Christ the Savior of the Church But Which One

Paul tells us, “Christ is the head of the church; and he is the savior of the body.” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) This passage is clear-cut and easy to understand, save for one thing--what body is he the savior of? The New Testament teaches the body is the church (Col. 1:24, Eph. 1:22-23) so is it the Baptist church, the Lutheran church, the Methodist church, the Nazarene church, or one of the hundreds of others that could be named? Many would say it is all of them taken collectively. It is a subject worthy of consideration, an important study, for if we do not get it right we will be found outside the body Jesus saves on the Day of Judgment.

It is essential that we understand when Paul said Jesus was the “savior of the body” he was talking about the church already in existence, a church that would continue to exist until the end of time. The church is the body, “And he (God the Father--DS) put all things under his (Jesus’--DS) feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” (Eph. 1:22-23 NKJV) Paul says again in Col. 1:18, “And he is the head of the body, the church.” (NKJV) The church is thus Christ's spiritual body, which Christ will save at the last day as he is the savior of the body. Being a church member then is essential for salvation.  There is not a word in scripture about salvation outside the body of Christ, outside the church.

However, we still have the burden of figuring out just which church it is that Christ is going to save as we have hundreds and hundreds of churches today. Is there any help in figuring it out? Yes, quite a bit.

I will start with what ought to be obvious to all. If the church of which a person is a member began centuries after the New Testament was written it is not the church that Jesus said he would save. How do we know? The church Jesus established and over which he was and is the Savior was established in the first century on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Let us say just as an example that a church began in the 1400’s. If a person claims the church of which he is a member is the one which Jesus built and is the Savior of and yet it was not begun until the 1400’s one does not have to be a mathematical genius to see the timeline does not fit.

Are we to believe Jesus saved people in a church that did not exist? Are we to believe Jesus saved people in any of the hundreds of churches now in existence before they were founded? A little common sense goes a long way. If people were saved in the hundreds of years before the reformation and the establishment of the multitudes of churches we have today, it only proves those churches were never needed for salvation and were not a part of the church Jesus saved and is saving. It proves they are man-made churches. Jesus promised to save his church, not man-made churches.

That the church was begun in the first century is so self-evident from even a casual glance at scripture I do not want to spend much time on it here. Many of Paul’s salutations in the epistles establish that fact for he often begins with words like, “To the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2 NKJV), “To the churches of Galatia” (Gal. 1:2 NKJV), “To the church of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess. 1:2 NKJV). It is hard to write to a body not yet established, to something that does not exist. The church was begun on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 commencing with those who responded to Peter’s preaching that day. In Acts 2:47 the New King James version of the Bible reads, “And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” Much more could be written on the establishment of the church but that is not the purpose of this particular article.

Every denomination that exists today was built many hundreds of years after Christ built his church. This puts every one of them in a terrible bind. Only emotion can rescue them; there is no hope that reason can. How can one claim his church, speaking by way of accommodation, is the church Jesus built when one takes chronology into account? People were saved and added to the church that Jesus is saving for many hundreds of years before any denomination existed.

If you admit the obvious that your denomination is not the church Christ built then troubling questions arise. Why does it exist? Who built it? Jesus built his church but the chronology says your church is not his church, so who built it? Was Jesus’ church insufficient by itself without your church (denomination)? If he did not build your denomination but man did, who gave man the right? Where is the Bible authority for any man to go out and build a church in addition to God’s church? That is the very thing that happened if God’s church already existed before your denomination.

If your church is not the church Jesus built then how can it be a friend to Christ’s church? It is in competition with Christ’s church. If it taught the same thing Christ’s church taught (the same doctrine), was the same in organization, work, worship, the same in every respect, then it would be his church and not a denomination, and yet I have never known a denominational person willing to declare that his church is the church Jesus built. Why not? Because that would make it exclusive as Christ built only one and that would necessarily exclude others in other denominations.

I think men generally realize these things, it is only common sense, a little logic, pretty much like two plus two equals four, simple reasoning, and yet it is so troubling to allow our minds to dwell on these things that we quickly shut the thoughts off before anxiety sets in. If we do not see an answer, a way out, our mind seems to say let it go. We pretend the problem is not there, is non-existent, and we refuse to think about it lest it cause us worry, concern, and trouble. But, like cancer, if the problem is there it will not go away on its own, and sooner or later, one way or another, we will be forced to deal with it. It refuses to be swept under the rug and forgotten. There is a Judgment Day when we will have to provide answers as to what we did and why in our lives.

