The following is the first public devotional my 12 year old son, Damien, gave last night at our mid-week Bible study.
It is easy being a Christian when everything is going well, but for some people as soon as the going gets rough they leave. They want to just give up. Jesus talked about this type of person when He said in Matthew 13:20-21, 20. What was planted on rocky soil is the person who hears the message and accepts it with gladness right away. 21. However, he does not have deep roots in himself; he doesn't last long. When, because of the message, trouble or persecution comes, he soon gets discouraged and gives up.
One of the hardest things to do as a Christian, then, is to remain loyal and true to the Lord even when things aren’t going so well. As you probably know, this past Sunday evening I was bit in the face by one of our dogs. It’s possible I might be disfigured from this, but at the least, I will have scars. I didn’t want this to happen to me, I don’t know why this happened to me, but it did. Maybe this is part of the cross Jesus said I should take up and bear (Matthew 16:24).
My Mom and Dad have always taught my brothers and me that regardless of what happens in life, we should never blame God or quit serving Him. I’m so glad they have done this, because it’s also true that Jesus never said that being a Christian meant nothing bad would ever happen to us again. No, He didn’t say that, but He did say that He has promised that He will always love us and be with us forever. And I believe and trust that, and I take comfort in those words, even when bad things happen to me!
So whenever something goes wrong in your life please remember what the Lord tells us in Hebrews 13:5:
“God Himself has said this: ‘I will never leave you. I will never abandon you.’”
And if we truly believe and trust in Him then one day we will get to hear those great words,
“Fine! You are a good and faithful servant. I see that I can trust you with small things. Therefore, I will put you in charge of important things. Come and share your master's happiness.” (Matthew 25:23)
Showing posts with label Guest Article. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guest Article. Show all posts
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
We Need Sons of Encouragement
The following devotional was given by my 12 year old son, Daniel, on Wednesday, May 20, 2009.
If I were to ask you to tell me this evening all you knew about a man named Joseph of Cyprus, most likely you would have no clue as to who this man was. And there is a very good reason for that, and that reason is that this man is known instead by a nickname given to him by the apostles themselves, a nickname which so aptly described his encouraging character. Translated into English the nickname of this great man means “Son of Encouragement,“ but we know him better as Barnabas.
We first encounter Barnabas in Acts 4:36-37. Luke writes, “Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of Encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.” There was something special about this man who was given the nickname “Barnabas” by the apostles. He was such a godly man that he became known by his deeds. From the surname given to him by the apostles we can see that he was a man whose life embodied that of a person who was a comfort and an encouragement to others.
We also learn in the Book of Acts that Barnabas never gave up on a young man by the name of John Mark, a young man that even Paul felt was no longer of any use in the service of God. Luke writes in Acts 15:36-41, 36. And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Come, let us return and visit the brethren in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are." 37. And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. 38. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. 39. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, 40. but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. 41. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
Because of Barnabas not giving up on John Mark, he became a great man himself in the service of the Lord. It was this very same man who wrote the Gospel of Mark that bears his name, and the very same young man whom the Apostle Paul would say of just prior to his execution in Rome in 2 Timothy 4:11, “Get Mark and bring him with you; for he is very useful in serving me.”
This evening I would like to take a few moments to offer my personal thanks to the elders and the congregation here for the encouragement they have given my brothers and me since we have been here. The very fact that I am giving the devotional this evening, and that Damien, Donovan and I are asked routinely to help serve during the Lord’s Supper, to do the reading and to lead singing, are evidence of the Barnabases among us. These opportunities are very much an encouragement to each one of us, and although we have grown up here and believed this was the practice that occurred everywhere in the Lord’s church, our Dad has informed us that this is not the norm in most places. I believe that is very unfortunate. I know we are not perfect and we make mistakes occasionally in our efforts, but in spite of our shortcomings no one ever has been critical. And for that, once again I want to express my thanks and gratitude on behalf of my brothers and myself.
Let us all pray that the Lord will send to us godly men with the encouragement of Barnabas. Let us all strive to do just what the Bible teaches in Hebrews 10:24 and “ . . . let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works.”
If there are any here this evening who are subject to the Lord’s invitation in any way, please let your wishes be known as those of us who are able would please rise for the song of encourgement.
We first encounter Barnabas in Acts 4:36-37. Luke writes, “Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of Encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.” There was something special about this man who was given the nickname “Barnabas” by the apostles. He was such a godly man that he became known by his deeds. From the surname given to him by the apostles we can see that he was a man whose life embodied that of a person who was a comfort and an encouragement to others.
We also learn in the Book of Acts that Barnabas never gave up on a young man by the name of John Mark, a young man that even Paul felt was no longer of any use in the service of God. Luke writes in Acts 15:36-41, 36. And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Come, let us return and visit the brethren in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are." 37. And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. 38. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. 39. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, 40. but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. 41. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
Because of Barnabas not giving up on John Mark, he became a great man himself in the service of the Lord. It was this very same man who wrote the Gospel of Mark that bears his name, and the very same young man whom the Apostle Paul would say of just prior to his execution in Rome in 2 Timothy 4:11, “Get Mark and bring him with you; for he is very useful in serving me.”
This evening I would like to take a few moments to offer my personal thanks to the elders and the congregation here for the encouragement they have given my brothers and me since we have been here. The very fact that I am giving the devotional this evening, and that Damien, Donovan and I are asked routinely to help serve during the Lord’s Supper, to do the reading and to lead singing, are evidence of the Barnabases among us. These opportunities are very much an encouragement to each one of us, and although we have grown up here and believed this was the practice that occurred everywhere in the Lord’s church, our Dad has informed us that this is not the norm in most places. I believe that is very unfortunate. I know we are not perfect and we make mistakes occasionally in our efforts, but in spite of our shortcomings no one ever has been critical. And for that, once again I want to express my thanks and gratitude on behalf of my brothers and myself.
