James Hayes article on the Superbowl

Who Wins on Super Bowl Sunday?

Today is Super Bowl Sunday. It has become a worldwide event. Last year an estimated 90 million people watched the Super Bowl. This year a 30-second commercial during the game costs the advertiser $2.5 million. There is a two-week gap between the league championship games and the Super Bowl to accommodate the hype. Professional football is now our national pastime, which makes the Super Bowl the most beloved sporting event.
But as the world focuses its attention on the Bears and Colts, who is focusing on God? Every Sunday is the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10). The Lord was raised on the first day of the week (John 20:1). First-century Christians met on the first day of the week to worship and fellowship (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2). Undoubtedly, millions of believers will meet to honor God on this day. But those who are lost, those who are spiritually bankrupt, and those who are lost in sin are giving no thought to Christ this day. Their focus is on the Colts and Bears…
…which leads me to this question: Who will win today? I’m not thinking about the final score of the game; I’m wondering about who will gain a foothold in the hearts and minds of 90 million people. Will it be Satan or Christ?
When Anheuser-Busch, the self-described King of Beers, spends over $20 million on commercials during the game, who will win, Satan or Christ? When GoDaddy.com, who had to film three commercials in order to produce just one that was not obscene, airs its ad, who will gain the advantage, Satan or Christ? When hundreds of millions—if not billions—of dollars are wagered on everything from who will win the coin toss to how long it will take Billy Joel to sing the National Anthem, who will have the influence, Satan or Christ? When Christians, yes Christians, use this game as yet another excuse not to worship the Lord, are they being faithful to Satan or Christ?
Football is amoral. Like so many things, it is not inherently good or bad. The question is, how are you using it? To faithful believers, this game will be just another game to enjoy after they have given God the praise and devotion He deserves. To others, it will be another opportunity for them to submit to the schemes of the devil (Eph. 6:11).

--James Hayes

I thought this was an excellent article and makes a great point. Thanks to James who is a good friend and a capable gospel preacher.

Phil

The Most Foolish Decision of Our Age

Prov. 10:14-27 Do not enter the path of the wicked, and do not walk in the way of the evil.
15 Avoid it; do not go on it; turn away from it and pass on.
16 For they cannot sleep unless they have done wrong;
they are robbed of sleep unless they have made someone stumble.
17 For they eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence.
18 But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn,
which shines brighter and brighter until full day.
19 The way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know over what they stumble.
20 My son, be attentive to my words; incline your ear to my sayings.
21 Let them not escape from your sight; keep them within your heart.
22 For they are life to those who find them, and healing to all their flesh.
23 Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.
24 Put away from you crooked speech, and put devious talk far from you.
25 Let your eyes look directly forward, and your gaze be straight before you.
26 Ponder the path of your feet; then all your ways will be sure.
27 Do not swerve to the right or to the left; turn your foot away from evil.
Prov. 16:17 The highway of the upright turns aside from evil;
whoever guards his way preserves his life.
Prov. 22:3 The prudent sees danger and hides himself,
but the simple go on and suffer for it. (cf. Prov. 27:12)

The most foolish decision made in our culture is to embrace moral and theological non-judgmentalism. This is more than just saying yes to sin; it is embracing a point of view that ignores the evidence of the harmfulness of sin. It says, "I will do as I please; I won't tell anybody what they can or can't do; and I won't let anybody tell anybody what they can or can't do." Non-judgmentalism makes every perverted, dangerous, illogical behavior and ideology permissible. Sin is sinful anymore, and heresy doesn't matter to the non-judgmental, progressive inclusivists. They have grace.

The simple go on and suffer for it. Non-judgmentalism is an excuse to be "simple" and "naive."

So what do we have? Millions of couples cohabiting; a record 38 percent illegitimacy in births; a gay agenda taught in elementary schools; 40+ million aborted babies; pornography on television; polyamory (group marriage); a 50 percent failure rate for marriage; and rampant addiction to a multitude of destructive behaviors. In the church, we have nothing as a salvation issue anymore. One denomination (following the 1989 lead of the Disciples of Christ) voted not to say that Jesus is the only way to heaven anymore, so that we don't hurt our interfaith discussions.

When the Middle East folks look at the West and call us Satan, do you wonder why? Our inability or unwillingness to overcome our foolishness has made us weak and ungodly, not strong and spiritual.

We have so sold out to moral and theological compromise and so weakened our resolve against evil that we have lost any sense of character or strength.

We today face a radical threat who has resolved to conquer the world and kill us or control us with dhimmitude. Instead of foolishly claiming a destructive moral freedom, our nation ought to humble itself before the one true and living God and His Son Jesus.

Is it not time to call our nation to repentance? Can we not see where the future leads if we continue in our foolishness?

Phil

Good but not baptized?

The following is an article written by Hugo McCord, which expresses truth. We must never allow our feelings to re-write what God proclaims.

What Will Happen
To Good But Unbaptized People?[1]

A person of unquestioned sincerity, convinced she should be baptized, hesitated because she knew of many fine people who were not baptized. “What will happen to good unbaptized people?” she asked. Certainly it is easy to understand her reasoning.
That there are excellent moral people, fair to all men, merciful to the unfortunate, who have not been baptized into the Lord is a well-known fact. But if a good man touches a highly charged electric wire, God’s law about electricity is not changed.
That good people have not been immersed does not change God’s law about immersion (Rom. 6:3,4; Col. 2:12).
That many millions of people were baptized as infants does not change God’s law that baptism is for believers (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 8:36).
That millions of people have been baptized into various sects and denominations does not change God’s law that baptism is into one body, one church (1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:18).
That many sincere Jews and upright Mohammedans have not confessed Jesus does not change God’s law about the deity of His Son (John 3:18; Mark 16:6; Acts 4:12).
That some are moral and yet deny the existence of God does not change God’s law about faith in him (Heb. 11:6).
But the laws of God also reveal that some people are better off in God’s sight unbaptized than some who have been immersed (2 Pet. 2:20-22). God’s laws also reveal that some heathen people, not being as stubborn as some who have heard the message of Jesus are going to have it easier in the day of judgment (Matt. 11:20-24). God’s word also reveals that some without a Bible have lived better before God than some knowing the Bible (Rom. 2:14-24).
Certainly one should conclude that no matter what mercy some may have in the day of judgment, that mercy will not be extended to one who knows God’s law on baptism and who refuses to obey (James 4:17; 1 John 2:4).
[1] Hugo McCord, “What Will Happen to Good Unbaptized People,” in Fifty Years of Lectures, Vol. 2, pp. 252,253.

A Great Gift and Opportunity

Last year, Mack Lyon of "In Search of the Lord's Way" offered me a wonderful opportunity to be a guest speaker on his television program, which airs to 25-50 million viewers (this is the actual audience not the potential). I will be speaking on the subject of the "Love of God." Craig Dodgen, Jackie's brother and a employee of Search, informs me that the program will air on February 4. You will have to check your local listings for the station and time or go to http://www.searchtv.org to find where and when the program airs in your area. Search is one of the three most watched religious television programs in America; it is the only program produced by churches of Christ to reach that distinction.

Mack is a marvelous preacher and one of most longest and dearest friends. He has been a mentor to me and much like a father. I can hardly express enough my deep appreciation for what he has done in the cause of Christ.

This is certainly the most exciting opportunity of my life. I am deeply grateful to Mack and to Search for inviting me. God is so very good.

In the meantime, go to our website http://www.tv.God-answers.org to visit what we are doing with God's Answers to Life's Questions, the television production of Concord Rd. Church of Christ.

May the Lord bless,
Phil

I love this song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A2Jt4WOxN8

Iz, though no longer with us, has touched so many with this encouraging song. I wish I had met him to thank him for this song.

The Lord's Supper and Saturday night? Let's Think

Lord’s Supper on Saturday night?
Acts 20:7
Acts 20:6-7
6 And we sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days.
7 And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.
8 And there were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together.
9 And there was a certain young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor, and was picked up dead.
10 But Paul went down and fell upon him and after embracing him, he said, "Do not be troubled, for his life is in him."
And when he had gone back up, and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.
12 And they took away the boy alive, and were greatly comforted.