Often the answer that comes up is that all the denominations taken together are the church Jesus built. We all know deep down that is not true, but again we do not like to think about it. Every one of them was built hundreds of years after the fact by man, not by God.

We also know that they do not teach the same doctrines nor practice the same things. One denomination is open to gay marriage and homosexuality, to women in leadership roles, to sprinkling for baptism, to this or that while another denomination is one hundred and eighty degrees in the opposite direction on these issues and others. Their doctrines are as far apart as the East is from the West. They are not of one mind nor one practice.

To get everybody to heaven who just believes in Jesus which is a belief commonly held means there is no such thing as truth and that the things Jesus and the apostles taught about Christian living are at best simply good advice, not commandments, and are irrelevant to salvation. In the denominational world, one man’s truth is another man’s lie. Let a Baptist and an Episcopalian get together and talk about Christianity and homosexuality and see what happens. I use that as only an example. Make no mistake about it, if denominationalism with its generally held belief that we are all going to heaven just so we believe is to be accepted, a man must also accept the idea that neither truth nor practice matters. There is just no way in the world of getting around that.

In this article, I have said nothing about the Roman Catholic Church as I have excluded it from the denominational world. However, it does not get a free ride for the question with it is whether a totally apostate church can be saved. However, that is an article for another time.

We can answer the question “Christ the Savior of the church but which one” by saying it is none of the denominations, but it is the church Jesus himself built. It is the church that follows after the New Testament church as described in the scriptures, being as nearly free from sin and error as strictness to scripture can make it. It is the church restored to what it was on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 in terms of initiation into it and in terms of its work, worship, and organization. 

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

Catholicism’s Denial of The Holy Spirit’s Teaching

If the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the pages of the New Testament is truth then whatever denies that truth is false, is false teaching and error.  The thesis of this article is that the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the Holy Spirit’s teaching that there was an all-sufficiency of doctrine given in the first century sufficient to save the souls of humanity across all time to come.

I am sure the Catholic Church would deny this but how can they?  Reason says that if everything needed to save mankind's souls was given in the first century there is no reason or need for additional doctrines in the centuries following.  Yet the Catholic Church has piled new doctrine upon new doctrine seemingly without end down through the ages until our own time, and on and on it goes.

The Catholic Church has no set doctrine.  The best that can be said is that it is set for a time. But, time flies by and new doctrine is added.  What once was is history, is past, and the new replaces the old.  The old Catholic Church is revised with each newly added teaching and thus becomes the newest edition of the church.  In doing so it differs from the old and is therefore not the old.

One can go online and do a search and readily find when various doctrines came to be added to the Catholic Church.  Do not think for a moment that the Catholic Church of the 21st century is the same as the one in earlier centuries; it has been and continues to be a transforming institution compounding doctrines.  God does not change (Malachi 3:6), the Catholic Church does.  This continual addition of new teachings flies in the face of the teaching of scripture.

 

Jude says as clearly as language can make it that “the faith...was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3 NKJV)  When?  Then!  Then in the first century.  Everything needed for salvation from the hand of God was delivered to mankind “then.”  The faith Jude speaks of is that body of doctrine given through Christ and his apostles and prophets in the first century, in Jude’s lifetime.  It was once for all delivered meaning it was complete then and there.  There was nothing to be added to it.  That means that the Catholic Church has nothing to offer to mankind today that is of value as far as salvation goes.  That was all provided for in the first century.  We also must remember Jude wrote by inspiration.  The book of Jude is the Holy Spirit’s writing.

But, Jude is not alone.  Peter says, “His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.” (2 Peter 1:3 NKJV)  When?  Then!  If so what does Catholicism’s additional doctrines added down through the ages profit us?  Does “all things” mean all things?  Again, we have the Holy Spirit writing through human agency, through the inspired apostle Peter.  If “all” means all then we need no more than what was available in the first century and available to us in scripture.

James says in the first century the implanted word was able to save their souls (James 1:21), in that time.  Are we to believe it is not able to do so in our time?  What weakened it?  They had the implanted word available in James' time.  There was no need to wait for the development of Catholic doctrine.  James’ words were the Spirit’s words.

Paul speaking to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 commended them “to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” (Acts 20:32 NKJV)  When?  Then!  They did not need additional doctrines for salvation handed down centuries later.

Writing by inspiration Paul says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for … that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJV)  He wrote that in the first century.  Paul said “scripture” made a man complete, not scripture plus church tradition.  Here again, you have the element of time.  You could become complete in the first century.  There was no need to wait for generations to come until you could get the full deposit of Catholic Church doctrine which is impossible anyway for there is no end to its additions.  