Let us all pray that the Lord will send to us godly men with the encouragement of Barnabas. Let us all strive to do just what the Bible teaches in Hebrews 10:24 and “ . . . let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works.”
If there are any here this evening who are subject to the Lord’s invitation in any way, please let your wishes be known as those of us who are able would please rise for the song of encourgement.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Plain Talk About Sarah Palin
The following article takes a different look at the nomination of Sarah Palin to be Vice President of the United States. It was written by Christina Dozier, a woman in whom I hold much respect and admiration. Here is a direct link to the article on her web site:
Plain Talk About Sarah Palin
or
Sarah Palin's Skirt Tails
The Republican Party has chosen a woman to run for the second highest office in the land. What have we come to that no man in this country is qualified to do the job and we had to pick a woman? Sodom and Gomorrha couldn't produce ten righteous souls, and the Republican Party can't offer up one man that is more fit than this woman to run for Vice-President of the United States.
Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
How are we feeling about this shameful condition in our country? Surprisingly, some are excited. They are happy. In fact, they are downright jubilant. They are fascinated by Sarah Palin. Yes, men who aren't fit to run the country are pleased that a woman is seeking to be second highest in command of them. These are men who think they are in authority over their own women and wouldn't allow their women to be over them in any way in the church. But for some reason they like the idea of a woman's having power in other ways over them. A funny thing happened on the way to the White House. Women flung off their role in the home. They flung off their femininity. For all intents and purposes, they flung off motherhood. They flung off their submission to their husbands. So why would it surprise us to see a woman pursue a high office in the country, and why wouldn't we accept it and even be excited about it?Maybe it is not surprising at all, but I am confounded. I just don't comprehend how a woman may not be over a man in the home and she may not be over a man in the church but suddenly God is pleased if she rules over a man in the rest of her (and his) life. I have to wonder how Sarah Palin learned how to rule a man. She couldn't do it in the home. She couldn't do it in the church. Where did she get the talent, ability, and experience to rule a country of men unless her boots have been walking where they shouldn't have been walking?
I don't know whether many people have considered it or not, but when Sarah Palin became a public official, she began ruling over her husband. And, if I were so bold, I'd like to ask the men who are excited about her nomination to the Vice-Presidency: Would you allow your own wife to be Vice-President and usurp authority over you? Would you be honored or humiliated to have your wife a heartbeat away from your commander-in-chief if you were a soldier?
I guess roshen ears aren't corn. It reminds me of our worship/Bible study situation. Ten o'clock Sunday morning comes and we flip a switch in our head and it's just Bible study and women may talk. Eleven o'clock comes and we flip another switch in our head and it's worship time and women may not talk. We're doing the same things--or some of them (praying, studying, and singing)--but somehow God likes it when women talk at 10:00 but He gets hopping mad when they talk at 11:00. That is, except, of course, that a woman may confess Christ. However, confession of sin should be whispered to the preacher, as it is a shame for a woman to speak in church. That is, of course, with the other exception of singing, which a woman must do. Don't ask me to explain all this; I can't.But I reckon that's also how it has to be when Sarah Palin rules over her husband. If she is elected, when she and her husband walk out of their house and into official government buildings, we all just have to flip a switch and make it okay for her to rule over men.1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.Obviously, when it comes to usurping authority over a man, some take this to be only in the church and the home. But to be consistent, they would have to say that all of this scripture applies only in the church and the home. And in that case a woman may dress immodestly as long as she isn't in church or at home. And she doesn't have to do any good works except in church or at home. When a woman leaves her home or the church building, she may fling off her shamefacedness and sobriety. More than that, she may usurp authority over a man if she's not in church or in the home. This must be what some think; otherwise, they wouldn't be excited that Sarah Palin is hoping to usurp authority over her husband as well as every man in the country--except John McCain.
Maybe the argument is that this scripture applies only in the spiritual realm. If so, then a woman may usurp authority over her husband at home in any matter that is not spiritual. She may tell her husband what house or car to buy. She may tell him what groceries to pick up and when to fix supper. She may tell him to bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan--and never ever let him think he's a man.
If this scripture indeed applies only in the spiritual realm, we have no basis for applying any of it across the board, and women must dress modestly in the church and at home, but when they go out into the world they can let it all hang out. Who can believe it? Not I. And one thing I know: We can't take part of this scripture and apply it to the spiritual realm and then take the other part and apply it to the secular realm. That is taking scripture out of context and making it fit with our preconceived notions.We are worried, I know, about homosexuality and abortion, so we don't want Barack Obama in the White House. I recognize that danger. In fact, the thought of that man being President makes me cringe. But will homosexuality be abolished if McCain is elected? Will abortions cease or even be diminished? I don't think so. And we need to understand that God is concerned about authority and who rules whom. The line of authority is important to God. A man might as well usurp authority over Christ as a woman is to usurp authority over a man. Maybe we want to pick a lesser of two evils. But, frankly, I don't know which evil is worse, and I cannot vote for a woman.If a woman is elected as Vice-President of the United States, she will lead our country to the shame and humiliation of every grown man. I hope men learn to be men and women learn to be women before it is too late. God has other ways of bringing us down if we don't learn quickly. Having a woman ruling over men may be only the beginning.
I haven't even spoken about how a vote for Sarah Palin is a vote for a woman to leave her God-ordained role at home and take on the ruling of a country instead. Let's not even try to fool ourselves into thinking she can do both, and we might want to consider whether we want to support her abandonment of her children, including her nursing baby.