“Upon the first day of the week”
En de th mia twn sabbatwn

“On the first day of the week” (KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, NIV, McCord, CEV, NKJV, ISV, NCV, NLT, Weymouth, )
“On Sunday” (GWT, IE, Living Bible)
“Saturday night” (NEB, TEV)

Why did the church meet on the first day of the week?
Jesus was resurrected (Mark 16:1,2; Luke 24:1,7,13,20-22; John 20:1,19)
Pentecost always came then (Lev. 23:15,16).
(a) the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles;
(b) the first preaching of the gospel in fulfillment of Isa. 2:2-4
(c) the beginning of the church (Acts 11:15).
The church gave its contribution (1 Cor. 16:1-2)

The Jewish day was from sunset to sunset.
The Way Nations Reckoned Time
n Babylonians: sunrise to sunrise
n Umbrians: noon to noon
n Romans: midnight to midnight
n Athenians: sunset to sunset
n Jews: sunset to sunset

The statement that at Troas the travelers and their fellow-Christians dwelling in that port met together for the breaking of the bread "upon the first day of the week" is the earliest unambiguous evidence we have for the Christian practice of gathering for worship on that day. The breaking of the bread probably denotes a fellowship meal in the course of which the Eucharist was celebrated (cf. 2:42).[1]
[1] F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts in the New International Commentary on the New Testament Series, p. 408.

Acts 20:7-11 describes a meeting on the evening of the first day of the week, but whether this was Saturday night or Sunday night is uncertain, because it is disputed whether the method of time reckoning was Jewish (Saturday night) or Greek or Roman (Sunday night). Thereafter, Christian sources give uniform testimony to meetings on Sunday (Did. 14; Justin 1 Apol. 67; Bardesanes, On Fate). Apart from Acts 2:46, which is ambiguous, there is no evidence in early Christian literature for a daily Lord's supper, or indeed for its observance on any day other than Sunday.[2]
[2] Everett Ferguson, "Sunday," in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, p. 874).

A.T. Robertson on Acts 20:7
“They probably met on our Saturday evening, the beginning of the first day at sunset. So these Christians began the day (Sunday) with worship. But, since this is a Gentile community, it is quite possible that Luke means our Sunday evening as the time when this meeting occurs, and the language in John 20:19 “it being evening on that day the first day of the week” naturally means the evening following the day, not the evening preceding the day.”
Word Pictures in the New Testament, III:339.

This is the clearest verse in the New Testament which indicates that Sunday was the normal meeting day of the apostolic church. Paul stayed in Troas for seven days (v. 6) and the church met on the first day of the week. Luke’s method of counting days here was not Jewish, which measures from sundown to sundown, but Roman, which counted from midnight to midnight. This can be stated dogmatically because “daylight” (v. 11) was the next day (v. 7).
Probably the church met at night because most people had to work during the day. Because Paul was leaving them, possibly for the final time, he prolonged his discourse until midnight.[1] [1]Walvoord, J. F., R. B. Zuck, & Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985. Ac 20:7.

On Sunday evening, not Saturday evening; Luke is not using the Jewish reckoning from sunset to sunset but the Roman reckoning from midnight to midnight; although it was apparently after sunset that they met, "break of day" (vs. 11) was "on the morrow" (vs. 7).[1]
[1]F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, p. 408, fn 25.

“since Troas was a Gentile community, it is quite probable that Sunday evening is meant. This becomes almost certain when the expression used here is compared with its use in John 20:19, where the “first day of the week” cannot possibly refer to Saturday evening, but must refer to Sunday evening”
Henry Waterman, Zondervan Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 3, p. 965.

Thus this passage [Acts 20:7] provides a connecting link between the first meeting of Jesus with his disciples on the evening of the resurrection day (John 20:19-23; Luke 24:36-43) and the established custom of the church of the 2nd and 3rd centuries of assembling together for worship on the first day of the week.”
Henry Waterman, Zondervan Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 3, p. 965.

“It is significant that the meeting of Jesus with the disciples on the first Lord’s day, the meeting of Paul with the disciples at Troas, and the meeting of the disciples in succeeding generations, each took place on Sunday evening; each was observed by the breaking of bread; and each was characterized by a discourse on the holy Scripture.”
Henry Waterman, Zondervan Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 3, p. 965.

Dr. Willy Rordorf of Neuchatel University in Switzerland:
After years of study, Rordorf concluded that for early Christians, there was no “day of the Lord” without the Lord’s Supper, nor was there ever the observance of the Lord’s Supper on any other day except on the day of the Lord. He said, “We have no right to call Sunday the ‘Lord’s Day,’ if the Lord’s Supper is lacking.”
Willy Rordorf, Sunday, (Westminster Press, 1968), 306.

“There is nothing more certain than that the division of time which made the day begin at six pm was not continued in New Testament times, and especially among the Gentile nations.
Matt. 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene
Mark 16:1-2 And when the Sabbath was over…2 And very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.

Christians had their regular meeting, particularly to partake of the Eucharist, on the first day of the week. The likely origin of this practice was the meeting of Jesus with his disciples on the day of the resurrection and the following Sunday, as noted in John 20:1, 19, 26). The Greek adjective "the Lord's" (kuriakos) occurs in the New Testament for the Lord's day (Rev. 1:10) and the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:20) and had its principal usage in Christianity in reference to Sunday.
Everett Ferguson

The phrase “the Lord’s Day” occurs only once in the New Testament, in Revelation 1:10 , where John declared, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” In Asia Minor, where the churches to which John wrote were situated, the pagans celebrated the first day of each month as the Emperor’s Day. Some scholars also believe that a day of the week was also called by this name.
When the early Christians called the first day of the week the Lord’s Day, this was a direct challenge to the emperor worship to which John refers so often in the Book of Revelation. Such a bold and fearless testimony by the early Christians proclaimed that the Lord’s Day belonged to the Lord Jesus Christ and not the emperor Caesar.[1]
[1]Youngblood, R. F., F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, & Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1995.

A designation for Sunday, the first day of the week, used only once in the New Testament (Rev. 1:10). The Greek word for “Lord’s,” however, is precisely the same as that used in the term for “Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). In fact, the Didache, an early Christian manual for worship and instruction, links the two terms together, indicating that the Lord’s Supper was observed each Lord’s Day (14:1). Herein may lie the origin of the term. Because the first day of the week was the day on which the early Christians celebrated Lord’s Supper, it became known as Lord’s Day, the distinctively Christian day of worship.
Holman Bible Dictionary, “Lord’s Day.”

The earliest account of a first-day worship experience is found in Acts 20:7-12. Here Paul joined the Christians of Troas on the evening of the first day of the week for the breaking of bread (probably a reference to the Lord’s Supper). The actual day is somewhat uncertain. Evening of the first day could refer to Saturday evening (by Jewish reckoning) or to Sunday evening (by Roman reckoning). Since the incident involved Gentiles on Gentile soil, however, the probable reference is to Sunday night.
Holman Bible Dictionary, “The Lord’s Day”

My thoughts:
The observance of the Lord's Supper at Troas was on the first day of the week. Whether this was determined by Jewish time (Saturday night) or by Roman time (Sunday night) is at question here. While we do not seek to be dogmatic, there is not enough evidence to convince this student that Acts 20:7 could only be speaking of Saturday night.

The fact that John 20:19 (written by John and likely from Ephesus) speaks of the evening of the first day of the week as "that day" that Jesus arose, shows to me that as time passed the apostles reckoned and wrote of time in the way the Romans did rather than the way Jews did. Would the church at Troas (a Gentile port not far from Ephesus) have operated on Jewish time?

The suggestion that we may partake of the Lord's Supper on Saturday evening actually lies on a very shaky foundation--perhaps sand, not rock.

Let's think this one through before we launch an effort to make Saturday night into Sunday--at least based on Acts 20:7.