Paul told Timothy that “the Holy Scriptures...are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 3:15 NKJV)  Not so if a man must believe any of the added Catholic doctrines down through the ages.  Paul said by inspiration “the Holy Scriptures,” not scripture plus tradition.

Were the people on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 saved when they obeyed Peter’s preaching?  Not if you must believe any of the added Catholic doctrines for salvation. You can say the same thing about all the others who believed and obeyed the gospel recorded in the book of Acts.

How is it that under Catholicism a man or woman can be saved at one time and yet at a later time another individual must believe additional doctrine to achieve the same end? If that is the case then does not that make multiple gospels versus just one?  I use the term gospel in the sense of the body of faith one must believe for salvation.

The Bible teaches there is “one faith” (Eph. 4:5), one body of truth to be believed. Which one is it in Roman Catholicism?  Is it the truth of 800 A.D., 1300 A.D., 1900 A.D., or 2025 A.D.?  Or, set your own dates.  You will readily see things have changed and who can believe we have seen the end of it?

The Bible teaches that the gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation (Rom. 1:16), that was taught in the first century, but that was before Catholic tradition kicked in during the later centuries.  Did not Paul, the writer of that Roman passage, foresee that later Catholic tradition when translated into doctrine was essential?

In the book of Acts much is written about “the word” of God being preached, heard, believed, and obeyed.  Here is a question for all who have an open mind.  Did that word include any of the Marian dogmas Catholics teach today?  Even one word?  Did it include teaching on Peter being the rock the church was being built upon?  Did it include teaching on the rosary, indulgences, transubstantiation, and the list could go on and on?  An honest person knows the answer.

One might argue the book of Acts only records examples of initial gospel obedience, evangelizing.  I respond, Paul spent 3 years in Ephesus, as an example, did he never preach Christian doctrine during that entire time?  Several of the books he wrote were written to places he had evangelized – Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Colossae, Philippi, and Thessalonica.  Did Paul preach Catholic doctrine in those locations?  Be honest with yourself.

Paul, by inspiration, wrote Second Thessalonians in which he wrote of a future “falling away” (2 Thess. 2:3), other translations use the words “rebellion” or “apostasy.”  The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one true church.  If so when is it going to fall away or has it already?  If it has or if it will can it be said it is the true church?  One must think long and hard about that.  If I as an individual fall away from a marriage, a team, a business, or an institution of any kind I was involved in then I am no longer a part of it. If the church becomes apostate it is no longer the church. It becomes something entirely different which is exactly where the Roman Catholic Church is today.  Do not claim to be what you once were if you are no longer what you once were.

I believe the Roman Catholic Church grew out of the original church of the New Testament.  That one church in its apostasy evolved into the Catholic Church.  Paul taught that the original church would fall away (2 Thess. 2:3).  If it is not what it once was then it is not the church of the New Testament, not any longer, not in its fallen state.

The Roman Catholic Church of today is no longer similar to the church one reads about on the pages of scripture; it is not that church.  As a result of its innovations, it is as much separate from true Christianity as Islam, Buddhism, or any other non-related religion.  The Catholic Church readily admits scripture is not enough for them.  They have their tradition and it trumps scripture when push comes to shove.  What was good enough for people in the first century is not good enough for them.  They will have more and more but one must always remember that whether having more of a thing is good or bad depends on what that thing is.  More of self-will and less of God’s will is not good.

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

  

Tradition in Catholicism

What is the role of tradition in religion?  Is it positive or negative?  In Jesus’ day, I think we have to say it was negative.  I remind the reader that while Jesus, a Jew, walked the earth he was living under the Law of Moses.  Christianity, the religion he brought to the world, only began after his resurrection.  In fact, without the resurrection there could be no Christianity.  “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile.” (1 Cor. 15:17 NKJV)  Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power … by the resurrection from the dead.” (Rom. 1:4 NKJV)

Jesus had to deal with tradition while living under the Law of Moses with the Jewish leaders of the land.  He and his disciples were constantly harassed by those who felt he and his followers were breaking the law of God.  Those accusations were based on what – scripture or tradition?  Obviously, on Jewish tradition but one has to remember the Jewish authorities believed their tradition had God as its source just as do the Catholics of our day.

