came at midnight, when the bridegroom arrived, the five foolish virgins found they were unprepared, and their lamps were going out, for they had not taken sufficient oil. The other five virgins who had prepared adequately for a long wait had sufficient oil but none to spare. The Bible says, "those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut." (Matt. 25:10 NKJV)

This parable is all about being prepared versus not being prepared. There are consequences to those who do not prepare. The Bible says, "the door was shut" with direct reference to those who had not prepared.

Why would we be surprised if we were to find, as we do, that we must prepare if we want to go to heaven? Do we not prepare for everything in this life if we want it? What is going to college all about? What is physical exercise all about? What is work all about? Each is preparation for that which we want or need, whether it be a good job, fitness and health, or money to live on. We prepare for nearly everything we do in life. If we don't prepare, we suffer the consequences.

But please note in the parable of the virgins that the Bible says, "those who were ready went in." If we are shut out of heaven, it will be our own fault. No, we cannot save ourselves by ourselves, but there are things we must do if we want to go to heaven. The idea that there is nothing we can do is not taught in the Bible.

I am reminded of the Philippian jailer who fell down trembling before Paul and Silas and asked them, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30 NKJV) In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost when the first gospel sermon ever to be preached was preached by Peter many who heard were "cut to the heart" (convicted of the truth and of their sin) and the Bible says they said to Peter and the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37 NKJV)

What shall we do about what? The answer is, obviously, what do we do about our sin, about forgiveness, about salvation. Peter did not tell them there is nothing you can do. He did not say there is no preparation a man can make to meet God in judgment. We know he did not tell them that; he gave them an answer. The sermon had already made believers out of them, so he says nothing about faith but says, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

In further proof of this point that man can do something for himself to be saved, can make preparation that makes a difference in his salvation, I quote here Acts 2:40, "And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, 'Save yourselves from this crooked generation.' " (ESV) Some versions say "be saved" rather than "save yourselves" but it is all one and the same.

There is something you can do is Peter's message. You can be saved, you can save yourselves. Well, how? By doing just what I (Peter) have told you--repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins.

So a man can prepare to meet God in death by hearing, believing, and obeying the gospel, which includes not only faith but also repentance, confession, and baptism for the remission of sins. Many have not done this and thus wait unprepared for the bridegroom.

In Matt. 24:35-44 Jesus is speaking to his disciples and says:

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. But as the days of Noah were so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." (NKJV)

The Bible says that when Noah and his family entered the ark, God shut him (them) in (Gen. 7:16 NKJV). Do you think there might have been any knocking on the door after it became obvious to all that they were in the midst of a disaster? Had those door knockers prepared? It was too late. There always comes a time when it is too late, when the door is shut for good.

Peter called Noah a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5).  Based on Genesis 6:3, some think Noah preached to the people of his day for 120 years. It is certain Noah did preach, else Peter did not tell the truth. This preaching, if heeded, would have spared those who believed and obeyed it, but they faced the day of the flood unprepared for what they heard had no effect upon them. Man prepares to face God first by hearing his word but then by believing it and acting upon it, obeying it.

But Jesus says when he comes again, it will be the same as in the days of Noah (Matt. 24:37). That coming day will arrive suddenly and unexpectedly. When he tells us to watch for that day (Matt. 24:42), what does he mean? When he says if the master of the house had known what time the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into (Matt. 24:43), what is he telling us? Is he not saying prepare, be prepared? He most certainly is. "Therefore you also be ready," he says. (Matt. 24:44 NKJV)

That was the problem with five of the ten virgins when the bridegroom came, they were not prepared. But I want you to note one other thing here. In Matthew 24, who is Jesus addressing? It is his disciples. Being prepared to meet God is not just a matter of preparation on the part of those who have never obeyed the gospel, but also upon those who are already his disciples. It is not once saved always saved as some teach. One must live a faithful, obedient life if one is to be prepared to meet God.

Do not be deceived. Even if the Lord were not to return for another thousand years, you will meet him much sooner; you will not have to wait long. How can I say that? For all practical purposes, the day of death is the day you meet God. Even for the youngest among us, that is just a very few decades off at the most, and for the rest of us, it is a lot closer than that.

