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.]

 

  

Christianity and Multiculturalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christianity is multicultural in the sense that was earlier stated in this article in that it is a gospel made for all without restrictions based on race, sex, nationality, economic, or social status, etc. However, once one becomes a Christian we are to become "one" people. "He himself is our peace, who has made both one (a reference to Jew and Gentile of which all mankind is one or the other--DS), and has broken down the middle wall of division between us, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that he might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross." (Eph. 2:14-16 NKJV) The end is not humanity divided as it once was between Jew and Gentile but now united as "one new man." "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28 NKJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are the New Testament Scriptures Alone Sufficient

Sometimes we take it for granted that everyone who calls themselves a Christian holds the New Testament scriptures in as high a regard as we do. However, that is not the case. Some, while calling themselves Christians, do not believe in the all-sufficiency of the New Testament scriptures to save a person. They feel we need more guidance and direction than can be found in the scriptures alone.

Who are these Christian (God will decide) groups who are not satisfied with the New Testament scriptures alone? I can think of three groups off-hand and there may well be others. (1) The Catholic Church and they do not deny it. (2) The Mormons. (3) Those groups or individuals who believe they need and receive direct guidance from the Holy Spirit in addition to the scriptures.

What do the scriptures themselves teach on the subject? If the scriptures make the claim to be sufficient then those denying such make it clear they are not Bible believers despite all claims to the contrary.

The Holy Spirit speaking through Paul the apostle said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJV)

Who was Paul, at that time, writing to? To Timothy, but it is obvious that what applied to Timothy as to how he was to view scripture was and is applicable to all. Paul says scripture is able to make us complete. If we are complete we lack nothing. If we are "thoroughly equipped" that is all the equipment that is needed.

However, the objection is made that Paul was obviously speaking of the Old Testament scriptures, at least primarily, as not all of the New Testament had yet been written. Well, what is that supposed to imply? Is it supposed to cast doubt on scripture given at a later date? Is it designed to cast doubt on books written later as to their inspiration, books that are included in our New Testaments?

Were none of the New Testament books written when Paul wrote the words found in 2 Tim. 3:16-17? Most scholars believe 2 Timothy, quoted above, was written somewhere in the range of 66 to 68 AD. While dates are all over the place on some New Testament books all scholars I know about concede that Second Timothy was the last book written by Paul. Was Paul excluding his own writings when he spoke of scripture being given by inspiration of God, books he had already written?

To the Corinthians Paul said "the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." (1 Cor. 14:37 NKJV) Paul issued commands (1 Cor. 7:10, 2 Thess. 3:4, 6, 12) and directed Timothy to do so (1 Tim. 4:11, 5:7, 6:17). To the Galatians he claimed inspiration for his message. "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:10-11 NKJV) He says the same thing again in Ephesians 3:3. Paul recognized his own inspiration.

But we also have Peter's testimony on the subject when he says, "as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16 NKJV)

Sounds like when Peter wrote this Paul was still living but had already written many epistles which Peter compares to "the rest of the scriptures." He says Paul's writings could be twisted to the destruction of untaught and unstable people. That could not be if Paul's writings were not scripture. Peter considered Paul's writings to be scripture just like "the rest of the scriptures."

When Paul wrote what he did in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 he was not excluding his own writings or talking merely about the Old Testament scriptures. Neither was he excluding what might be written later in other New Testament books by other apostles or men of inspiration.

But now note something else. What is the purpose of scripture? It is, as Paul puts it, "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:17 NKJV) If that is the case then the one who says the New Testament scriptures alone are insufficient is in an awful bind. Why? Because his position is that the man of God cannot be complete, cannot be thoroughly equipped for every good work by the scriptures alone and he thus puts himself in opposition to what the word of God says.

An objection might well be made here, by those in opposition, that I have left the barn door open for later revelation. Indeed I did for, as I said, Paul's statement was not just about scripture already written but about all scripture given by God regardless of the date it would be given. The door was left open but only for a limited period of time.

The key here is the phrase Paul used when he said "given by inspiration of God." As you well know some speak of latter-day revelation hundreds of years after the completion of the New Testament. How can we be sure revelation ceased when the New Testament scriptures as we now have them were completed?

When God gave scripture he gave mankind a means by which man could be assured that the message was from God. The message was given orally and then later written down by inspired men. The Bible says the word was confirmed as the apostles went out everywhere, "the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs." (Mark 16:20 NKJV)

The Hebrew writer says salvation (speaking of the word of salvation) "began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?" (Heb. 2:3-4 NKJV)

All through Acts we see miracles being performed. There were the tongues from God that sat upon the apostles on the Day of Pentecost and the speaking in tongues that day as the word was first preached to man after Christ's resurrection.