Let us hear Jesus on the topic: “Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, ‘Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.’  He answered and said to them, ‘Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?  For God commanded, saying, 'honor your father and your mother'; and, 'he who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'  But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God” then he need not honor his father or mother.'  Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.” (Mat 15:1-6 NKJV, see also Mark 7:1-13)

The Pharisees were always watching Jesus for any transgression of their traditions, traditions which to them were equivalent in authority to the writings of Moses and the prophets.  There would be no healing on the Sabbath, no plucking of grain to satisfy hunger on the Sabbath.  The law of man-made tradition was made in their eyes into the law of God and they would hear of nothing else.  Scripture alone was not enough.  It had to be interpreted by those in positions of power within the religious community which resulted in additions, subtractions, and perversions.  Do you see any parallels in this to Roman Catholicism?  You should.

So that is where we were with tradition in the days when Jesus walked the earth.  Jewish tradition continued to evolve with time.  Judaism today is a religion far distant from the Law of Moses. 

The apostle Paul spoke of tradition in some of his writings.  In Gal. 1:14 he talks of his time before his conversion to Christianity when he was “exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” (NKJV)  This would have been during the time when he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen to death, “And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.” (Act 22:20 NKJV)  This is where a blind zeal for religious tradition can lead a man. 

Paul further says, “Many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.” (Act 26:10 NKJV)  This, of course, was before his conversion to Christianity but while he was enslaved to religious tradition. 

After Paul’s conversion, in later life, he warned against tradition, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition.” (Col 2:8 ESV)  So, we have been warned.  How can we say we have not?

But did not Paul speak positively about traditions?  He did so in 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, and 2 Thess. 3:6.  To the Corinthians he said he praised them that they kept “the traditions as I delivered them to you.” (NKJV)  To the Thessalonians he said, “Hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15 NKJV)

What are we to make of these statements?  Just this, if Paul delivered the traditions to them, to the Corinthians, then that is what we would call teaching.  What else would you call it?  A number of versions do not even use the word traditions here.  The King James Version uses the word “ordinances,” the New Living Translation uses the word “teachings” as does the Good News Bible, while the LITV (the Literal Translation) uses the word “doctrines.”  It was not tradition in the sense in which men use the word today but rather Christian doctrine that Paul delivered to them. 

The same thing can be said for the 2 Thess. 2:15 passage where the NIV uses the word “teachings,” the NLT “the teaching,” the Good News Bible “truths,” YLT  (Young’s Literal Translation) “deliverances.”  The same can be said regarding the 2 Thess. 3:6 passage in that the same Greek word is used in all three passages, the word for traditions being in Greek the word “paradosis.”  So the point to be made is that what Paul was speaking of was not traditions in the sense in which we normally use that word but was speaking of his own spirit-inspired teachings he had delivered to those to whom he spoke or was writing to.

I add this, some of the things (commandments, teachings) from the Old Testament were carried over into the new and in that sense some of those things could be referred to as traditions if one chose to do so.  As one example, nine of the Ten Commandments were brought over into the New Testament the only one which was not was to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.  Such a tradition when carried over took the force of a commandment for those living under the New Covenant, under Christianity.  Honor your father and mother can easily be seen as both a tradition and a commandment.

The apostle Peter also spoke of tradition.  He speaks of ‘aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers” (1 Peter 1:18 NKJV) as he spoke to the Jews of the Dispersion.  One can surely see Peter was not speaking positively of the tradition they had accepted.

One can ask the question, one ought to, why should we blindly accept religious tradition -- why?  Is it because it cannot be wrong?  Why can’t it?  If it could be wrong in the first century it can also be wrong in the twenty-first century. 

Having already written about Jewish tradition in the times of Jesus we move on.  It is time to turn to Roman Catholicism.  I assume the reader likely already knows that with Catholics tradition is on par with scripture in terms of having authority over one’s spiritual life.  Traditional Catholicism has rejected the Bible alone as being a sufficient guide to eternal life.  Furthermore, they have historically rejected the idea that a person unaided by the church can understand the Bible on their own.  The church will tell you what it means.  You can have a Ph.D. in biblical languages, you can be brilliant intellectually, but unaided by the church you are helpless in discerning the true meaning of scripture.  If you want to know what scripture means you must listen to the church.  They will tell you.

What is a correct interpretation of a passage?  Whatever the church tells you.  That is why when you read about Jesus’ brothers and sisters in whatever standard translation you want to use you need the church to tell you it is not so.  They will then go into an explanation of why involving the meaning of Greek words as though the scholars who translated our Bible versions were not able to translate reliably.   This is just a singular example of how you need the church in Catholicism.

In Catholicism, it seems you get your doctrine first and then read back into scripture what you desire or need.  

In Catholicism, it is impossible for Mary to ever have been anything other than a lifelong virgin, despite Matt. 1:25, thus one must get rid of the brothers and sisters.  (I challenge anyone to read Matt. 13:55-56 in context and then say it means anything other than biological brothers and sisters.)