Mr. Palin has agreed to be Mr. Mom. He will try to be a helper meet for Sarah. And clearly she will be known in the gates, when she sits among the elders of the land. So Mr. Palin might be what many of us women aspire to be: a Proverbs 31 woman. Will women look to him then as a role model for being a good housewife? Or will we look to his wife as a role model for being a good leader? Will men look to Mr. Palin as a role model for being a good househusband? Or will they look to his wife as a role model for being a good leader? I don't know; but I know that God is not the author of confusion, and we are one confused nation. And we shake our heads and wonder why homosexuality and unwed mothers seeking abortions continue to flourish in the land. I wish Sarah Palin would go home to her children. We need her there! Had she, and all other mothers, been home instead of out seeking political office and the glory and honor due our men, maybe Barack Obama would have learned at his mother's knee not to support homosexuality and abortions. And maybe men, including Mr. Palin, would have learned how to be leaders and wouldn't be hiding behind Sarah Palin's skirt tails.
Christina Elizabeth Dozier
September 7, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
George W's War
I was in the middle of putting some of my own thoughts together about this topic when I just happened to receive this article in an email. I have no idea who wrote it, but I share it with you now.
No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.
Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader 'Commander in Chief.'
George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The 'Commander in Chief' had to lobby for legislative approval.
Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral suasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.
George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched.
After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort. Manywho had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the 'Commander in Chief' of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.
As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle. Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat.
At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed. Then,unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.
Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts. Then,in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the 'Commander in Chief' basked in a most hard-fought victory. Soon that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown , a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the 6 year Revolutionary War.
What?...Were you thinking of someone else?...
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Strange Fire
The following article was written by Christina Dozier. For more of her work click on her link at:
http://www.mykentuckybooks.com/
She is also in my links section.
Dozier 20:6 And we drove away from New York City after the Christmas holiday, and came to San Francisco in five days; where we stayed seven days.7 And on Monday, when my family came together for supper, my daughter sang for us, ready to leave the next day; and she sang until midnight.
Questions:
1. Did these people stay in San Francisco seven days just for the supper on Monday?
2. Did they not eat supper all the other days they were there?
3. Do they get together every Monday and only on Monday for supper?
Would We Give the Same Answers?
I think we know that the way we would answer these questions is not the way we answer them about Acts 20:6-7, although that passage is worded exactly the same way. And, no, changing the day, the places, and the event does not change the context nor does it change the meaning of the sentences. The sentences are exactly alike otherwise. Whatever we draw from Dozier 20:6-7 regarding frequency of the event is all we can rightfully draw from Acts 20:6-7.
Somehow, our assumption that the breaking of bread in Acts 20:6-7 is the Lord's supper and Paul's commandment to the Corinthians to save up money on the first day of the week, coupled with Jesus' resurrection on the first day of the week, cause us to declare the first day of the week to be the only day we may partake of the Lord's supper and be pleasing to God. But is this a necessary inference?
Paul's Golden Opportunity
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Although he had a perfect opportunity here to do so, Paul bound no particular day or time to partake of the Lord's supper. Instead, he said "as often as ye eat" (I Co 11:26). And indeed we know that we are not commanded anywhere in scriptures to commune upon a particular day.
Circumstantial Evidence
The truth is that if Acts 20:6-7 had mentioned the third day of the week instead of the first, we would make no attempt to bind a day. So it is the circumstantial evidence that prompts us to declare this day to be bound in heaven and on earth as the only day to partake of the Lord's supper and to proclaim any communing on Monday, Tuesday, or any day other than Sunday to be sin.
When Did They Break Bread?
Let's look at when they actually broke the bread.
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
After this Paul brought Eutychus back to life.
Acts 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
It is at this point that Paul breaks bread, but it's after midnight and apparently on the second day of the week. Or perhaps they had come together Saturday night and now it's the first day. But most knowledgeable people say that Luke wrote using Roman time. And even if not, how many of us would be willing to come together on Saturday night to partake of the Lord's supper?
Some say this was a common meal Paul was eating the next morning. How do we know? And in fact how do we know Acts 20:7 is not a common meal? If one verse tells us people came together to do something and another verse mentions the doing of the thing, why would we think one was one act while another was a different act entirely, even though the wording is the same? So if this was a common meal, maybe verse 7 was a common meal too.
If Dozier 20 had added in verse 11 that the family had eaten, wouldn't we assume that it was the supper that they had come together to eat in verse 7? Of course we would! Why would we think it was anything else?
Upper Room
Let's look at where the Lord's supper was taken. In acts 20 we know they were in an upper room because Eutychus fell out of the third floor and was taken up dead (Acts 20:9). We also know that Jesus instituted His supper in an upper room (Mark 14:14-24).
We say, of course, that (although we have approved examples for the place just as we do for the day of the week), the place is not important because true worshipers don't worship at a particular place but only in spirit and truth.
John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
First, I don't see that Jesus told this woman place was not important. He simply said that true worshipers worship in spirit and in truth. (Were the Jews not required to worship God in spirit and in truth?) Second, even if place is not important (and I'm not saying it is, of course), is a day important if we haven't been told that it is but it's simply mentioned in a historical narrative? If true worshipers worship in spirit and in truth, then not only is place not important, but year, month, and day are not important either--unless scripture makes them important. And, as I said, Paul had a perfect opportunity to tell us if the day was important, and he didn't take the opportunity and instead used words that would make us assume the day wasn't important.
Paul did tell us he was afraid of people who observe days in Galatians 4:10-11, but we ignore that. Jesus didn't even say that place doesn't matter (we simply assume it by what He did say), and we declare it as gospel, ignoring the approved example of an upper room. Why? Assumption and human reasoning--which is fallible.