Phil

Doctrinal Desensitizing

Desensitize: to make emotionally insensitive or callous specif : to extinguish an emotional response (as of fear, anxiety, or guilt) to stimuli that formerly induced it — (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.)

Paul said, "Bad company ruins good morals" (1 Cor. 15:33, ESV).

Television has displayed so much profanity, fornication, adultery, violence, deception, crime, addiction, and abuse that many people believe that it is the norm. As a nation, America is slowly desensitizing to moral sin.

The courtrooms, the media, and the schools have so silenced Christianity that many believe God should never have a voice in anything. When Christians are portrayed they should be seen as hypocrites, idiots or extremists. America is slowly desensitizing to commitment to Christ as Lord.

God still opposes those who turn morality and truth upside down (Isa. 5:20ff.) Desensitizing is one of the devil's methods of bringing about corruption. If the devil can get you over feeling guilty about sin, he can get you to do anything.

Bad people who want moral change find ways to mock and disparage what they oppose. Their witty blasphemy of what is good desensitizes the naive. This is true of moral desensitization, but it is also true of doctrinal desensitization. Doctrinal desensitization is a process that takes place when people who once believed the truth feel no guilt about abandoning it.

Doctrinal desensitization comes from these things: (1) making fun of the godly and right views; (2) quietly introducing the corrupting practice to the young who have not yet come to understand fully the truth; (3) making it fashionable to despise what is right by labeling and stereotyping; (4) creating doubt in the word of God and its teaching; (5) making heroes out of doctrinal dissidents; and (6) disseminating inaccurate information (or teaching error).

Here are some examples of desensitization and misinformation with an answer in the parenthesis:

• Baptism can mean wash, so it's wrong to say that one has to be immersed to be baptized. "Legalists" demand immersion. (When you can't answer an argument, just call your opponent a name. Immersion was the uniform practice of the early church in Christian baptism.)
• Psallo and psalmos can only refer to instrumental songs, since David played the harp. (It doesn't seem to matter that for hundreds of years the regular worship of synagogue included psalloing psalmoi with the use of any instrument.)
• The reason for baptism doesn't matter as long as a person is obeying the Lord. (Of course, one has to wonder if obedience to the Lord includes denying what the Lord says. Does a person who denies baptism is for the forgiveness of sins obey the Lord in baptism, or does he obey a false teaching?)
• We can worship any way we want to as long as we are not in the assembly. Jesus didn't die over the instrument issue. (So that makes using a piano in the classroom and a guitar in your youth gatherings okay? That makes calling Christian musical worship a concert okay? It seems to me that if people are not willing to obey the Lord everyday and everywhere, they are still disobedient. Being outside the assembly doesn't turn disobedience into obedience. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 refer to our musical worship not only on Sunday but everyday and in every group setting.)
• Acts 20:7 is talking about Saturday night. (Is it? Did the people of Troas operate on Jewish time? Did the Gentile Luke far away from Israel obeserve Jewish or Roman time? Could this not have been Sunday night instead? See John 20:19.)
• If we don't loosen up and do things people expect out of church, we won't ever grow. Don't you love the souls of people? (The church doesn't belong to people; the church belongs only to the Lord. Jesus is the only King and the only one who has a right to rule the church. It is not loving or obedient to give in to popular demand rather than to listen to the words of the Lord--1 Samuel 15; Matthew 7:21-27. We love souls by telling them the truth, not by allowing them to believe error.)

Callous people are past feeling guilt. They not only willfully ignore (deliberately overlook, ESV) the truth (2 Pet. 3:5) but also like the devil keep the truth from reaching the ears of those who are young and naive in the faith (Luke 8:11-13). It is manifestly true that many young people among us have never heard the debates over the distintive nature of the church, baptism, or instrumental music. It is no wonder they are so easily persuaded to follow error!

The answer to this process of desensitization is a sincere study of the truth and a heart given to God's will rather than to popular desires. Preachers must be willing to speak the truth in love. We must not fear the rude name-calling of progressives; they are speaking out of their own nature. Callous people don't care whom they call names or whom they run off from their churches. The best thing they can do is show how callous they are to the truth; then we will know them for what they are.

Let us fill our hearts with commitment to the Lord and beware of wolves.

Phil

Great News

John and Laura have announced that they will be having a baby in May. found out today what the gender is.. It is not up on their blog yet, but I am sure they will reveal the news (I know but won't tell till they do).

go to http://lauralynnwilson.com/blog.html

love,
poppa

Joe Blue--a preacher of commitment and character

My dear friend Hugh Fulford tells of this marvelous preacher who began preaching more than 100 years ago. Brother Fulford told about this brother in Arkansa at the FHU lectures last year.

BROTHER JOE BLUE.

Born Sept. 18, 1875 in Izard Co., Ark. Obeyed the gospel when he was 16. Preached his first sermon on Nov. 1, 1896 near Poughkeepsie, Ark. (21 yrs. old). Preached all of 1897…Baptized 75 people…Established one cong…Paid $19 for his entire year's work!
Preached once a month for a cong. and held their meeting. Paid $4 for all his efforts. Preached monthly for another cong. 20 miles from his home…held their meeting…was paid $1 and given a bushel of seed corn.
Jan. 1904 – he and Bro. O. L. Hays (song leader) were called to Cotter, Ark. to hold a meeting. Each was paid $2 and given a handkerchief "apiece" for their efforts. When the meeting closed, a 3 in. snow on the ground. They walked home – a distance of 46 miles!

"I have gotten off the train at Hardy, Ark. in the night and taken my suitcase and walked home that night, a distance of 25 miles. Many times I have set (sic) up in a cold depot all night because I did not have the price of a bed and enough to take me on to my meeting. I have done without something to eat in my travels just because I did not have money to buy it and get on to my meeting." (Arkansas Angels, Boyd Morgan, 81).

"I made four crops after we were married (he married on Nov. 9, 1897), and the rest of the time I have been doing evangelistic work. We have remained on the farm all the time. We have our orchard, garden, cows, hens, hogs, horses, and goats. We have been married 46 years, and Mary has made two trips with me for meetings. She has been busy on the farm caring for the children, stock, garden, and chickens. We have bought 25 pounds of meat in 46 years. We have never bought any butter, laundry soap, or vegetables of any kind. We never did buy any wood. We have raised three children, two of our own and an orphan girl. I have conducted 107 debates. I have one of the best collections of religious books in the state. I have never been the man to complain about what the brethren paid me for my work." (Morgan, 80-81).

"When we were married we had six members of the church of Christ in the neighborhood. In the same neighborhood we had a Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Holiness, and Pres-byterians, but today we have only the church in the neighborhood, and there has not been a sectarian sermon preached in the neighborhood in 35 years." (Morgan, 80).

Fulford: "When I read these words (and those describing the work and sacrifices of many others like Bro. Blue), tears come to my eyes. I am reminded of the words of Heb. 11:37-38a-- They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, and tormented – of whom the world was not worthy!
We who preach today stand on the shoulders of such men. I bristle when I hear them put down as ignorant and unlearned men. Few, if any, of us would be willing to suffer as they suffered – and without complaint!"

Thank you, brother Hugh, for reminding us of what others have done so that we might have a church to love and serve today.

Phil

The Nobility of Preaching

God had only one son, and He was a preacher! Where would the church be without faithful gospel preachers who sacrificed much to proclaim the gospel. I would not be a Christian were it not for a gospel preacher who reached my family in 1918 and another gospel preacher who reached me in 1961. Philemon owed himself to Paul (Philemon 19); perhaps we too owe ourselves to men who fathered us in the gospel.

Unfortunately, many people hold the work of preaching in low esteem. Parents often steer their children into other professions than full-time preaching. Many faithful Christians prefer their daughters marry someone other than a preacher. Among some of our colleges, large numbers of our students train to be youth ministers but have little desire to enter into full-time preaching.