I know the young generally think they have a lot of years of life left. That is the way we think when we are young and healthy. How mistaken many of them I have known have been in that matter. I have been around the public schools for many years. How many students have there been over the years who, if they gave it any thought at all, thought they would easily far outlive me as I was the teacher and they were the students. Some have been dead for many years now already. Just about every year, there are two or three who generally very suddenly and without warning are gone, often the result of car accidents, but sometimes other things as well.

Jeremiah, in another context, writes, "The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved!" (Jeremiah 8:20 NKJV) As I said, I am taking that verse out of context, but what a sad day if that was said of us on the day we depart this earth.

Perhaps as scary a passage as one can find in the Bible is 1 Thess. 1:7-10, "And to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be admired among all those who believe." (NKJV)

In conclusion, there is a great force coming our way which we cannot avoid--death and judgment. We cannot avoid it, but the Bible teaches we can prepare for it. It teaches that if we will, we can be saved and have life eternal in a place far better than this, where there will never again be death, sorrow, crying, or pain. What a wonderful place heaven must be with those things being true. Why not make preparation? The question for us all is "whatcha gonna do when death comes for you?" I hope you will be prepared. Will you hear and heed God's word?

"Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." (2 Cor. 6:2 NKJV)

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

Born Of Water And The Spirit -- The New Birth

Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:3, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (NASU) and then a couple of verses later clarifies his statement when he says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 NASU)

This passage has troubled people over the years.  What does it mean to be born of water and the Spirit?  The real problem lies not in the difficulty of the passage but rather with theologians, scholars, commentators, and religious leaders (preachers included) who are unwilling to accept the obvious import of the passage.

People often fail to understand Bible passages not because of their difficulty but rather due to prejudice--closed minds. Why was Jesus never accepted by the majority of the Jewish leaders of his time? Why was Jesus crucified? Was it not prejudice; was it not for the mindset that said it is impossible to interpret the scriptures in a way that makes this man the Messiah?

While I want to discuss the entire phrase "born of water and the Spirit," I first want to give you an example of what I am talking about as it relates to the passage we will be discussing. One very well-known Bible scholar who is also an author, and one I might add who has profited me in some of the things he has written, said of this passage that water here could not mean water.

In his mind, this was such a settled fact that there was no reason to even think about giving a reason for making such a statement, and he did not give one. The idea that the scriptures supported Jesus as the Messiah likewise was not worthy of consideration by the Jewish leaders of his day. So it is with this well-known scholar on the subject of water in John 3:5. The mind is closed to the thought. It is not worthy of consideration, for it is simply not possible for water to mean water in this passage. It has to mean something else.

Let us now deal with the passage and make it as simple as it really is. I begin by saying that it is essential to come to a correct understanding, as our eternal lives depend on it. Jesus says if we are not "born of water and the Spirit," we cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I need not tell you that salvation is in God's kingdom, not outside it. It is essential to get into the kingdom of God if we hope to be saved. We are either in the domain of darkness or in the kingdom of God. There is no middle ground; it is an either-or proposition; we are either in it or we are not.

Paul speaking to Christians says, "For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son." (Col. 1:13 NASU) Whether we are in the domain of darkness or in Christ's kingdom depends on whether or not we have met his qualifications for being in his kingdom.

I know this is hard for us to sometimes accept, for we know people we would consider good people who are not Christians. They are moral people; they are honest; they work hard; they treat us well, and it is hard to see how God could reject them. It is hard for us to accept that they are in the domain of darkness.

They are like Cornelius in Acts 10, a man of whom nothing but good was spoken of. The scriptures say of him that he was "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually." (Acts 10:2 NASU) But I remind the reader that Cornelius, to be saved, had to hear, believe, and obey the gospel for salvation.