I'm not saying place is important. I'm not even saying the day isn't. What I'm saying is that we make big assumptions and huge leaps in determining that the Lord's supper must be taken on Sunday and only on Sunday. After making these assumptions and leaps with our fallible minds, we make assumptions about the upper room as well--assuming that it is not important. If asked why we don't partake of the Lord's supper in an upper room, which we deem unimportant and unnecessary, we say we have to use common sense and know that we don't follow every little incidental example. Then, if someone else doesn't deem the first day of the week to be important, we tell him he must follow approved apostolic examples and imitate the apostles--so he is sinning. We make our judgments as to which examples in the Bible are important and necessary and then declare our judgments to be bound in heaven and on earth.
Circular Reasoning
We use circular reasoning. We assume Acts 20:6-7 is talking about the Lord's supper (and not just a common meal) because it mentions the first day of the week, and we assume "as often as" in I Corinthians 11:26 means only on the first day of the week because it's talking about the Lord's supper.
We make lots of assumptions with regard to the partaking of the Lord's supper. We assume that Acts 20:6-7 is talking about the Lord's supper. We assume the early Christians partook of it every Sunday. We assume they partook only on Sunday.
Assumptions
Let's see what else we can assume.
Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Here the apostles and disciples are together and Peter preaches to them. This is Pentecost, the first day of the week, and they are assembling.
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Here we have the disciples meeting again and this time Paul preaches to them. Again, it's on the first day of the week. Do you see a pattern developing?
1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
Here Paul condemns the Corinthians because they have come together but it is not to eat the Lord's supper. If he is condemning them for this (and indeed they were attempting to take the Lord's supper), we know, from our circular reasoning, that this coming together must be on the first day of the week. Again, notice the pattern that is developing.
1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
Why did Paul tell the people to collect this money on the first day of the week? Obviously because he knew that's the day (and the only day?) they would be coming together. (Pay attention to the pattern!)
And here is the clincher:
Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
What day? What day would we expect? Why, the first day of the week, of course! Anytime a particular day is mentioned shouldn't we assume it's the first day? We do that in Revelation 1:10, don't we? We assume the Lord's day is the first day of the week because what other day could it possibly be?
Finally, we know I Corinthians 14 is talking about our assembling to worship because it tells us how to behave ourselves in our corporate worship (when we take the Lord's supper, which may be taken only on the first day). So, once again, we have the assembling of the saints on the first day of the week, or the Lord's day. If this is not a pattern, then I don't know what a pattern is.
Necessary Conclusions
So, based on the above passages, here is what I have concluded.
1. When we assemble it is to eat the Lord's supper.
2. We may not assemble unless we are going to eat the Lord's supper.
3. We may eat the Lord's supper only on the first day of the week.
4. We may assemble only on the first day of the week.
Think about it. We know we may take the Lord's supper only on Sunday. We know we may give only on Sunday. Isn't that enough to make us know that the other three "items of worship" may be done within the assembly only on Sunday too? Why would giving be so important that God had to tell us what day to do it on while preaching, praying, and singing collectively may be done anytime? After all, we may give individually on Monday, right? If I see a hungry person on Monday, surely I have a right to give him some money to buy food. And we all know we may pray on Monday or sing on Monday. We may even invite guests over and have a "singing" or "praying" in our own homes on Monday. And surely we may teach the gospel on Monday.
But the reason the disciples partook of the Lord's supper and gave of their means on Sunday was that these were items of worship that they did when they got together--when they came together in the church. And Sunday is the day, and the only day, they assembled!
We Are Drifting!
Brethren, we are drifting! We are lawless and acting without authority. Our week-long gospel meetings are a stench in the nostrils of God!
You think not? Maybe you're right.
Maybe we are doing something else wrong though. Maybe we are wrong to make wild assumptions about the Lord's supper and when it must be partaken. Maybe we are wrong to declare one particular day to be bound in heaven and bound on earth and proclaim the partaking on any other day of the week to be sin. After all, these are things that God and inspired apostles commanded us not.
Maybe our "first-day only" observance of the Lord's supper and our declarations of sin on the part of our brothers and sisters who might want to commune more often with their Lord and their brethren are actually only our assumptions that are better kept to ourselves. Maybe we need to be very careful before we presume to speak for God and be sure to speak only what He has spoken.
How to Be Safe
It's good to play it safe in our own lives. If we reason logically that we should commune with our Lord and our brethren only on Sunday, then that's what we should do. And nobody has a right to try to force something different upon us. But we need to recognize that "being safe" is what we are doing and be careful that we don't bind on others the conclusions that we have drawn with our fallible minds.
We can speak what we believe and why we believe it. We can say what the Bible says and explain all about what makes us determine the things we believe. But we can't say the Bible says something and we know it to be true when the truth is that we have simply made a judgment.
It is good to know we are safe. It is not good to bind our "safe" things on our brothers and sisters. When we do that we cease to be safe and begin to take liberties with the Word of God. In our eagerness to please God, we don't want to be caught offering "strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded [us] not."
Christina Elizabeth Dozier
May 6, 2008
http://www.mykentuckybooks.com/
She is also in my links section.
Dozier 20:6 And we drove away from New York City after the Christmas holiday, and came to San Francisco in five days; where we stayed seven days.7 And on Monday, when my family came together for supper, my daughter sang for us, ready to leave the next day; and she sang until midnight.
Questions:
1. Did these people stay in San Francisco seven days just for the supper on Monday?
2. Did they not eat supper all the other days they were there?
3. Do they get together every Monday and only on Monday for supper?
Would We Give the Same Answers?