Those who preach frequently hear they are to “cut the sermon short” because of some other event at the worship services. Hearing a preacher is just not that important. One might wonder if anyone ever tells prayer leaders, song leaders, or those who preside at the Lord’s table to keep their parts short. Such attitudes reflect a heart too busy to listen to God. Those who enter preaching do so, knowing they will often be the subject of many discussions at the noon meal. Sometimes the discussion is positive, but sometimes it is not. I wonder if in some of those discussions some talented, young man’s heart is turned from the pulpit.
The work of preaching the whole counsel of God lends itself to the necessity at times of saying things people despise hearing. Jesus said the world hated Him, because “I testify of it, that its deeds are evil” (John 7:7). Gospel preachers must decide in their hearts whether they are willing to speak the truth at the cost of people’s admiration or speak things which tickle ears.

Three things have hurt gospel preaching. First, it has become fashionable for some of those who want change to mock and bash preachers, especially older ones. People say one should not be “preachy,” showing little understanding of how it may hurt a young person’s attitude toward “preachers.” We should use caution with our words, so that we may encourage the young to consider gospel preaching as a life vocation. To hear some talk this would be the last consideration. Such thinking shows how the devil wins through intimidation and mockery.

Second, with little hesitation some show they have little respect for the sacrifices of gospel preachers in former years. They slander their work, charge them with never understanding grace, and paint them as ignorant and unfeeling. It never occurs to some that these graceless, ignorant, brush-arbor preachers baptized more people in a year than some of today’s ministers baptize in a decade. If they lack so much grace, why did people eagerly listen to them and respond? How could these “mean-spirited legalists” have built so many churches? Their message of the cross was pure and true to the Book. Did they know of grace? How can any man preach the cross and not know of the grace of God?

Third, some have adopted a style of preaching which reminds me of a potato chip. It looks good, tastes good, but has little nutritional substance. Everyone enjoys the message, but no one is changed by it. It tickles ears and sounds so good. When a gospel preacher comes along with a different style, he may find rejection because he dares to challenge, to condemn, and to convict. listeners who would rather hear only pleasant things.

What Makes Preaching Noble?

Preaching is noble because it is God’s work. God is the One who commissioned men to preach the gospel (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:15). Paul said, "How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things!" (Rom. 10:14,15)

Paul held in high esteem those who took the good news to others who needed it. He knew their value, the blessing they brought those who listened. The ugliest part of them, their feet, was indeed beautiful for having brought a life-saving message to people lost in sin.
Preaching is noble because its message is most important. The world is in desperate need of the gospel of grace. When Paul entered Athens his spirit was provoked with him as he saw the city full of idols (Acts 17:16). Paul was greatly distressed, irritated and grieving, because they didn’t know the living God. They needed what he had been commissioned to deliver, but they did not know it. He yearned to tell them, to save them from ignorance.
Preaching is noble because its results are far-reaching. Mack Lyon said, “Preaching is the one single work or calling that deals with man’s eternal destiny, man’s soul.” Though doctors are called to heal bodies and teachers to educate minds, preachers touch men’s eternal souls. Preaching affects both this life and the life to come. The preaching of God’s Word comforts, converts, convicts and encourages. It lifts, motivates, shapes and stretches. Through preaching a listening man becomes better, nobler, richer and purer. When one is touched with the gospel, who knows how many others will be touched? Preachers do not merely teach their immediate listeners; they reach beyond to those their listeners teach as well. Who knows in the future what some bright young man will do with his life to serve the Lord?
Preaching is noble because its activity is essential to salvation. It is in obedience to the preached truth that a man is born again (1 Pet. 1:22-25). God chose the foolishness of the message “preached” to save those who believe (1 Cor. 1:21); He realized man by his own wisdom could never reach heaven without His help. God chose preaching as the means to lead men to Himself and to salvation.
Preaching is noble because its motivation is honorable. Those who preach do so, for the most part, out of love for God and people. While some may preach out of envy and strife (Phil. 1:15,16), others do it from good will and out of love. Many preachers have a deep burden for the lost and great compassion for the brethren. Paul admonished the Ephesians with tears for three years (Acts 20:31). He made himself a slave to all that he might win the more to Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 9:19-23).
Preaching is noble because it takes character to do it. Effective gospel preaching requires a high price from those who do it. They must be honest, courageous, compassionate and virtuous. As men of integrity, preachers must faithfully deliver God’s message to people who don’t always want to hear what they have to say. The weeping Jeremiah often grew discouraged with impenitent Judah, but the fire in his bones would not allow him to remain silent about sin (Jer. 20:7-10). Gospel preaching demands godly men who will not compromise and will not discredit the Name they wear.

What Can We Do?

Preachers can do several things to boost their image, but they need the help of all who love the Lord’s cause. Preachers need first and foremost to preach with visible love. People who love the Lord will listen to godly men, if they know their preacher loves them. Good preaching starts with loving ministry and care day to day. Hospital and home visits help preachers to get their messages across. People will tolerate rebuke from men they respect, when they feel he has their best interest at heart. We must preach the truth with love (Eph. 4:15), if we are ever to recover an esteem for the pulpit.

Preachers need to hear themselves. Some preachers have adopted a style which appears unloving. Should they preach on hell, some conclude by his attitude he wishes they would go there. Preachers would do well to listen to the sound of their voices. What does their tone of voice communicate? One preacher I admire seems always to be angry. One woman remarked she was tired of church, because she got a spanking every Sunday from the preacher. His attitude or tone of voice could have spoken things to her he never meant. Most preachers love their congregations and mean well, but some are not good at showing it. Many preachers would do well to evaluate themselves for more than content.

Preachers, further, need to rediscover joy. The gospel is glad tidings not sad tidings, and many preachers wear depressing and discouraging faces. We cannot impart what we do not possess, and it could be that our churches reflect a joyless gospel. Preacher, show the joy of your salvation (Psalm 51:10), the unspeakable joy of your inheritance (1 Pet. 1:6-8), the joy of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17; Gal. 5:22), and your joy in the Lord (Phil. 4:4). Infectious smiles radiate who you are and Whose you are. Many preachers need to learn to laugh again.
Finally, live lives free of reproach. Paul encouraged Timothy, “Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:12). He urged Titus, “These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you” (Tit. 2:15). Preachers must speak with authority at times, but they forget that their best ally is moral authority. Such authority comes from blameless lives, filled with love and purity.

Every preacher faces a discouraging day now and then. He should remember what he does is vital to the Lord’s work. God needs faithful men who will be able to teach others, men of courage who will stand in the gap, watchmen who will warn of danger, and evangelists who will take the great news to a lost and dying world. Preaching is noble because the gospel is a Divine message. How privileged a clay jar is to carry such a precious and needed message! Preacher, you have such a privilege.

Wow! Great news!

December was a banner month for Concord Rd. Our special, year-end contribution on Dec. 31 set a new record: $143,024.55! The elders will use this money for much and everlasting good.

The website for our television program also set some records. http://www.tv.God-answers.org
Our stats show that during 2006 we had over 33,600 hits, downloading more than 19,000 files. December was our all-time best month with more than 4,200 hits, downloading more than 2,200 files. We thank God for the growth.

In coming days we will begin broadcasting on iWRN Radio Network. This is an internet radio station broadcasting in Nashville, Pigeon Forge, Branson, Atlanta, Youngstown (OH) and Aurora (IL). They also have the internet affiliate http://www.iTRCRadio.com and the Military Affiliate http://www.iMilitaryRadio.us
Upcoming cities include: Houston, Biloxi, Birmingham, Destin (FL), Orlando, Myrtle Beach, Southbend, Louisville (KY), and some other cities.

We will send mp3 files to the network and you can listen at your own convenience. You will not be able to see the broadcast but you can hear the message.

This will represent a huge boost in our outreach. Please keep this in your prayers.

With great rejoicing!
Phil

Ouch!

I cannot help but be a little sad that my Sooners lost the Fiesta Bowl this year. I wished they had won. Can you imagine scoring 42 points and still losing?

Forget Ohio and Florida, the Fiesta Bowl was/is the most exciting game in college football this year! It is the game of the year. Our congratulations to the Boise State team. The last five minutes and overtime were riveting!