If he was already saved, in the state he was in, why bother Peter? Why does Peter need to travel to Caesarea, in view of the fact that it is a waste of his time to preach to Cornelius if Cornelius, a good man, is already saved? He was not saved. Peter later reported to the brethren back in Jerusalem about this matter saying, "He (Cornelius—DS) reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, 'Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; and he will speak words (the gospel--DS) to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' " (Acts 11:13-14 NASU)

When a man obeys the gospel, it is an act of submission to God's will. We will either submit to his will or our own. When we refuse to submit to his will, no matter how good in other areas of life we are, how can it be truly said that we are godly? By our refusal to obey the gospel, we are saying we do not need God, Jesus did not need to die for me (his death was a waste, I did not need it), and I am not a sinner. The very fact that we refuse to obey the gospel, a command of God, proves in itself that we are in rebellion, in sin.

This being the case, how is one born of water and the Spirit, which is the equivalent of hearing, believing, and obeying the gospel? I say first of all that this is a single birth rather than two separate ones. How do I know? Because Jesus tells us so, just two verses before this verse, for he says in John 3:3, "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (NASU) How many times does Jesus say a man is born again? Once! If we make these two births, one of water and the other of the Spirit, then we have one more birth than Jesus requires. One is born again, not twice, but once.

What is the role of the Spirit? Jesus says in John 6:44-45, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." (NASU)

How is one taught of God? The answer is through the teachings of the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, found in our day in the pages of the New Testament. Hear Jesus, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63 NASU) So it is clearly seen that words do make a difference in bringing about spiritual life; the words of the Spirit bring life.

Peter says we have "been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God." (1 Peter 1:23 NASU) God's word is living. James says, "In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth." (James 1:18 NASU) God's word produces life in those who believe and accept it. James, "brought us forth" in this passage, is a reference to how the process of being born again comes about, by the "word of truth."

The spirit works in bringing about the new birth in a man or woman by means of the word of God in the pages of the New Testament. In the parable of the sower (or soils if you prefer), as found in Luke 8, Jesus said "the seed is the word of God." (Luke 8:11) As it is sown in the hearts of people, it bears fruit, not in all but in those willing to hear and accept it. Four types of soil are mentioned in the parable, but only one type brought forth fruit. Jesus, in speaking of that soil, says "the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance." (Luke 8:15 NASU)

When one accepts the word of God and allows it to work in his life, having an honest and good heart, faith develops and leads the man to repentance, changing him within in his inner being, his spirit. He now believes differently, has different goals and aspirations, and wants to live a different life. When this occurs, the first prerequisite for the new birth has been met. However, Jesus also says in John 3:5 that one must be born not only of the Spirit but also of water if he is to enter into the kingdom of God.

Here is where multitudes have come up short. They fail to accept baptism. Needless to say, water is a reference to baptism. However, lest I be like the man who says water is not water but offers no proof, I need to prove my statement.

First of all, Jesus taught that baptism was essential when he gave the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). He says, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved …" (Mark 16:16 NASU).  He does not say "he who has believed and has not been baptized shall be saved," even though many want to read it that way. The baptism of the Great Commission was in water and thus was essential for salvation.

But let us look at some other passages that, relating to the new birth, are even clearer. "Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." (Rom 6:4 NASU) When do we walk in newness of life (born again, the new birth)? When we have been baptized.

Take a look at 2 Cor. 5:17, "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (NASU) A new creature equals a new birth. The Bible tells us how to enter Christ. "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Gal. 3:27 NASU) Now, what does it take to get into Christ--baptism. Paul says we are "baptized into Christ." Then we are the new creature.

Where is salvation? Peter says, "there is salvation in no one else" (Acts 4:12 NASU), speaking of Jesus. Paul says, "For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory." (2 Tim. 2:10 NASU) Getting into Christ Jesus is thus essential.

One is a new creature upon entering into Christ (born again). One enters Christ by the act of baptism, having been baptized as a result of the consequences of the Spirit working in his life. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." (1 Cor. 12:13 NASU) That body into which we are baptized is the body of Christ, the body where one finds salvation, "He Himself being the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NASU)

Let us take a look at a couple of passages that teach just what Jesus taught about the new birth in John 3, but which are often overlooked. Paul says in Titus 3:5 (NASU), "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit."

God's mercy, his grace, saves us, but how? By the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit. This is just another way of saying exactly what Jesus said in John 3:5 regarding being born of water and the Spirit. The washing of regeneration is baptism.