A little later in Acts 4 upon the release of Peter and John from arrest and imprisonment a prayer is uttered by the disciples. "Lord … grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus." (Acts 4:29-30 NKJV) Then in verse 33 we read, no doubt in answer to their prayer, "with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus."

In Acts 5:12 Luke says, "And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people." (NKJV) Both Peter and Paul raised the dead through the power of God. Philip worked miracles in Samaria. Paul spoke of preaching the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum with "mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God." (Rom. 15:19 NKJV) Here is the point—if there has been latter-day revelation there has to have been of necessity confirmation from God by means of miracles.

If we have additional scripture that has been given since the New Testament scriptures were written where are they and where is the proof that shows God confirmed them? Now I understand some are ready and willing to show me these additional scriptures they claim are from God but where is their proof? We need some confirmation from God in the same way we got it in the first century.

Miracles were only to last as long as they were needed and they were needed only as long as there was revelation being given that needed confirmation. Listen to Paul from Ephesians 4:7-14 (NKJV):

(8) "Therefore He says: 'When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.' … (11) And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, (12) for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, (13) 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; (14) that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive."

Paul was here talking about God giving gifts (miraculous abilities) to men which he says were for "the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." (Eph. 4:12 NKJV)

But, I want you to note that he sets a time limit on this. He says in verse 13 "till." And I want you to look closely at verse 14 which shows us when this "till" shall have come to pass for many think it will be when Jesus returns. Not so. It was to be while the earth still stood and prior to Jesus' return.

Paul says when that "till" arrives we will "no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men." (Eph. 4:14 NKJV) Thus, Christians will still be on the earth when the till that is to come arrives but they will no longer be carried away by every false doctrine. Why not? Simply because they will have God's completed revelation available to them and can compare its teaching versus man's teaching.

The till that is to come is the completed scriptures. In Eph. 4:13 he says, "till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man." (NKJV) That perfect man is the mature man, the man who has been made complete by the scriptures, the perfect man of Eph. 4:13 (NKJV) is the complete man of 2 Tim. 3:17 (NKJV).

Paul speaks of this also over in 1 Cor. 13:8-12. "Whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." (NKJV)

That which is perfect which was to come was the completed scriptures or as you might put it the completed revelation of God to man. How can we be sure this passage is not a reference to Christ's second coming? Do you think knowledge will vanish when Jesus comes? I think there will be a great increase in knowledge. People will know things they never knew before. Obviously, the knowledge that is being spoken of here, that is to vanish away, is miraculous knowledge that God gave to man in the days of spiritual gifts (see 1 Cor. 12:8).

Now consider this, if we continued to have revelation after the death of those granted spiritual gifts in the first century, even up to modern times, it means no one has yet been able to overcome the "trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:14 NKJV) Why not? Because they lacked the whole truth of God's revelation that would allow them to know truth from error. It means all those who lived from the second century on up to today have lacked part of what they needed to combat error.

If part of inspiration came say in the sixteenth century then where does that leave the man or woman who lived and died before then? This is the dilemma all so-called Christian groups face who claim inspiration and revelation outside the New Testament. Catholics, for example, have added untold numbers of new doctrines across the ages. Truth in many of these religious bodies is never fully attainable for you never know what is coming down the road in the next generation.

Let us take a second look at 1 Cor. 13:8-12 quoted above. What is to vanish in addition to knowledge and tongues? Prophecy.

This eliminates latter-day prophecy and Mormon prophets. When? When scripture is completed. How can we know when that is? When miraculous confirmation by miracles has ceased. Has that happened? If you define a miracle as being the kind of miracle performed in the book of Acts, and how else can one define one, then they ceased sometime around the end of the first century.

If prophecy has ceased we no longer have apostles. If we do, we seek the signs of an apostle which Paul talked about. He says, "Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds." (2 Cor. 12:12 NKJV) Some still claim we have and need apostles today. Where are their signs and wonders and mighty deeds?

Thus when miracles ceased revelation had ended; the scriptures had been completed; the man of God had the means to be made perfect (Eph. 4:14), to be made complete (2 Tim. 3:17), to become mature. Henceforth nothing else would ever be needed.

The New Testament scriptures alone are a sufficient guide to heaven and all you need. God warns us about adding to his word. The New Testament is enough; the New Testament scriptures are sufficient. Anything more than that is man playing God.

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