In spite of all, the Oklahoma Sooners still have won more games than any team since WWII and since the AP started keeping records. They also have scored more points than any college football team. They have had more 10+ and 11+ seasons than any college team in the country. So I will remain loyal always to my favorite football team.

Oh well, college football starts again in 8 months.

Phil

Christmas 2006

I don't think I have ever celebrated a Christmas quite like this one. Tara went off to work. Dewayne and Christa are at home. John and Laura are in Luray or in Alabama--not sure which. Josh and Chara are with his folks in Colorado. Jackie and I are playing Christmas music and enjoying a leisurely breakfast. We each opened one gift, along with Tara. Our big day will be Saturday.

Having grown up in large families (six kids on each side) and having had no small household ourselves (4 children--add the in-laws and Haydn and we have ten. If we include the one in the oven--John and Laura's, that makes eleven), we felt strange to be alone for Christmas. After while, Tara will come back from work; and Dewayne and Christa will be over for the evening. Tara and I talked about going bowling. At noon, Jackie and I are volunteering to help serve at NHC, where Tara works. They are short one server for the noon meal. It will be fun.

Jackie made up a plate for Mr. Egolf, and I'll take it by later today. Mrs. Egolf died last spring. He is such a good friend to us; we miss her.

For many years we have traveled to Oklahoma for the holidays. We had some talk of it again this year, but things have changed for us this year. Home is now in Franklin, Tennessee, though there are pieces of our hearts forever given to our families back home.

I was really happy the Sooners won the Big-12 Championship this year and are playing in the Fiesta Bowl in Glendale. It's not the national championship but we are playing an undefeated team in Boise State. BTW, if you want to know how great the Sooners really are, go to soonersports.com and check out the Quick Facts. OU holds eight #1 in the nation records, including the most points scored by any college football team ever. For those of you who don't know, my mother lives 1/2 mile from the OU campus in Norman. (I'm wearing my Sooners sweatshirt as I write this.)

What I wish for Christmas? I wish people would take a very long look at Jesus and care. I wish they would care morally, spiritually, and practically. I wish America could return to its gospel roots. I wish people would listen closely enough to God (instead of culture) that they would begin to worship Him rather than make themselves the focus. I wish people could make a distinction between worship and entertainment. I wish older people were more respected and less forgotten. I wish the ugly side of the internet would vanish. I wish the programming on television and at the movies were cleaned up morally. I wish everyone were truly Christian and truly set apart Christ as Lord in their hearts. I wish a nation that has told God to hush would open the ears and hearts to Him once again.

They are saying "Merry Christmas" at Wal-Mart again. For most of my life, we were people who didn't celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday but as a family one. The cultural battle to deject Christ from the American scene meant many stores were "Happy holidaying" rather than "Merry Christmasing." (You're not supposed to make verbs out of nouns, but I did.) I, for one, want to continue to help people understand that Christmas is a human tradition; but I also want people to think of Christ--at least for these few days. I want the Lord to be first in the hearts of everyone. Christianity is the best means for peace on earth. He is still the prince of peace. Through Him we have peace with God, with others, and with ourselves. There is no greater peace.

Well, these are my thoughts on a rainy morning in Franklin,

With love,
Phil

The Greatest Need of our Nation

While doing some research for my next article in Think magazine, I ran across some material that I wish I could get into the hands of every responsible person in America. Patrick Fagan, a research fellow for the Heritage Foundation wrote a brilliant paper on the value of religion to America's well-being. He concludes:

A steady growing body of evidence from the social sciences demonstrates that regular religious practice benefits individuals, families, and communities, and thus the nation as a whole. The practice of religion improves health, academic achievement, and economic well-being and fosters self-control, self-esteem, empathy, and compassion.

Religious belief and practice can address many of the nation's most pressing social problems, some of which have reached serious levels (e.g., out-of-wedlock births and family dissolution). Research has linked the practice of religion to reductions in the incidence of divorce, crime, delinquency, drug and alcohol addiction, out-of-wedlock births [now at 4 of every ten, PDS], health problems, anxiety, and prejudice. Faith-based outreach has been uniquely effective in drug addiction rehabilitation and societal re-entry programs for prisoners. Furthermore, the effects of religious belief and practice are intergenerational and cumulative. In a sense, they compound the interest of our social capital.

The greatest need in our nation is simply a return to God and his Word. We must quit making it politically and socially correct to tell God to shut up and leave us alone. The answer to America's self-destruction is and has always been God. If I could get to the highest hill and could shout to America, I would tell them to come home to God. I would point them to the church! I would urge them to repent! I would tell them that God's Word and ways has the answer to their heart-aches. Jesus still gives rest to the soul...

I would urge every reader to take the time to read Fagan's paper. You can find it at:

http://www.heritage.org/research/religion/bg1992.cfm

Forgive the shameless plug, but I also hope you'll go to http://www.focuspress.org and subscribe to this remarkable magazine. Some of the dearest people I know work there, and they are trying to make a difference in our world. The magazine is celebrating its first anniversary in January and has already shown itself to be a success.

May God bless America again, and He will if America will allow Him into their lives.

Phil

When the answer is not an answer

A friend of mine in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area is reporting the rest of the news about what is happening at North Richland Hills:

For those who are not in the D/FW metropolis and want to know what’s happening with congregations after the announcement in last week’s Christian Chronicle…

The North Richland Hills congregation is losing membership very quickly. There is another rather large congregation in the area that has nearly doubled in size since the announcement – this would account for several hundred members alone. Several other congregations also report that they are receiving members who are “finally fed up” with the direction of their former congregation. Not sure where the final numbers will work out, but the effect is sure to be felt. I’m not sure that this significant piece of news will make it into the Christian Chronicle or not.
There appear to be far fewer proponents of the instrument than some would lead us to believe.

People think that compromise and union with error will make our churches larger. Not always. What happens is that people who see the truth finally tire and leave. The progressives have pushed and pushed their postmodern agenda until they have driven off members who will no longer put up with their watered-down convictions.

Of course, some are reasoning that they had to get rid of the objectors in order to advance the cause of union with the Christian church. My, how disposable are their souls? Their love for the instrumentalists and "unity" seems to be greater than their respect for their own people who have convictions!

Loose religion attracts people who want a non-threatening faith, but it is difficult to get progressives to take a firm stand except against "traditionalists."

We have seen changes in Nashville as well. One group wanted change and shrunk from 3700 down to half that size. Another group with a progressive leader has shrunk from 2300 to 1400. This is the other side of this movement, often not noticed by those with the agenda for change.

Truth does matter; and before there can be real "unity," there must be a sanctification in the truth. The unity of John 17 was both relational and doctrinal. Can anyone seriously entertain the idea that Jesus in being one with His Father agreed to disagree but get along? Jesus said otherwise: “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority" (John 7:16-17). I seriously doubt if those who have been prooftexting John 17 have taken enough time to look closely at it. The suggestion that we suspend doctrine and judgment in order to be unified is simply error.

Unity includes all of us agreeing with God doctrinally and relationally. You just cannot separate doctrine from relation (John 8:31-32). True disciples don't.

May the Lord help our broken and bleeding body to heal with truth and love.

Phil

Like Water on a Duck's Back

"When the wish is father to the thought correct exegesis is like water on a duck's back." (J. W. McGarvey, Short Essays on Biblical Criticism, p. 116).

I am dumbfounded at the lengths to which some will go in order to find permission to do what they desire to do. I recall a number of years ago a brother suggesting to me that polygamy is permissible today. Now, one cannot find a specific prohibitive of polygamy in the New Testament. Even the qualifications for the eldership seems to suggest that some men in those days had more than one wife (at the same time).

Most folks today who oppose polygamy do so from the positive statements of Scripture. Each man should have his own wife; each woman should have her own husband (1 Cor. 7:2). Husband and wife are in the singular. Remarriage after divorce is regarded as adulterous to the first spouse. This notion is built on the idea from the beginning of one-man-one-woman for a lifetime.