You cannot combat tradition in Catholicism.  Why not?  Because the church has declared itself infallible in its teachings and people blindly accept that.  It is an easy way out of being personally responsible.  The Catholic Church has made itself untouchable.  You can no more combat it than you could Judaism in the first century.  Masses of people died in Judaism despite Christianity and masses will die in Catholicism despite Christianity likewise.  Eve did not get a pass from God for being deceived nor did the man of God who after prophesying against Jeroboam’s altar in 1 Kings 13 was then deceived by an old prophet and paid for it with his life.  Should we hope for a pass if we allow ourselves to be deceived by man’s tradition?

There is an aspect of Catholic tradition most people are unaware of who are not Catholic.  In Catholicism, tradition does not mean what you naturally think it means.  With most of us, tradition refers to what has gone on in the past and then been handed down.  We assume then that in religion it would be what has been handed down through the ages.  That would not be necessarily so, it seems to depend.

Get on the internet and search for a timeline on Catholic dogmas.  When you do so you will find lists giving the dates of when this and that dogma became official.  There will be many of them crossing the span of the past two thousand years.  If these various dogmas came from scripture they would have been incorporated from the beginning of Christianity.  They came from tradition, Catholic tradition.  I bring this to your attention to make the point that Catholic tradition does not go back all the way to the first century.  It jumps in wherever the powers that be want it.

Catholics disagree among themselves on the meaning of tradition.  The traditional view, of which I have already spoken, separates tradition from scripture, but only by combining the two can you have the sacred deposit of faith, as some call it, or put another way “the word of God.”  Scripture by itself is only partial, only part of the word of God.  The word of God in Catholicism requires both scripture and tradition for completion.

A second school of thought in Catholicism sees tradition as being whatever the church says it is.  I know, I know, no Catholic would agree with this statement but hear me out.  With this second school of thought in Catholicism all of Catholic tradition is already found in written scripture but the church has to bring it out (by its interpretation).  Thus they can find in scripture things the average reader cannot even imagine – transubstantiation, the papacy, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, purgatory, etc., things you need the church to help you find.  Some describe Catholic tradition as being “living.”  I would certainly agree with that, living and growing, and that is just the problem with it.

Roman Catholicism is a religion separate unto itself.  It is not Christianity.  I have no problem saying it evolved out of Christianity but it long ago ceased to be Christian.  So, why are we surprised?  Did not the same evolution from truth into error occur in Judaism?  Even the New Testament teaches there will be and must be a falling away before the second coming of Christ (2 Thess. 2:3).  The scripture teaches there will be a falling away so let us not talk and act like it cannot happen.

Let me play the role of a Catholic for a moment.  As a Catholic I declare the Catholic Church to be the one and only church of the New Testament.  I claim to believe scripture so what do I do with 2 Thess. 2:3, “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day (the last day – DS) will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition”? (NKJV)  It says my church will fall away for after all my church is the only true church according to Catholicism.

I cannot say this passage refers to the Reformation.  Why not?  There is no one in Protestantism sitting "as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." (2 Thess. 2:4).  In fact, since Protestantism is so diverse and divided it is hard to see how that could ever be.  And, yet, believing what I do, remember I am putting myself in the shoes of a devout Catholic, how can there ever be a falling away in my church since the church is said to be infallible, full of the spirit of God?  I cannot solve this dilemma for the Catholics.  I am sure the Catholics will have an answer if pressed, and when they do it will be said to be infallible for you see that is the way it is in Catholicism.

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

Are Paul's Writings as Authoritative as Jesus' Words?

Many years ago as a young man, I heard it said by a young lady of my own age that the apostle Paul just had a thing against women with the idea being that what he wrote on the subject of women had no authority but was merely the expression of personal prejudice on his part.  That young lady many years later became a preacher within her denominational body contrary to Paul's teaching on the subject in 1 Tim. 2:12.

Over the course of the many years that have transpired since that time, I have heard the same or similar comments regarding things Paul wrote.  It seems many believe he lacked the authority of Christ in the words he spoke or wrote.  That is the subject I wish to pursue in this article.  I add that the reality is that if what Paul wrote is not authoritative then we cannot stop there but have to go right down the line and ask about what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and Jude wrote. 