I think we know that the way we would answer these questions is not the way we answer them about Acts 20:6-7, although that passage is worded exactly the same way. And, no, changing the day, the places, and the event does not change the context nor does it change the meaning of the sentences. The sentences are exactly alike otherwise. Whatever we draw from Dozier 20:6-7 regarding frequency of the event is all we can rightfully draw from Acts 20:6-7.
Somehow, our assumption that the breaking of bread in Acts 20:6-7 is the Lord's supper and Paul's commandment to the Corinthians to save up money on the first day of the week, coupled with Jesus' resurrection on the first day of the week, cause us to declare the first day of the week to be the only day we may partake of the Lord's supper and be pleasing to God. But is this a necessary inference?
Paul's Golden Opportunity
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Although he had a perfect opportunity here to do so, Paul bound no particular day or time to partake of the Lord's supper. Instead, he said "as often as ye eat" (I Co 11:26). And indeed we know that we are not commanded anywhere in scriptures to commune upon a particular day.
Circumstantial Evidence
The truth is that if Acts 20:6-7 had mentioned the third day of the week instead of the first, we would make no attempt to bind a day. So it is the circumstantial evidence that prompts us to declare this day to be bound in heaven and on earth as the only day to partake of the Lord's supper and to proclaim any communing on Monday, Tuesday, or any day other than Sunday to be sin.
When Did They Break Bread?
Let's look at when they actually broke the bread.
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
After this Paul brought Eutychus back to life.
Acts 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
It is at this point that Paul breaks bread, but it's after midnight and apparently on the second day of the week. Or perhaps they had come together Saturday night and now it's the first day. But most knowledgeable people say that Luke wrote using Roman time. And even if not, how many of us would be willing to come together on Saturday night to partake of the Lord's supper?
Some say this was a common meal Paul was eating the next morning. How do we know? And in fact how do we know Acts 20:7 is not a common meal? If one verse tells us people came together to do something and another verse mentions the doing of the thing, why would we think one was one act while another was a different act entirely, even though the wording is the same? So if this was a common meal, maybe verse 7 was a common meal too.
If Dozier 20 had added in verse 11 that the family had eaten, wouldn't we assume that it was the supper that they had come together to eat in verse 7? Of course we would! Why would we think it was anything else?
Upper Room
Let's look at where the Lord's supper was taken. In acts 20 we know they were in an upper room because Eutychus fell out of the third floor and was taken up dead (Acts 20:9). We also know that Jesus instituted His supper in an upper room (Mark 14:14-24).
We say, of course, that (although we have approved examples for the place just as we do for the day of the week), the place is not important because true worshipers don't worship at a particular place but only in spirit and truth.
John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
First, I don't see that Jesus told this woman place was not important. He simply said that true worshipers worship in spirit and in truth. (Were the Jews not required to worship God in spirit and in truth?) Second, even if place is not important (and I'm not saying it is, of course), is a day important if we haven't been told that it is but it's simply mentioned in a historical narrative? If true worshipers worship in spirit and in truth, then not only is place not important, but year, month, and day are not important either--unless scripture makes them important. And, as I said, Paul had a perfect opportunity to tell us if the day was important, and he didn't take the opportunity and instead used words that would make us assume the day wasn't important.
Paul did tell us he was afraid of people who observe days in Galatians 4:10-11, but we ignore that. Jesus didn't even say that place doesn't matter (we simply assume it by what He did say), and we declare it as gospel, ignoring the approved example of an upper room. Why? Assumption and human reasoning--which is fallible.
I'm not saying place is important. I'm not even saying the day isn't. What I'm saying is that we make big assumptions and huge leaps in determining that the Lord's supper must be taken on Sunday and only on Sunday. After making these assumptions and leaps with our fallible minds, we make assumptions about the upper room as well--assuming that it is not important. If asked why we don't partake of the Lord's supper in an upper room, which we deem unimportant and unnecessary, we say we have to use common sense and know that we don't follow every little incidental example. Then, if someone else doesn't deem the first day of the week to be important, we tell him he must follow approved apostolic examples and imitate the apostles--so he is sinning. We make our judgments as to which examples in the Bible are important and necessary and then declare our judgments to be bound in heaven and on earth.
Circular Reasoning
We use circular reasoning. We assume Acts 20:6-7 is talking about the Lord's supper (and not just a common meal) because it mentions the first day of the week, and we assume "as often as" in I Corinthians 11:26 means only on the first day of the week because it's talking about the Lord's supper.
We make lots of assumptions with regard to the partaking of the Lord's supper. We assume that Acts 20:6-7 is talking about the Lord's supper. We assume the early Christians partook of it every Sunday. We assume they partook only on Sunday.
Assumptions
Let's see what else we can assume.
Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Here the apostles and disciples are together and Peter preaches to them. This is Pentecost, the first day of the week, and they are assembling.
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Here we have the disciples meeting again and this time Paul preaches to them. Again, it's on the first day of the week. Do you see a pattern developing?
1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
Here Paul condemns the Corinthians because they have come together but it is not to eat the Lord's supper. If he is condemning them for this (and indeed they were attempting to take the Lord's supper), we know, from our circular reasoning, that this coming together must be on the first day of the week. Again, notice the pattern that is developing.
1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
Why did Paul tell the people to collect this money on the first day of the week? Obviously because he knew that's the day (and the only day?) they would be coming together. (Pay attention to the pattern!)
And here is the clincher:
Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
What day? What day would we expect? Why, the first day of the week, of course! Anytime a particular day is mentioned shouldn't we assume it's the first day? We do that in Revelation 1:10, don't we? We assume the Lord's day is the first day of the week because what other day could it possibly be?
Finally, we know I Corinthians 14 is talking about our assembling to worship because it tells us how to behave ourselves in our corporate worship (when we take the Lord's supper, which may be taken only on the first day). So, once again, we have the assembling of the saints on the first day of the week, or the Lord's day. If this is not a pattern, then I don't know what a pattern is.