I am further amused today at the extent to which some go to defend sex with children, same-sex marriages, and polyamory (marriages of three or more--all married to the others). The cultural argument says that what the Bible condemned in the first century was for that culture but does not apply to us today. Whether it is the principle of silence or simply the authority of the Word itself, people will listen to culture and dismiss God when they want to follow their own impulses.

"When the wish becomes the father to the thought, correct exegesis is like water on a duck's back."

How did anybody ever get convinced of purgatory? Purgatory had some roots in the Apocrypha, but did not find a champion in Christianity for a few centuries. The doctrine suggests the sacrifice of Jesus was insufficient to purge Christians sufficiently of their sins, so they had to go to a temporary hell-like purging till they were cleansed enough to enter heaven. This doctrine insults the blood of Christ, which is more powerful than our sins. Yet some hang on to purgatory. We can't find a specific prohibitive against belief in purgatory; what we do find is the positive teaching on the sufficiency of the sacrifice and on heaven and hell. We further learn about hades and paradise. The silence of the Scripture, in the light of a complete revelation, suggests that purgatory arose in the imaginations of men (cf. Jer. 23:16-40). We must use silence in some measure to argue against purgatory.

The Bible teaches about the sacrifice of Jesus, hades, Paradise, heaven and hell.
The Bible is the complete revelation of God's will for men.
The Bible does not contain any teaching on purgatory.
Therefore the teaching of purgatory must find its source in something other than the complete revelation of God's will for men.
Purgatory is a humanly devised notion.
To teach purgatory is presumptuous innovation and divisive. It is not of the truth and leads men into error.

If this is the case, why would people believe in purgatory? Because they heard someone they trusted and like teach on it. They did not bother to study it out for themselves. Once it became established, it was easier to accept than to question.

Sprinkling, infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, open membership, and so many other doctrines capture the minds of a crowd, and people think it strange to object to these innovations.

"When the wish becomes the father to the thought, correct exegesis is like water on a duck's back." McGarvey surely did know what he was talkin' about!

Phil

Mack Lyon and "In Search of the Lord's Way"

"In Search of the Lord's Way" with Mack Lyon remains one of the top three television ministries in the United States. Each week, Mack reaches out to 25-50 million people with the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not know of any other brother among who has such a national presence and who speaks so clearly and strongly as does Mack. Some twenty-six years ago, he began a work that touched every corner of this country and has gone into several nations.

His gentle nature, his refusal to ask for money, his fatherly wisdom, and his passion for morality and righteousness has endeared him to many within the Lord's church and without. Numerous people have left religious error to come to the truth, some have abandoned denominationalism, others have given up the instrument in worship, and everyone who hears has been blessed by his continued preaching of the truth in love. We thank God for him. Mack is in his very best days, and we pray God's continued blessing for much yet to be accomplished! His recent tract on the church has reached into the hands of tens of thousands of people since the program aired.

After my own father, Harley Sanders, died in 1985, Mack filled a hole in my life, for which I will always be thankful. He also offered an obscure, young preacher an opportunity to help him with some research. I will never forget the day he said to me, "Do you have anything that would be good for outsiders?" He offered a book of mine on worry, my first effort at writing. Mack gave me the privilege of viewing a taping of the program and of traveling occasionally with him. I have learned so much from this man of God. Mack knew how to make a difference in people's lives personally and over the air.

The best religious programs are preaching programs--they get the best ratings and make the most impact. For everyone who aspires to be a better media evangelist, they will not likely find a better model than Mack Lyon. I hope you listen to him each Sunday morning.

with fond affection,
Phil

Instrumental music one more time

My understanding is that the Richland Hills congregation in the metroplex of Dallas has now openly advertised a Saturday night service with the Lord's Supper and instrumental music.

The Christian Chronicle tells the story, so I won't. They studied the scholars on the subject for three years. What scholars did they study? Did they study all sides or the side they wanted? McGarvey noted that when the wish becomes the father of the practice, exegesis rolls off like water on a duck's back.

The arguments I have heard over the last few decades usually sound good until it is asked why the early church didn't get that point. Why didn't they understand what some supposed scholars now know.

Why didn't they feel free to use the instrument since Jesus felt it was okay to drink four cups of wine at the passover (ha!)? Why didn't the early church use the instrument since it was used in the temple? Why didn't the early church use it, since Psalm 87 speaks of it in prophecy? Why didn't the early church use it, since it is supposedly in heaven? How is it that the early church could have missed the long-touted psallo and psalmos arguments?

All these imaginative arguments fall flat. They are the dreams of people today who want the instrument, not the understanding of the early church that opposed the instruments.

If these scholars are so smart about the early church, why then didn't those common Christians of the first century (and succeeding centuries) not understand and apply the same?

If you would like to read a lengthy article on Music in NT worship, go to
http://tv.God-answers.org and follow the prompts to the bottom of the transcript page.

Just because some "big" and "popular" preachers and churches choose to do something foolish doesn't mean the rest of us should.

Phil

What Is the Truth about Islam?

I would point you to two books, which I think will be helpful in understanding where Islam is today and where they came from.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades
The Truth about Muhammad

Both of these books are by Robert Spencer and may be acquired at http://jihadwatch.org or at a local bookstore.

The Islamic faith is made up of many fanatics and extremists who wish to convert or enslave all infidels (people who do not believe Muhammad is a prophet or worship Allah). The Allah of Islam is not the Jehovah of the Bible. Muslims worship one God with one person, whereas Christians worship the one and only God in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

While Muslims believe Jesus is a prophet, they deny that he is the Son of God, that he died for our sins, and that he arose from the dead. They believe the Bible is corrupt. They do not believe the gospel (Mk. 16:15-16).

Their desire is to establish a Caliphate over the whole world. Those who do not convert will be enslaved in dhimmitude or killed. They want the pot of gold, which is America.

This is their desire.

Phil

The threat of Islam

I hope and pray that each one reading this blog from time to time will note the extreme threat that the Islamic religion is posing not only to Israel and Europe but also to the American way of life.

Let me recommend two sites that will educate you and somewhat frighten you:

jihadwatch.org

terrorism.com

The Islamic community is telling us day after day they plan to wipe us off the face of the earth. They are raising their children today to hate Israelis and Americans. Christians are infidels, dogs, animals, pigs, urine, and many other despicable things in their eyes. They are committed forever to our destruction. We must not be foolish so as to think they will go away. We must not be Neville Chamberlains and follow the path of appeasement. They will never be appeased; their goal is total world domination for Sharia law.

I hope you will take some time to find the truth.

Phil

The Status of Churches of Christ

Bobby Ross of the Christian Chronicle recently asked me to speak about the status of Churches of Christ today. Here is my opinion.

Churches of Christ today are a mixed bag, and I frequently hear stories of people who travel wanting to know what kind of congregation they will find at their destination. We should not be surprised that churches today differ, since they differed greatly even among the seven in Asia Minor in Revelation 2-3.

Some churches are growing well, and others are declining. Some have strong leaderships, and others are weak. Some are set in their ways, and others try every new thing that arises. Several people like to lump all churches of Christ in the same group and stereotype them; this is both dishonest and unfair. Some years ago I heard several make outlandish charges against the church. I realized there was probably a congregation somewhere like that; but you could drive down the road and find a congregation that wasn’t like that at all. Jesus did not lump the seven churches of Asia; He spoke to them individually. Some were good with open doors, some were lukewarm, and some were downright displeasing.

There are some predominant mindsets creating a wedge within churches of Christ, and fellowship is already limited if not completely disrupted. The postmodern, “progressive inclusivists” seem to me more interested in placating the public than pleasing the Lord. Far more than the instrument is involved; these churches are embracing a gospel without doctrine and a grace with no need for repentance. They are angry at and embarrassed with traditional churches of Christ. In their disdain, they highlight the abuses of traditionalists to justify their progressive agenda. They deny there are any rigid patterns in Scripture and so feel free to design their own Christianity, usually copied after the denominational groups around them. While a few of these churches seem to succeed, many of them have badly fallen in attendance.