In another parallel passage Paul says in Eph. 5:25-26 regarding Jesus and the church (the church being his spiritual body, the body he saves, Eph. 1:22-23), "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word." (NASU) Yes, water is water in John 3:5 and not something else.

If this passage does not clarify what it means to be born of water and the Spirit, I am not sure I know what it would take. How are we cleansed; how are we born again; how are we saved? By the washing of water (baptism--DS) with the word (the Spirit using the word as his tool to change us in our spirit).

Thus, the new birth, what it means to be born again, to be born of water and the Spirit, is not that difficult a subject and could be easily understood if we had or have open minds.

However, like the Jews of old, we often have too much at stake to allow us to see the truth. We have family that has passed on, and we cannot allow water to mean baptism, for we think that would condemn them. We cannot allow water to mean water, for if we were to accept that, it would make demands on us to comply, which might alienate friends and family who do not believe baptism is essential. The sacrifice is too great; we will not allow it. We will not allow water to be baptism. It has to mean something else.

Will not God condemn us for our hardness of heart when he has made a thing as clear as this, yet we refuse to accept it? When we prefer spiritual blindness rather than light, what do we think he will say to us in the Day of Judgment?

But now to make the application personal, the question for us all is what will we do in the face of the truth? Do we accept it or deny it? Do we act on it, or do we remain passive and do nothing? What will you say to Jesus on the last day?

"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word." (Jesus--John 14:23 NASU)

Note: Underlining in verses quoted was by me to emphasize certain statements and was not in the original quoted texts.

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

Who Governs the Church if We Follow the Bible

Who governs the church ought to matter a great deal to all those who want to be Christians and Christians only by following what the Bible says. I know of no other way to be just a Christian, that and nothing more, other than to follow the Bible as closely as humanly possible. That means one must ignore the traditions of men in religion and all teachings that cannot be found in the New Testament.

Too often, men just inherit the past in religion. We were all born into a world full of denominations and the Roman Catholic Church. If we are not careful, we just inherit a religion from either our parents or our wife or husband and claim it for our own, all the while assuming it must be pleasing to God. The truth often is that the ones we are following after likely received their religion the same way we have when we do that.

One of the easiest ways to test one's religion is by comparing how the church of which he is a member is governed in comparison to the teaching of the New Testament on the subject. The New Testament is very clear on this matter, making it easy to find the truth and thus to see whether we are in a church that is a New Testament church. If it is not, we ought to get out of it.

"Christ is head of the church" (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) and whatever is done in the church or anywhere else is to be done "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Col. 3:17 NKJV), meaning by his authority. Jesus has all authority, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." (Matt. 28:18 NKJV) We cannot step outside the authority of Christ as found in his word and set up a way of governing the church to suit ourselves. Well, let me revise that a little--we can, but if we do, we are in rebellion against the head of the church and against the one whom God the Father gave all authority to. We disrespect him and his word when we do so, and involve ourselves in sin by supporting such a setup.

Christ did provide for government, oversight would probably be a better word, within local congregations of churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16), churches over which he is head. As just stated in the prior paragraph, those who would govern within a local congregation were given no authority to step outside his word, to add to it, to take away from it, or do anything that would take away from Christ's headship of the church. His word, his authority, has to be respected by those who would be appointed as overseers of the local congregation in a locality.

While the apostles lived, they had authority in the church (they still do through their writings). To disobey an apostle who was speaking the word of God by inspiration of the Holy Spirit was the same as to be in disobedience to the one who gave the inspiration--God himself. The brethren at Corinth who received instructions from the apostle Paul were not free to disregard those instructions because he was not present with them and was not one of them. However, the apostles were only 12 in number, could not be everywhere at once or know about every group of brethren in every village throughout the Middle East, Southwestern Asia, and Southeastern Europe, nor were they going to live forever.

Church oversight or leadership was needed on the local level. This God provided for in the appointment of elders in the churches, each church having a plurality of elders, with no one single elder being the chief elder. In Acts 14:23, when Paul and Barnabas were on their first missionary journey, the text says, "So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed." (NKJV)

Paul wrote to Titus, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you." (Titus 1:5 NKJV) Where there was a church, a congregation, there were to be elders appointed, provided there were men within it that met the qualifications that Paul gave to both Timothy and Titus for the appointment of such men. One can read about these qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.