Necessary Conclusions
So, based on the above passages, here is what I have concluded.
1. When we assemble it is to eat the Lord's supper.
2. We may not assemble unless we are going to eat the Lord's supper.
3. We may eat the Lord's supper only on the first day of the week.
4. We may assemble only on the first day of the week.
Think about it. We know we may take the Lord's supper only on Sunday. We know we may give only on Sunday. Isn't that enough to make us know that the other three "items of worship" may be done within the assembly only on Sunday too? Why would giving be so important that God had to tell us what day to do it on while preaching, praying, and singing collectively may be done anytime? After all, we may give individually on Monday, right? If I see a hungry person on Monday, surely I have a right to give him some money to buy food. And we all know we may pray on Monday or sing on Monday. We may even invite guests over and have a "singing" or "praying" in our own homes on Monday. And surely we may teach the gospel on Monday.
But the reason the disciples partook of the Lord's supper and gave of their means on Sunday was that these were items of worship that they did when they got together--when they came together in the church. And Sunday is the day, and the only day, they assembled!
We Are Drifting!
Brethren, we are drifting! We are lawless and acting without authority. Our week-long gospel meetings are a stench in the nostrils of God!
You think not? Maybe you're right.
Maybe we are doing something else wrong though. Maybe we are wrong to make wild assumptions about the Lord's supper and when it must be partaken. Maybe we are wrong to declare one particular day to be bound in heaven and bound on earth and proclaim the partaking on any other day of the week to be sin. After all, these are things that God and inspired apostles commanded us not.
Maybe our "first-day only" observance of the Lord's supper and our declarations of sin on the part of our brothers and sisters who might want to commune more often with their Lord and their brethren are actually only our assumptions that are better kept to ourselves. Maybe we need to be very careful before we presume to speak for God and be sure to speak only what He has spoken.
How to Be Safe
It's good to play it safe in our own lives. If we reason logically that we should commune with our Lord and our brethren only on Sunday, then that's what we should do. And nobody has a right to try to force something different upon us. But we need to recognize that "being safe" is what we are doing and be careful that we don't bind on others the conclusions that we have drawn with our fallible minds.
We can speak what we believe and why we believe it. We can say what the Bible says and explain all about what makes us determine the things we believe. But we can't say the Bible says something and we know it to be true when the truth is that we have simply made a judgment.
It is good to know we are safe. It is not good to bind our "safe" things on our brothers and sisters. When we do that we cease to be safe and begin to take liberties with the Word of God. In our eagerness to please God, we don't want to be caught offering "strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded [us] not."
Christina Elizabeth Dozier
May 6, 2008
Friday, August 1, 2008
The Battle of Destruction!
The following short story was written by my 9 year old son, Damien Ferguson, and he won second prize in the 3rd grade city-wide writing contest for his efforts. That was quite an accomplishment, especially considering that he attends public school.I hope you enjoy reading it!
It was early daytime one morning not too long ago in the village of Dayfas . . . but it was Game Month in Dayfas!
It was the most fun of all, in fact, it was the absolutely, most incredibly fantastic time imaginable for one boy named Jerry because he just KNEW that he had good cards! He loved to play at home with his brothers and his one sister, not a little sister, but a great big sister who was already 12 years old named Tabitha! He would lose once in a while, but as his father taught him, “That’s just a part of the game!” The funny thing about THAT was that when the baseball bounced and hit Jerry in the mouth and made him bleed and when the football hit him in the eye and made it turn all kinds of shades of purple and black, his father told him at those times that, “That is just a part of the game!” It may be true that it is, but Jerry sure did not LIKE that part of the game!
Anyway, as I was saying, Jerry lost once in a while and now it was coming time for the BIG TOURNAMENT! His mom and dad said, “You’re not going to win!” But if he finished in first place then Jerry would win a Wii! If he placed second he would get a PS2! And if he ended up with a third place finish then Jerry would win an XBOX 360! But that was not the end of it . . . if Jerry ended up in 4th place he still could win a plain old XBOX! And finally, even if he did not do any better than 5th place Jerry still could walk away as the proud owner of a NINTENDO DS!
Jerry REALLY and TRULY wants a Wii! Why? Because a Wii is loads and loads of hours of non-stop fun and entertainment, but his mom and dad said they WON’T buy him one because they say it is just too expensive! They said to Jerry, “If you want a Wii so badly, then
you are just going to have to save up the money and buy it yourself!”
But Jerry said, “I have to buy other things with my money! I have to have my HOT WHEELS TRACKS and CARS!”
Here are some pictures of Jerry’s cards (but not all of them). Altogether there are 120 in all of the set
, but three of Jerry’s favorite cards are Dragon Fire, Dabe and Dusty. Dragon Fire is a dragon, Dabe is a ghost, and Dusty is a cloud of dust! The cards look like this:
It was the most fun of all, in fact, it was the absolutely, most incredibly fantastic time imaginable for one boy named Jerry because he just KNEW that he had good cards! He loved to play at home with his brothers and his one sister, not a little sister, but a great big sister who was already 12 years old named Tabitha! He would lose once in a while, but as his father taught him, “That’s just a part of the game!” The funny thing about THAT was that when the baseball bounced and hit Jerry in the mouth and made him bleed and when the football hit him in the eye and made it turn all kinds of shades of purple and black, his father told him at those times that, “That is just a part of the game!” It may be true that it is, but Jerry sure did not LIKE that part of the game!