There are others, over-scrupulous in their zeal, which thrive on the controversy that condemns others. They tend to bite and devour, sometimes each other. They have a tendency to make traditions into laws and judge others for not keeping their traditions. The harsh attitude within these churches often keep them small.

These two extremes among us love beating up on the mainstream, that group which is neither progressive nor over-scrupulous. The churches in the mainstream that love the truth, love people, and work hard are almost without exception growing. One church like this in Meridian, Idaho, has tripled in recent years. Churches like this in Dickson, Mount Juliet, and Woodbury, Tennessee, have been building larger auditoriums to hold everyone. I am not convinced that these brethren, who believe in the Restoration principle and teach with love, are going to vanish away in coming years. Many of them are filled with young people who know and love the truth. Many of them are quite involved in training preachers and in spiritually training their children. They believe the Word of God will produce what it has always produced—Christians. Many of these congregations are more interested in doing the Lord’s work than in the compromises of others. They are committed to New Testament Christianity. While no church is perfect, they still strive for it.

These are the churches that gave more than $30 million to Disaster Relief in Nashville, that train with Fishers of Men, and send their children to Bible Bowls. These are the churches that receive and answer calls from the mission fields and from the poor. These are the churches that haven’t thrown away their Bibles to listen to fluffy sermons; they do not have itching ears. They realized the Lord expects them to produce, and they are producing. May their number increase.

Phil

Dealing with a Brother

I am happy to say that the newspaper article I read depicting a theologian willingness to compromise was not the case at all. Apparently the author of the article has misrepresented the brother. I feel confident from his own statements that he would agree with what I have written in my last post.

I wrote an email to him and received a kind response, for which I am grateful. In the case of the newspaper or my brother, I believe my brother. If the only evidence we have is the newspaper article, it is not enough. Apparently, the author of the article took a sincere question as rhetorical, when it was not, and misunderstood the lecture.

I am glad I asked the brother some questions. In time past, I have been written up by slanderous men, who did not bother to ask questions. Below is an article I wrote on the occasion of a good man being "written up" by a zealot.


Dealing with a Brother
By Phil Sanders
Gospel Advocate 2002

It happened again. Some zealots have decided to label a brother a “false teacher.” The evidence was slimly built upon ignorance, assumptions and misinformation. The accusers did little to substantiate the facts but relied upon rumors and hearsay. Nor did the accusers feel any need to contact the brother to find out the whole truth. Lately it has been open season upon many a faithful brother in the Lord. I am reminded of Solomon’s proverbs,

“There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword” (Prov. 12:18).

“The first to plead his case seems just,
Until another comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17)

“Do not go out hastily to argue your case; Otherwise, what will you do in the end, When your neighbor puts you to shame? Argue your case with your neighbor, And do not reveal the secret of another, Lest he who hears it reproach you, And the evil report about you not pass away” (Prov. 25:8-10).

The assumption is that since the offense was not personal, and since the brother spoke publicly, he is fair game for public accusation and perhaps slander. Such men who speak out thus feel protected by the fact that a brother cannot sue them. They feel free to bite and devour others on the narrowest of pretext. They do not seem to ask whether the charge is either true or kind.

The justification for such speaking out normally falls upon the need to protect the flock. Certainly faithful gospel preachers will speak out against evil. I wonder, however, if the protectors ever thought about the souls of the people they ridicule and condemn. Even a brother who is deceived has a soul.

Let every one know that false teachers should be marked and avoided (Rom. 16:17,18), that factious people should be rejected after a first and second admonition (Tit. 3:10-11), and that those who go beyond the teaching of Christ do not have God and must not be supported (2 John 9-11). But we should also realize that not every accused person is guilty.

I fear some of our brothers have been driven away from the Lord and the church by careless and hateful speaking. How tragic when hateful and crude speech drives away a brother who could be saved. A hateful representative of the truth has more than once driven a young man into the hands of a false but benevolent teacher. No one sleeps with a dog that bites.

To be sure, ravenous wolves must not fill any pulpit, classroom, or editor’s desk (Matt. 7:15-20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18). Yet there are some that are misunderstood or misquoted. There are others still who although good in heart are simply misinformed. Like Apollos they need an Aquila and Priscilla to take them aside and shown them the way of the Lord more perfectly (Acts 18:24-28). It never seems to occur to some brethren that a private discussion could help a brother. They have decided that “writing up” a brother is the best means of dealing with him.

The fruit of the Spirit is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law” (Gal. 5:22,23). Those who practice writing up a brother upon rumor and faulty evidence fail to show these characteristics toward their brother. Where is love? Where is peace? Where is patience? Where is kindness? Where is gentleness? Being “sound” in doctrine does not ensure being healthy in heart or practice.

The golden rule should apply between brethren. “Therefore, however you want people to treat you, so treat them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12). I have often wondered how some sound brethren might feel if indeed a brother unjustly and publicly accused them of sin. I wonder how they might feel if they had been slandered in ignorance and judged without mercy.

Some have argued that there is no need to discuss a matter privately with a false teacher before “writing him up” publicly for all the church to know. I wonder how many “sound” brethren would like being treated that way. The Lord teaches us to treat others the way we wish to be treated. Writing up a brother before one clarifies an issue and before trying to make amends violates this principle. Paul commands, “Reject a factious man after a first and second warning” (Tit. 3:10). In some cases, the “written-up” brother finds out about his admonition through a third party weeks later. Such behavior shows that the writer cares little about the soul of the one he has spoken against. Apparently the accusing writer feels exempt from the golden rule, since he has found an opportunity to accuse. Do we not owe it to our brother to talk to him before we talk about him?

The Pharisees sought to find fault and accuse Jesus with lies and half-truths. They likely felt victory in condemning righteous Jesus to a cross for blaspheming. They had no love for Jesus, though Jesus loved them. This, by the way, is one of the reasons the common people wanted to hear Jesus but cared nothing for the Pharisees (Luke 15:1,2; 18:9ff.). One unjust accuser who has labeled many brethren recently lamented that he had no friends. People don’t like to sleep with dogs that bite.

The Pharisees once accused Jesus of leading the people astray, but Nicodemus defended Him. The words of Nicodemus ought to sting the hearts of those who practice unfair accusation. “Our Law does not judge a man, unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” (John 7:51). Every brother, because he is a brother, ought to have the right to be heard before he is labeled and condemned. Would a sound brother faced with a false accusation not wish to be heard before sentence is passed? Why then should we not offer this right to any brother? Unwillingness to hear a brother often drives a wedge deeper than the initial offense.

James reminds us, “So speak and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:12,13).

There can be no doubt that there is a time to judge, but let our judgments be according to the teaching of Jesus. “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). Find out the facts, let every word be established, and check with your brother to see if you have understood him correctly. You might be surprised that what you heard or assumed may not be completely right. A fact may be true but not the whole truth.

I fear that some have fallen into the trap of judging mercilessly on the basis of tradition rather than truth. Jesus taught against such. “Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you” (Matt. 7:1-2). One is not a Calvinist for simply quoting from the New International Version.

What do we owe our brothers with whom we differ? We owe them love (Rom. 13:8). We owe them a hearing (John 7:51). We owe them concern for their souls (2 Thess. 3:15). We owe them the fairness and respect we desire when we are accused (Matt. 7:12).

Let us talk to each other with patience before we talk about each other.

Phil

Jesus Is LORD!

Jesus is Lord, the Christ, the Son of God. That is the basic confession of all Christians (Rom. 10:9-10; Phil. 2:5-11). One day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father.

Not only is Jesus Lord, He is the Lord of lords, and the King of kings (Rev. 17:14). There is no other Lord; He is the one and only Lord (Eph. 4:4-6). Further there is no way one can go to heaven apart from Jesus (Jn 14:6; Acts 4:12). Only His blood can free us from sin.