Now, please read carefully and understand that the words elder and bishop refer to the same individual. This is easily seen in Titus 1:5 where Paul tells Titus to appoint elders and then in verse 6 begins giving him the qualifications for such men going on through verse 9 but refers to these men in verse 7 as bishops--he says, "For a bishop must…" (compare Titus 1:5 with Titus 1:7). These bishops were not like bishops in the Catholic Church today but ruled with other like bishops, or elders, in the local church only. (I add that this same group of men was also designated by words like shepherd and pastor.)

They did, however, rule in the church. This can be seen in 1 Timothy where Paul says one of the qualifications is that an appointee must be "one who rules his own house well … for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:4-5 NKJV) In the book of Hebrews, we are instructed to "obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account." (Heb. 13:17 NKJV) The elders were to take care of the local church of God, of which they were members, and from which they had been appointed, ruling it in accord with God's word.

In the book of Acts, chapter 20, verse 17, Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus to come meet him at Miletus. One of the things he said to them was this, "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:28 NKJV) Several comments are in order on this passage.

Take note that they had a flock to oversee, and that flock was specific -- the Christians in the church at Ephesus from whence Paul had called them to come to Miletus. They were elders in the church at Ephesus. He did not tell them to go and try to oversee the flock at Colosse or the one at Derbe or any other such place. The flock they had been appointed to oversee was specific--it was the flock at Ephesus and nowhere else.

The modern-day idea people have of a bishop, as in a Catholic bishop, is nowhere found in the Bible. Remember that an elder is a bishop; they are one and the same (Titus 1:5 compared with Titus 1:7), but they were not like today's Catholic bishop. There was no such thing as a single bishop ruling over even a single congregation in the New Testament, let alone over multiple congregations spread out over a wide area. As is the case with most of Catholicism, no Bible required, none wanted for authority, will be ignored if found, and burned if we could go back to the Middle Ages, to a time when ownership was barred from the public. (You have to remember Catholics claim authority for the church and thus do not need Bible authority from their point of view.)

However, the Bible foresaw the development of Catholicism and of the bishops seeking greater power than what was granted to them. Paul, in talking directly to the elders at Ephesus (and remember an elder is a bishop, one and the same), said to them, "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:30 NKJV) Now no one can deny what Paul said, and no one can deny who he was talking to when he said it.

The second thing I want to note from the Acts 20:28 passage is the fact that these men were to be in charge of the church at Ephesus as overseers. When decisions needed to be made and plans made for the specific work of that church, it was their duty to see to it and to oversee it. It is not the purpose of this article to go into all the work of an elder, so I leave it at that. Our purpose is to define who is to govern the church.

In the third place, they were to shepherd the church of God, of which they were made overseers. The word shepherd refers to their duty to guard the flock, feed, and care for it. They were "pastors" of the church as per Eph. 4:11. But, please note that they were pastors in the plural, not the singular. The idea men have today that one man can be the only pastor of a congregation is unscriptural. Such a character cannot be found in the pages of the New Testament. No New Testament congregation ever was led by a single person, not one.

If you have a pastor in the denominational sense of the way the word is used today, you are not a New Testament church in your organization and government. Find the church that had a single pastor in the New Testament. That is a challenge. It cannot be done.

The truth is, the word "pastors" (as per Eph. 4:11, the only place it is found) means shepherds, and the Greek there (poimenas) should have been translated by the word "shepherds" to be consistent. To prove that the word pastors as used in Eph. 4:11 is the same as "shepherds," see how the Greek is translated in that passage in the English Standard Version, which I here quote. "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers." (Eph. 4:11 ESV) See also Young's Literal Translation, which also uses the word "shepherds" instead of "pastors." Barnes, the well-known Bible commentator, says this is the only place in the New Testament where that particular Greek word is rendered "pastors" rather than "shepherds."  My own research has found the same.

All of this contrasts greatly with the way most churches today are governed. In the New Testament, each congregation was self-governed by men appointed as elders after having met the qualifications given by the Holy Spirit via the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus for such. There were no national or international bodies that ruled all the churches. There were no Popes or rule by a single man designated as "the pastor" as per some denominations today. Each congregation, through its elders, made its own decisions about its work based on New Testament teaching concerning that work and how it was to be done.