Anyway, as I was saying, Jerry lost once in a while and now it was coming time for the BIG TOURNAMENT! His mom and dad said, “You’re not going to win!” But if he finished in first place then Jerry would win a Wii! If he placed second he would get a PS2! And if he ended up with a third place finish then Jerry would win an XBOX 360! But that was not the end of it . . . if Jerry ended up in 4th place he still could win a plain old XBOX! And finally, even if he did not do any better than 5th place Jerry still could walk away as the proud owner of a NINTENDO DS!
Jerry REALLY and TRULY wants a Wii! Why? Because a Wii is loads and loads of hours of non-stop fun and entertainment, but his mom and dad said they WON’T buy him one because they say it is just too expensive! They said to Jerry, “If you want a Wii so badly, then
you are just going to have to save up the money and buy it yourself!”But Jerry said, “I have to buy other things with my money! I have to have my HOT WHEELS TRACKS and CARS!”
Here are some pictures of Jerry’s cards (but not all of them). Altogether there are 120 in all of the set
, but three of Jerry’s favorite cards are Dragon Fire, Dabe and Dusty. Dragon Fire is a dragon, Dabe is a ghost, and Dusty is a cloud of dust! The cards look like this:Dragon Fire has 15 lives. His defense is 100% destruction of his foes. Dabe has 10 lives and his defense is 90% destruction of his opponents. Dusty has 10 lives and his defense is 100% destruction of his foes. So Dragon Fire and Dusty are very good cards to have!
Jerry’s friend, James, has a Sharkey card and it is the best card he, Jerry, has ever seen! This is what it looks like:
Jerry said, “Are you going to be in the tournament?”
James answered, “No.”
Jerry asked, “Can I borrow your Sharkey card?”
“Yes,” said James.
“Thank you, James!” said Jerry. James was such a good friend! Jerry was SURE that he would win it all now!
“You’re welcome, Jerry!” replied James.
So Jerry went home and showed his mom and dad his friend’s card, Sharkey, but his mom and dad said, “That’s not YOUR card! That’s your friend’s card!”
Then Jerry said, “But James is not going to be in the tournament, so it’s okay if I borrow his card to play the game!”
“Well, if that’s the case, then it should be okay, son!” said Jerry’s parents. So they agreed to let Jerry keep the card for the tournament.
In two more days the tournament would begin. Then came the special notice! It was announced that the games would be televised on the local television station! It would even be covered on the news, and rumor began circulating around town that ESPN wanted to broadcast it! Not to be outdone, FOX, CNN, Disney, Nick and Cartoon Network all said they were going to broadcast the big tournament as well. Boy, were things ever so exciting in the little town of Dayfas! Why, this was even more exciting than watching the Fire Department get old lady Pencilface Crumpett’s cat, Eraserhead, out of the apple tree in the middle of Thing Park!
Getting more excited as the thoughts of being on TV entered his mind, Jerry said to himself, “Boy, oh boy! I just KNOW that I will win!” As he thought this, Jerry imagined himself being the center of attention as the whole town came out and threw a giant ticker tape parade in his honor right down Main Street!
The next day Jerry played with his mom and dad and his brothers and EVEN his great big sister, Tabitha, who was already 12! He wanted to get in practice for the tournament.
The next day following was Game Day. The first kid Jerry faced was Tom. Tom was easy. Jerry beat him on his second try. Tom won a Nintendo DS. Tom was stupid!
Next up was Fudge. That wasn’t his real name, but since he had been called Fudge for so long no one seemed to know what his real name was, and nobody ever bothered to ask him! Some people called Fudge the Fudge Monster because he is weird and is always eating chocolate fudge brownies. He placed 4th and won the XBox.
Jerry’s friend, James, has a Sharkey card and it is the best card he, Jerry, has ever seen! This is what it looks like:
Jerry said, “Are you going to be in the tournament?”
James answered, “No.”
Jerry asked, “Can I borrow your Sharkey card?”
“Yes,” said James.
“Thank you, James!” said Jerry. James was such a good friend! Jerry was SURE that he would win it all now!
“You’re welcome, Jerry!” replied James.
So Jerry went home and showed his mom and dad his friend’s card, Sharkey, but his mom and dad said, “That’s not YOUR card! That’s your friend’s card!”
Then Jerry said, “But James is not going to be in the tournament, so it’s okay if I borrow his card to play the game!”
“Well, if that’s the case, then it should be okay, son!” said Jerry’s parents. So they agreed to let Jerry keep the card for the tournament.
In two more days the tournament would begin. Then came the special notice! It was announced that the games would be televised on the local television station! It would even be covered on the news, and rumor began circulating around town that ESPN wanted to broadcast it! Not to be outdone, FOX, CNN, Disney, Nick and Cartoon Network all said they were going to broadcast the big tournament as well. Boy, were things ever so exciting in the little town of Dayfas! Why, this was even more exciting than watching the Fire Department get old lady Pencilface Crumpett’s cat, Eraserhead, out of the apple tree in the middle of Thing Park!
Getting more excited as the thoughts of being on TV entered his mind, Jerry said to himself, “Boy, oh boy! I just KNOW that I will win!” As he thought this, Jerry imagined himself being the center of attention as the whole town came out and threw a giant ticker tape parade in his honor right down Main Street!
The next day Jerry played with his mom and dad and his brothers and EVEN his great big sister, Tabitha, who was already 12! He wanted to get in practice for the tournament.
The next day following was Game Day. The first kid Jerry faced was Tom. Tom was easy. Jerry beat him on his second try. Tom won a Nintendo DS. Tom was stupid!
Next up was Fudge. That wasn’t his real name, but since he had been called Fudge for so long no one seemed to know what his real name was, and nobody ever bothered to ask him! Some people called Fudge the Fudge Monster because he is weird and is always eating chocolate fudge brownies. He placed 4th and won the XBox.