The truth of the matter is every single word of the New Testament excepting only those words added by translators for clarification (usually marked by being printed in italics) came directly from God the Father including the words of Jesus himself.  In John 1:1 Jesus is called "the Word" (NKJV) and he is recorded as saying, "He who rejects me, and does not receive my words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.  For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.  And I know that his command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak." (John 12:48-50 NKJV)  He says again, "The word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me." (John 14:24 NKJV)  One could add to these references but the point has been made. 

Before Jesus ascended back to heaven he promised to send the Holy Spirit to his apostles.  "But the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." (John 14:26 NKJV)  "I will pray the Father, and he will give you another helper (the Holy Spirit--DS) … even the Spirit of truth." (John 14:16-17 NKJV)  "But when the helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, … he will testify of me." (John 15:26 NKJV)  Now here is where one needs to pay special attention.  Did the Holy Spirit speak free-lance style?  Listen carefully. 

"However, when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak; and he will tell you things to come.  He will glorify me, for he will take of what is mine and declare it to you.  All things that the Father has are mine.  Therefore I said that he will take of mine and declare it to you." (John 16:13-15 NKJV)  The apostles were commanded by Jesus to stay in Jerusalem until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5 NKJV).  That day came on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1-4. 

The important thing to see thus far is the chain of command.  Even though God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one, all being equally God, they have an order in which they of their own accord have chosen to work.  Jesus, "being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant." (Philippians 2:6-7 NKJV)  Jesus thus submitted himself to God the Father and spoke only the Father's words.  When the Holy Spirit came after Jesus returned to heaven it is clear from the passage just quoted in the prior paragraph (John 16:13-15) that he did not originate truth for he did not speak on his own authority but spoke what he heard.  He glorified Jesus by taking what was of or from Jesus and declared it to them. 

Thus when an apostle spoke by means of the Holy Spirit he spoke not out of himself but rather spoke the very words of God.  Peter speaks of "those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven." (1 Peter 1:12 NKJV)  On the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 Peter himself spoke just such a gospel sermon after the Holy Spirit fell on him and the other apostles.  Paul says, "No one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.  These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (1 Cor. 2:11-13 NKJV) 

If Paul was not an inspired writer (as well as a gospel preacher) then Peter was in error for he said of Paul's writings that some twisted them "to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15 NKJV)  Not only does Peter compare Paul's writings with the rest of the scriptures but also says his writings can be twisted to one's destruction.  That would be a little hard to do if they were uninspired writings would it not?  If one recalls correctly Ananias was sent to Paul at his conversion with one reason being that Paul might be "filled with the Holy Spirit." (Acts 9:17 NKJV)  

Sometimes people latch on to a few statements made by Paul in 1 Cor. 7 and read into them more than they should in that they feel Paul is there giving uninspired advice or giving only his own judgment or opinion apart from any direction of the Spirit.  For example, Paul says in verse 12, "I, not the Lord, say," (NKJV) and then in verse 25 he says, "I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in his mercy has made trustworthy." (1 Cor. 7:25 NKJV)  Well, is Paul trustworthy or not?  He closes this very chapter with these words, "According to my judgment—and I think I also have the Spirit of God." (1 Cor. 7:40 NKJV)  Do you think Paul had the Spirit of God?  Do you think he was questioning himself by making that statement?  You know better. 

Here is the bind that those get themselves into when they begin questioning scripture and taking some of it as inspired and other parts of it as not inspired—how do you decide which is which?  Are you that all wise and knowing so that you can declare beyond doubt that this scripture is inspired while that one is not?  How do the rest of us know you are that smart, even God-like, in your declarations?  How did you come to possess these mighty powers of discernment?  Maybe showing us a miracle would help the rest of us build confidence in you.  In New Testament times miracles were performed to confirm the word as being from God (Heb. 2:1-4).  We need confirmation of like nature if you are going to start cutting out scripture from the Bible for proof is needed that your word is from God when you do such cutting.   After all, you will be giving us a new Bible when your cutting is done. 

Needless to say, all such approaches to scripture end up being faith-destroying.  How do you have faith if you do not know what to have faith in and what not to have faith in?  Yes, I know these types proclaim their faith but genuine faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17) and not by one's own “I think so.”  It does not come by one declaring himself to be God and thus able to give man the true scriptures versus the false ones. 

The bottom line ends up being that one either has to hold to the scriptures as being authoritative, and verbally inspired by God, or else he holds to the words of some man that declares otherwise but can work no miracle in proof of his declaration. 

In closing yes the words of Jesus in red are authoritative but no more so than the words in black in your New Testament for the truth is the source of all inspired writings is God the Father.  When Paul or Peter or whomever the New Testament writer was spoke with pen and ink or otherwise on matters of the faith his words came from the same source that Jesus' did while Jesus was on the earth.  The idea that Paul was writing for Paul's sake promoting his own doctrine contrary to what Jesus would have said is as unscriptural as it gets. 