God made the provision to govern the church this way, not me. Do not grow angry with me for simply pointing it out. It is his way. Man has to decide whether they are going to abide by God's way or go their own way. There is little doubt but what most will go their own way for that is their preference--my way or our way, not God's way. What this simple little study does do, even if it does not change minds, is show one whether or not he or she is in a New Testament church. You do not have to judge anyone to do it. All you have to do is look at the church's government. Who governs the church where you are?

On a personal level, I think the thing that bothers me most about this issue is that people seemingly do not seem to care about the truth. One wonders sometimes – does truth really matter with anyone anymore?

I add this as a postscript: God set up this form of church government in his own wisdom. Under this form of church government, if one church goes wrong, it does not drag others along with it, for they are not tied together administratively.

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

Obvious Errors of Catholicism

(To read this in a PDF format click here.)

According to the most recent Vatican estimates I have seen (the year 2023), there are 1.4 billion Catholics in the world today. The Pew Research group says around 20% of people living in the United States are Catholic. Roman Catholicism is much like Judaism was in Old Testament times. It is a religion where you may have converts (called proselytes in Judaism),  but the vast majority are what they are by birth, raised that way by their parents from birth. They are Catholic before they have any idea of what that means, Catholic by infant baptism.

Such was true under Judaism as well; you were a Jew whether you knew it or not, based on birth. Boys were circumcised at the age of eight days old, initiating them into the religion. I have often thought Roman Catholicism has more in common with Judaism than Christianity—the way you enter into it (generally by birthright), all the rites and rituals, all the new rules and regulations (rules instituted by the Pharisees under Judaism in the Old Testament, under the Popes, councils, etc. in Roman Catholicism), and the great emphasis on tradition in both religions.

Nothing evokes people's emotions like religion. Question a person's religion and their hackles rise instantly. They are ready to fight, to go at it. The Bible teaches that it is good to be zealous in a good thing always (Gal. 4:18), but when one is zealous in error, it results in evil. Paul, before he became an apostle, said he was zealous of the traditions of the fathers more so than many of his contemporaries (Gal. 1:14). That led him to imprison and persecute Christians (Gal. 1:13). Some were put to death.  He said when that happened, he gave his vote against them (Acts 26:10). The Catholics have a history of doing the same, of persecution, even to putting people to death.

This historical record should teach us that we ought not to act emotionally but consider rationally the propositions we are confronted with to differentiate truth from error. Put in the simplest terms, think before you decide or act, for once a person's acts become history, that is where they stay. One can be forgiven, but the historical record will remain and cannot be changed.

In this article, I want to give some obvious reasons why no one should be a Roman Catholic, and if you are one, why you ought to come out of that religion. I might add this listing is, as they say, only the tip of the iceberg. One could write for days on end on this general topic.

(1) Roman Catholicism has been a religion of violence, torture, terror, and murder; thus, it cannot be the religion of Christ and the New Testament. This is a strong statement, but the historical record backs it up. I ask no one to take my word for it. Read, read, and read some more, not what I write but what the historians have written.

I suppose a good place to start would be "Foxe's Book of Martyrs". Many criticize "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" as biased, but none I have run across claim it is entirely inaccurate. The book covers more than just Catholic persecution of those of other faiths, but it does cover that extensively. One can read there, or elsewhere, about the Inquisition. Read about the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572. "Pope Gregory XIII celebrated the massacre — he had a medal struck and commissioned Giorgio Vasari to paint frescoes commemorating it in the Vatican" (sourced from Claude, the A.I.). Read about the burnings at the stake. Read about the Crusades.

I ask where in the New Testament does Jesus teach "kill the heretics," but Rome did that time and time again. It became mad with power and arrogance. That was not Christianity. It was Roman Catholicism. This history alone should keep one out of Catholicism.