Next up was an adult! Jerry was nervous playing against an adult who wasn’t his mom or dad, and this adult had a Dragon Fire card, too, but because he took a picture of Jerry’s card and Photoshopped it he was disqualified. Because of this, Jerry’s friend, Braden, got to play instead and he lost to Jerry and won the 3rd place prize of an XBox 360.
That meant that Jerry was in the finals! He had made it all the way to the championship round! And now he had to play his worst enemy ever, a no-good boy called Toodles McGreedy! What a horrible name for a rotten, stinking (yes, literally stinking of dirty feet and rotten eggs) kid! Toodles McGreedy was so bad that even the snakes in town avoided looking at him!
Toodles snarled at Jerry with a twisted grin upon his filthy face. He thought he would win! But he did not know that Jerry had saved his best friend’s card, Sharkey, for this very moment! Just as it looked as if Toodles McGreedy would come away victoriously, Jerry pulled out Sharkey and defeated that rotten Toodles McGreedy! The crowd erupted in thunderous applause, but Jerry looked over at Toodles and noticed a tear running down the cheek of Toodles. Jerry said,
“What’s the matter, Toodles?”
Toodles said, “I don’t have a mother or a father. I live alone with my younger brother, Foodles, in a small shack by the railroad tracks. All we ever get to eat are scraps that fall off the train as it passes us by.”
Jerry said, “I never knew that, Toodles. Why didn’t you ever tell anyone?”
“I didn’t think anyone would care, Jerry,” said Toodles.
“Aw, shucks, Toodles, I care, and so would my family. Why don’t you and your brother come and live with us? That would make us happy, and it would make everyone happy, too. Especially Jesus!”
So that is how Toodles and Foodles came to live with my family. No longer is Toodles rotten anymore. In fact, he and his brother have become like two more brothers to me and my brothers and sister, and we all get along very well.
Even Tabitha!
I let Toodles play with the Wii I won whenever he wants to, and he lets me play with the PS2 that he won at the tournament. And he no longer stinks! In fact, I think he is really pretty cool.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Barack Obama and the Misuse of Scripture
The following article is being published here with the author's permission. This article is written by Richard Mansel, and the following link will take you to his site: http://www.forthright.net/square_one/barack_obama_and_the_misuse_of_scripture_1.htmlBy Richard Mansel, assistant editor (March 11, 2008)
by Richard Mansel
Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, recently said that while he did not believe in "gay marriage," he did believe in same sex civil unions. He said, "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."/1Mr. Obama's flawed use of Scripture is common and evidences the complete lack of Biblical knowledge existent today (cf. 2 Peter 3:15,16). Obscure is defined as, "not clear or plain; ambiguous, vague, or uncertain; hard to perceive."/2 Not one of these definitions fits what Paul wrote in Romans. However, we fear being labeled bigots and homophobes, so we succumb to political pressure to accept a sinful practice as being acceptable. However, we must fear God rather than activists ( Acts 5:29).
The Apostle Paul wrote by inspiration that homosexuality is "against nature," which means that it is contrary to the plan of God ( Romans 1:26,27) /3 Scripture says, "God gave them up to 'vile passions' ( Romans 1:26, NKJV); 'dishonorable passions' (RSV); 'degrading passions' (NEB, NASB, NRSB, NAB); 'vile affections' (KJV, Amplified Bible); 'shameful lusts' (NIV); 'shameful affections' (Rheims). Thayer defines it as "base lusts, vile passions."/4 Bauer translates it as "shameful passions."/5Paul clearly denounces homosexuality in this passage and others ( 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; e tal). There is nothing obscure about what the New Testament says about the sinfulness of homosexuality. Mr. Obama's reference to the Sermon on the Mount validating homosexual behavior is completely without merit. Jesus is God and therefore the author of Scripture ( 2 Timothy 3:16,17; John 1:1). He did not have to address homosexuality explicitly because whenever the New Testament denounces it, Jesus speaks clearly ( John 14:10; John 1:1-3). Perusing the Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew 5-7, we find two passages that Mr. Obama might have been alluding to in Jesus' sermon. Neither one is used properly. First, Matthew 7:1 reads, "Judge not, that you be not judged." This is one of the more abused passages in the New Testament. It becomes the favored weapon of the rationalizing and desperate. This verse condemns unrighteous judging. "For what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you" ( Matthew 7:2).
Jesus never offered a wholesale denunciation of all judging. "Courts must judge whether a crime has been committed ( Romans 13). Churches must judge whether a member has become disorderly and between sound and false teachers ( 1 Corinthians 15:1-13; 2 Peter 2:1; Titus 3:10,11; 1 John 4:1)."/6
Second, Matthew 7:5 reads, "Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye." Despite the rationalizations of men, this verse does not say that if we have any sin in our lives that we cannot charge others with sin. God says that all have sinned ( Romans 3:23). However, Christians are commanded to evangelize those who are lost in sin ( Matthew 28:20). We are told to help save brethren who are lost in sin ( James 5:19,20). It is clear that man's interpretation of Matthew 7:5 is erroneous.
Curiously, Mr. Obama overlooks a salient point. "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" ( Matthew 7:21; cf. Revelation 20:12-15). In short, not everyone who speaks of the Bible, knows what they are talking about.
Curiously, Mr. Obama overlooks a salient point. "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" ( Matthew 7:21; cf. Revelation 20:12-15). In short, not everyone who speaks of the Bible, knows what they are talking about.
__________
3/http://preacherpages.net/2006/10/21/is-homosexuality-natural/
4/Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Broadman: Nashville, 1977), 660.
5/Walter Bauer, William F. Ardnt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 869.
6/ http://www.forthright.net/square_one/how_dare_you_judge_me.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)