"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) 

Postscript:  This article is not meant to imply that Bible translations, man-made, are infallible.  However, to the extent a translation accurately represents the original manuscripts of the New Testament, it is reliable.

 

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

 

 

 

  

Disrespect for the Word of God is Disrespect for Jesus

There is little respect for the word of God in America today.  It is now common to hear the term post-Christian used to describe our society and the West in general.  Of course, if we are post-Christian it necessarily follows we have also become post-scriptural, people who no longer value the things of scripture, believe them, or abide in them. 

The liberal secularists and progressives in America who have come to dominate much of the media, politics, academia, and the sports and entertainment industries see this as a positive thing.  We are growing up, outgrowing silly myths and superstitions, becoming at last mature adults able to deal with reality—God is a myth. 

With such a mindset obedience or disobedience to the word of God as found in the Christian scriptures means nothing.  The scriptures are not to be taken seriously.  At best they teach good life lessons on how to order your own personal life but if you follow them too meticulously they will lead you into intolerance and judgment.  You will become a despicable bigoted person for after all not everything the Bible calls sin is actually sin.  Modern man is a better judge of sin than the scriptures. 

Accordingly, modern man has, so he thinks, refuted outdated ideas like there being any sin in adultery (as scripture defines it), fornication, abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, attempting to change one's sex, etc.  Since discarding scripture is now in vogue one must ask what we have in place of it to guide us through life?  The answer is nothing other than whatever the latest fashion is.  Our values and ethics change it seems like the passing seasons of the year.  Anyone now living who can remember just fifty years ago can tell you we are no longer the same people we were then.  

In modern thought what one needs to do is embrace everyone in whatever lifestyle they engage in, meaning you remain uncritical of it and accepting, and it will be okay with you.  Be a good person as judged by society’s standards and it will go well with you in whatever life is to come--if there is a life to come—which, by the way, we don’t believe.  But even if there is a God he thinks the same way we do so don’t worry, it will go well with you.  So we think, so we live our lives. 

Did Jesus teach any of this?  No he did not, none of it.  First of all he never believed nor taught it was going to go well with the majority of society based on being a good person in society.  “Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matt. 7:14 NKJV)  The few is not the many.  Do not be misled by those who seem to be teaching or implying that all is going to go well with the mass of humanity, those judged good by society’s standards; unless Jesus is a liar that will not be the case.  A good Roman citizen in the first or second century was still lost unless he/she was also a Christian.  The same can be said of citizens in all societies since then. 

Secondly, Jesus never had the attitude that one could be indifferent about scripture; one cannot be indifferent about doing God’s will.  "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven.” (Matt 7:21 NKJV)  If doing the will of the Father is necessary, as Jesus says, the will of the Father must be discerned.  That necessarily implies that God’s word is of utmost importance as it is the vehicle by which God’s will is made known to man.  

Did Jesus respect scripture?  If he did how can we say we respect him while disrespecting what he honors?  In John 5:45-47 Jesus rebukes the Jews he is speaking to for not believing the writings of Moses, “if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:47 NKJV)  Earlier in John 5:39 he says the scriptures are “they which testify of me.”  In John 10:35 he says, “The scripture cannot be broken.” (NKJV) 

In just these three passages alone from the book of John we see Jesus’ respect for Moses’ writings and the trustworthiness of scripture as it relates to the testimony of and about himself as well as the fact that scripture is rock solid; it cannot be broken.  This is Jesus’ view of scripture.  

One is reminded of Jesus' comments about creation in the book of Matthew when he said, "Have you not read (read what?—scripture—DS) that he who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?” (Matt. 19:4-5 NKJV)  Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, Moses’ writings, and in doing so is telling us he respects what was written and with the direct implication that we should too.  Jesus destroys any thoughts about the evolution of man from lower life forms in this passage and establishes marriage as being between a man and a woman by accepting what Moses wrote. 

Moses’ writings are reliable but our culture does not want to accept them or what Jesus said about them for if Moses’ writings are true it means that marriage is between a man and a woman and our culture is no longer willing to accept that kind of a restriction on God’s institution.  God institutes marriage but he has no right, as we see it, to be exclusive about it.  It is his institution but we are determined to grasp it from him and rule it ourselves.  God has no right in the matter. 