(2) Another obvious error of Catholicism is that of transubstantiation, the word meaning a change of substance. In what Catholics call the Mass, most Protestants call the communion, or the Lord's Supper, Catholics claim the bread turns into the literal body of Christ and the fruit of the vine into the literal blood of Christ. If it does, why do we see no flesh as we observe the bread or blood as we observe the fruit of the vine? The answer is simple enough to the rational mind not blinded by emotionalism. You can't see what is not there.

When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper in Matthew 26, he said of the bread, "Take, eat; this is My body." (verse 26) He said of the cup (verse 27, speaking of the contents), "This is my blood" (verse 28). Did he mean it literally? As he made those statements, he was sitting before the twelve in his fleshly body, the body their eyes were observing. When he spoke of the cup being his blood, was not his literal blood flowing within the arteries and veins of his body at that very moment? Were the twelve supposed to take him literally and believe they were eating and partaking of his literal flesh and blood while their eyes were observing him in his physical body?

You do know the New Testament given by the Holy Spirit of God forbids any and all Christians from eating blood. "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." (Acts 15:28-29, see also Acts 15:20 and Acts 21:25) In the Old Testament, God said this about eating blood, "I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people." (Lev. 17:10 NKJV) "No one among you shall eat blood." (Lev. 17:12 NKJV)

Jesus often used figurative or symbolic language. He referred to himself as a door (John 10:9), and we see clearly that he is, but we know that language is not literal, and it does not refer to the physical or material. He said he was the vine (John 15:1), and again, we see he is, but not a literal botanical vine. The same can be said when he referred to himself as the bread of life, etc.

The Catholics go so far with their doctrine of transubstantiation that they worship the wafer, once consecrated, as God, and yes, I know what their response would be to my charge. I reject their response. The wafer is no more Jesus after the consecration than it was before. They worship the wafer despite any disclaimer on their part.

The Lord's supper was to be a memorial of the Lord's death, "in remembrance of Me," as the scriptures state it (1 Cor. 11:24-25 NKJV). With the Catholics, it is not a remembrance but rather another sacrifice. They say it is a non-bloody sacrifice, but the Bible teaches that "without shedding of blood there is no remission." (Heb 9:22 NKJV) A non-bloody sacrifice avails nothing. Besides, Christ's sacrifice was a once-for-all-time event sufficient to cover all past sins and all future sins of those who are of the faith. He "does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." (Heb. 7:27 NKJV, see also Heb. 9:12, 28, and Heb. 10:10)

I must move on, for I am drifting into the errors of the Mass when I only want to deal with the obvious error of transubstantiation. One could write a massive volume on the errors of Catholicism, but that is not my purpose here.

(3) The final obvious error of Catholicism that I am going to deal with is that of the Papacy. No one reads of a Pope in the Bible, and everyone knows that. It was and is a Catholic invention.

The claim is that Peter was the first Pope, and that is based on Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, in Matt. 16:16 and Jesus' response to it saying, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church." (Matt. 16:17-18 NKJV) They say the church was built on Peter, Peter being the rock Jesus was referring to. Peter was thus to be the head of the church on earth after Jesus' ascension.

But the Bible says, "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11 NKJV) No physical building can be built without a foundation to build upon. No institution can be built unless it has a purpose, a function to fulfill, its foundation, its mission. Paul says, as quoted in this Corinthian passage, that Jesus is that foundation.

"For who is God, except the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?" (Psalms 18:31 NKJV) Jesus is specifically referred to as a "rock" in 1 Cor. 10:4, where Paul, talking about Israel coming out of Egyptian bondage, says, "all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (NKJV) Jesus is the rock the church was built upon. The church was not built upon Peter but rather upon the truth he confessed about Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matt. 16:16 NKJV) Jesus was "The stone which the builders rejected" that "has become the chief cornerstone." (1 Peter 2:7 NKJV)

Isaiah prophesied this hundreds of years earlier. He said, "Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.' " (Isa. 28:16 NKJV) When Peter in Acts 3 healed the lame man and he and John were thereafter brought before the Sanhedrin he answered them saying, "By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' " (Acts 4:10-11 NKJV)

Perhaps the clearest passage, although those listed are perfectly clear, is found in Ephesians 2:20. It is a reference to the household of God, which is the church, and says, "Having been built on the foundation of the apostles, and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone." (NKJV) The church was no more built upon Peter individually than it was any of the other apostles individually, and all of them were first built upon Jesus.