We will not respect the scripture.  Jesus did but we won’t and many of us want nothing to do with a Jesus who will not endorse and celebrate gay marriages.  God has no right to regulate sin.  Thank you but we can very well do that on our own (we think).  If we don’t want it to be sin we will not allow it to be.  We have that much power?  Wow!  Impressive! 

Jesus also spoke of Noah, the flood, and the ark as historical fact (Luke 17:27), of Moses and the burning bush (Mark 12:26, Luke 20:37), of Jonah being in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights (Matt. 12:40), of Sodom and Gomorrah (Mark 6:11, Luke 17:29), of Daniel’s “abomination of desolation” (Mark 13:14), and of David saying "have you not even read this, what David did when he was hungry?” (Luke 6:3 NKJV) 

Jesus endorsed the scriptures as authentic, historical, and reliable.  To cast aspersion upon the scriptures is to reflect upon the knowledge and wisdom of Jesus, to make him out a fool for accepting things we will not accept.  Our society is no longer willing to believe and laughs at divine creation, a worldwide flood, Jonah (a fish story), Sodom and Gomorrah, homosexuality as a sin, etc. 

Let me drive a point home here.  We sometimes make a distinction between what we believe (believe in the sense of having a strong opinion) and what we know.  We say we do not believe a thing—we know it.  So the question arises did Jesus believe the things he spoke of, that is just have a strong opinion, or did he know them? 

If he just believed them like you and I believe things when we speak that way then he was just a man and could not be God and man’s savior.  If on the other hand he knew as fact the things of which he spoke then we enter into the realm of his being more than just a man.  He spoke as one who knew.  So where do we stand?  What do we believe about Jesus?  Did he speak as a man or as God?  Will we believe Jesus?  If so it forces us to believe the scriptures.  When we doubt the scriptures we doubt Jesus and doubt is not faith. 

Jesus spoke of Old Testament scripture as the New Testament scriptures had not yet been written.  How important is not just Old Testament scripture but also New Testament scripture? 

Jesus said, “He who rejects me, and does not receive my words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that his command is everlasting life.  Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak." (John 12:48-50 NKJV) 

Jesus spoke the word of God (John 12:48-50, 14:10, 24, 17:8,14) but lest we think that means we need only a red letter edition of the New Testament where we can pick Jesus’ words out by the red print and can ignore the rest of the New Testament we need to read further.  Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles.  “I will pray the Father, and he will give you another helper…even the Spirit of truth…he dwells with you and will be in you…I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.” (John 14:16-18 NKJV)  As Jesus and the Father are one so are Jesus and the Holy Spirit. 

When the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles it was the same as if Jesus had come back to them in person.  This is clarified in Jesus’ own words in John 16:12-14, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.  However, when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak; and he will tell you things to come.  He will glorify me, for he will take of what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:12-14 NKJV)  Jesus still has many things to say.  When is he going to say them and how?  He will say them through the Holy Spirit when the Holy Spirit is sent to the apostles (and granted as a spiritual gift to others in the scriptures after Pentecost). 

The apostle Peter spoke of Paul’s writings as being twisted by some to their destruction comparing Paul’s writings to “the rest of the scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:14-16 NKJV) 

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” (2 Tim. 3:16 NKJV)  Jesus is God (John 1:1, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Acts 20:28).  Jesus is the one of whom John proclaimed, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1 NKJV)  To disrespect scripture, to belittle passages, make light of scriptural teaching, etc., is showing disrespect for the author of those scriptures, the one who said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” (Matt. 4:4 NKJV) 

This Jesus is the one Peter was referring to in Acts 3 when he quoted Moses saying, “For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren.  Him you shall hear in all things, whatever he says to you.  And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’” (Acts 3:22-23 NKJV)  Jesus is a prophet, priest, and king but above all he is a part of the Godhead.  We can hear him or we can be “utterly destroyed from among the people.” (Acts 3:23 NKJV)     

Jesus says many times, “if you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15 NKJV) or words to that end (see John 14:21, 23, 24, John 15:10, 14).  He is “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him.” (Heb. 5:9 NKJV)  How does one obey Jesus while disrespecting the scriptures that teach us his commandments that we are to obey?  “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:3 NKJV)  Disrespecting the word of God is not an ingredient in the love of God and it certainly does not show respect for Jesus. 

America is truly becoming an anti-Christian nation or should one say an anti-Christ nation?  The America we once knew where God-haters and Bible haters were rare is disappearing and I think most Americans know that and would no longer disagree about it.  We are becoming Europe but we saved Europe twice from themselves last century.  Who will save us from ourselves when we have to reap what we are now sowing?

[If you wish to download this article to save it to your computer or to print it out click here.]