The only primacy Peter had was that of being privileged to preach the first gospel sermon on the Day of Pentecost to the Jews and later to the Gentiles (to Cornelius and his household). He used the keys to the kingdom (the gospel preached) to open the door of salvation to both. But those same keys were given to all the apostles. The Great Commission was not given to Peter exclusively.

Why would God build the church on any man? Paul said, "Let no one boast in men." (1 Cor. 3:21 NKJV) The idea of a papacy goes against everything taught in the New Testament about the relationship of brethren to one another. "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you." (Matt. 20:25-26 NKJV) "For who makes you differ from another?" (1 Cor. 4:7 NKJV) Christ is the head of the church both in heaven and on earth. (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18) Make no mistake about it, the office of the Pope, of an earthly fleshly superior after Christ, is an invention of men and is not of God.

Paul never deferred to Peter. In fact, he rebuked him in the book of Galatians, chapter two, for refusing to eat with the Gentiles. Paul said of himself, "I am not a bit behind the most eminent apostles." (2 Cor. 11:5 NKJV) That would certainly include Peter, the one the Catholics claim was the Pope. If he were the Pope, Paul did not seem to know it. And certainly, Paul did not address Peter as "the Holy Father," which is the way Catholics address the Pope. Jesus said we are to address no man as father (in a spiritual sense). He said, "Do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." (Matt. 23:9 NKJV) Catholics do it anyway.

The office of the Pope seems to be a desire to be exalted, to be seen like one of the original twelve, to speak unknown truths to the world through the Holy Spirit, and to rule. The trouble with that is multifaceted, but I will mention just one thing. The Bible says the faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). If I could be saved in the first century by what was taught, believed, and practiced back then, what need do I have today of anything additional that a Pope could give me? Think long about that. Why is he needed? I hope it is not to keep heresy in check, for we have seen the torture and death that brought historically.

The only rule of the church the Bible gives us for today is that of elders in each local congregation of brethren who are to oversee the work God has given the church. You will find the qualifications for them in the books of 1 Timothy and Titus, and that was not a one-man rule. There were to be plural elders in each congregation, and they were to rule only over that single congregation of which they were members. Those who seek to exalt themselves to something higher than that sin.

But let's take this one step further. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Peter was given an office unique to him. What would that prove about any succession? The answer—not a single thing. The Bible nowhere speaks about a succession to any of the apostles. Apostolic authority in the first-century church required miraculous spiritual gifts. Certainly, we would expect that of a man who claims to be "the Holy Father" on earth and accepts the praise, adoration, and, one could even say, the worship of the crowds. Paul, as an apostle, said, "In nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds" (2 Cor. 12:11-12 NKJV), but the Popes show none of these signs.

Peter had these signs. He even raised the dead (Tabitha or Dorcas) in Acts 9:36-40. So, where are these signs among Peter's so-called successors? Those who are supposed to be even more exalted than ordinary apostles, in that they are the head of the church on earth, Christ's representative in that office, so it is said, and yet are powerless, unlike Peter or Paul or any of the other apostles.

Christ did not give any to be Pope in his church. "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." (Eph. 4:11-13 NKJV) Strange Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, fails to mention the most eminent position of all in bringing God's people to the unity of the faith, the knowledge of Jesus, to the stature of the fullness of Christ - the Pope - if such an office existed. Paul never mentions a Pope in his writings, yet the Catholics tell us there was a Pope even while Paul lived; it was, they say, Peter.

I could write much more, but this will suffice for now. These errors are so obvious that one wonders why people do not see them, but history has taught us that people can easily be led astray and blinded to what is obvious to others. They get so caught up in false religions that it generally takes a total disaster to befall them before they are freed from them. The Japanese would never have rid themselves of Emperor worship had it not been for their near-total destruction during World War II. No one expects Islam to end before the second coming of Christ. No one expects the majority of Catholics to escape Catholicism, as obvious as its errors are. It is easy to be blinded, or so it seems, but much of that blindness is simply because we want it that way. We want to believe what we want to believe. We want it to be true. Often, we will have it no other way.

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