Jesus Himself gave us the Great Commission (Mt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16), wherein these truths are very clear:
1. He has all authority in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18). There is no authority elsewhere apart from Him.
2. To disbelieve His gospel brings everlasting condemnation (Mk 16:16).
3. Disciples are to take the gospel to every creature.

Paul wished that everyone were a Christian (Acts 26:28-29), even King Agrippa who was a Jew.

What I have said is not suggesting that love does not play a part in our preaching and teaching (Eph. 4:15). Loving others does not mean selling out the cross, but with love preaching the cross of Christ. Preaching the cross is preaching love.

When I have read a theologian among us say that we should not try to bring all men into the kingdom of Christ, I cringe. I would that all men were in the kingdom of Christ. Indeed, if men are not in that kingdom, they are still in the domain of darkness (Acts 26:18-19; Col. 1:13-14).

Love warns the lost; it does not weakly pacify them. Love speaks the truth; it does not leave men believing a lie. Love for God means loyalty to him, not concession to the world. Let us be transformed from the world not conformed to it (Rom. 12:1-2).

Let us shine our light on the world and salt the earth with truth and love, not compromise and concession. Buy the truth, and do not sell it (Prov. 23:23); we aren't saved by jettisoning the gospel to pacify unbelievers.

my two cents,
Phil

Insanity

What would make anybody get up at 4:15 and be at an overloaded parking lot by 5 AM? Jackie and I do it every year. Is it the bargains? Yes. Is it our loved ones? Yes. Is it the madness and the people? Yes.

Black Friday is probably the only day out of the year that I go shopping with Jackie for several hours. We accomplished filling much of our list in the six stores we visited. We slept late the next morning.

With a three-year-old grand-daughter, Christmas (yes, I said the word) will be much brighter this year.

We are at an odd time of life. We don't celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday but as a family holiday. While we try to teach folks better about the pagan compromise and what the Bible actually says about the birth of Christ, we are not ready to give up saying "Merry Christmas" when we go into the stores. I weary of "happy holidays."

By the way, the transcript to the television program airing just before Christmas is about the Biblical importance of the birth of Christ. Go to www.tv.God-answers.org to download the transcript to program 636. We have taped well into 2007.

On the night after Thanksgiving, we kept our tradition at the Sanders house of making home-made pizzas. MMMMmmmm, they were delicious. We forgot, however, the Christmas cheer (a non-alcoholic beverage from the Welch's company).

Thanks for all your kind wishes and expressions of love toward Jackie. She is at work today. Therapy is helping a lot, but her arm won't be full strength for some time.

If you haven't subscribed to Think Magazine from Focus Press, I hope you will do so. I'm working on the January article, "What Does the Future Hold?" I think you will find the article informative and challenging.

Nashville School of Preaching begins January 8. I will teach on Tueday evenings. My two courses for the spring semester include: Bible Geography and 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus. Tuition is free, hope you will join us if you live in the Nashville area. For more information, go to:
http://www.crievehall.org/nsps2007.htm

Regions University is also gearing up for its spring semester. You can learn more about this leader in distance education by going to www.regionsuniversity.edu. Look closely for the many courses in their catalog.

Keep me in your prayers, I need them.

Phil

Be thankful

The last several days have been quite eventful. Jackie, my lovely wife of 32 years, had successful surgery last week and is recovering nicely. She is a great blessing in my life. The Lord was so good to give her to me.

Monday, after warning Jackie not to go down the deck stairs behind the house, I went down the stairs and slipped. I have bruises on hip and leg, wrist and arm. I am blessed I didn't break my neck, end up in the hospital, or kill myself. How foolish! I knew there was ice on the deck and steps. I am still really sore from the bruising.

Last night, all ten of our family was home. First time in months we have all been together. Laura is expecting a baby in May. Haydn was so delightful. My three sons in law are such fine men. We are blessed to have them in the family. After four daughters and one grand-daughter, a female dog, and a female cat, it is nice to have a little masculine company.

My four lovely daughters are such a blessing and comfort. They were discussing how Jackie and I should get long-term health care and buy cemetery plots. You'd think we had a foot in the grave! They do care about our future. Tara was telling us how many people are struggling at this time due to the high cost of health care after retirement. The doctors told Jackie that 80 percent of health care costs come in the last year of life.

Life, over all, is much brighter than ever. Concord Rd. is growing weekly; Nashville School of Preaching is expanding; Regions University is a blessing; and the television program had its best month on record in October (tv.God-answers.org). We tape two new programs Sunday evening. Think magazine and Spiritual Sword still ask me to write, and I have an article appearing in Gospel Advocate in coming days. (I also have an exciting bit of news to share when all things are confirmed.)

I am thankful for everything. Life is so full and rich. My family loves me. Jackie is more beautiful than ever. The Lord forgives me. The brethren still want me. I am so blessed. I am still healthy in body and mind.

I give God thanks. He is soooo good to me. I pray He is always blessing you.

love,
Phil

Widening MIndsets

It should not surprise the sincere Christian who is more interested in serving the Lord than in enjoying the world that the world is, well..., worldly.

Paul's admonition in Romans 12:2 is perhaps needed more now than ever:

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."

Many in American society simply do not know God. The God they think they know is often not the God of the Bible; it is the God they prefer not the God that is. Warped views of grace, unrealistic and hypothetical theology, and imagined doctrines abound. I am reminded of the Paul's words to Colossae (that little town on the road to somewhere else):

"Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.
"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ" (Col. 2:6-8).

The world loves to tell Christians all their faults and to suggest they have something better to offer. If we let the world re-invent our churches, we are sold out to the world. We cease being servants of Christ. If we determine that worldliness attracts more souls than righteousness, we will be a mirror of the world not of the Word.

Some think if we offer forgiveness without expectations of change (better known as repentance), that we can be a hospital for the hurting saints. It doesn't work. You can attract people but you can't change lives that way.

Imagine with me a man in a car accident with a very broken leg. The man is hurting and desires relief from his pain. Can you imagine telling the doctor to just give him some strong pain medication to relieve the pain but not worry about setting the leg? Let's kill the pain for now! But you know what's next. Pain medication wears off. Unless the bone is set back into place, there will be no relief.

Even more ridiculous is the approach some take to broken souls. Telling people of God's forgiveness might kill the guilt, yes. But if the soul doesn't repent of its sin, the brokenness will remain. Being free from guilt (from a human perspective) is not the same as forgiveness (from God's perspective). Many a person who thinks he/she is free from guilt is nevertheless still bound in sin. The unconditional grace some are preaching today is a fantasy, not a fix.

Because several have beat this drum loudly (grace without repentance), many have bought into it. Having itching ears, they have sold out of a myth. They believe their pain can be taken away without the needed changes.

The mindset of "anything will do" is far from the mindset of a loving and obedient servant. To speak of loving obedience today will lead to accusations of "legalist" and "Pharisee" from the religionist open to the world. Amazingly, he is willing to sanctify everyone but the one who is committed to serve God with obedient love.

One who says baptism is only the immersion of a person old enough to believe and repent (the Biblical view) is considered bound up in a "human tradition," while the "open" person who allows infant sprinkling (a concept never found in Scripture) is somehow untouched by human "tradition."

One who only sings in worship (because that is all the Bible teaches) is considered bound up by human "tradition," while those "open" to the modern practice of using instruments in Christian worship (a practice never approved by the New Testament or by the early church) are somehow untouched by human "tradition."

One wonders how people can add unscriptural practices and yet claim to be more Scriptural in such matters than those who reamin with the Scriptural practices. Being "open" to the innovations demanded by culture is not more Biblical than listening to the instructions of the New Testament--whether in baptism or in worship.

Those on the broad road likely made fun of those who took the narrow road. They likely deceived themselves into thinking they were smarter (because most everyone joined them) than those unfortunate people who took the strait and narrow path. Every day each walks down their roads, the distance between them gets further.

Some are splitting the church in order not to be "open" and "non-judgmental." They are so fearful of setting the bone and correcting the break, they would rather fellowship the world than correct the error.

Jeremiah understood the pain of preaching to people who did not want to listen. I fear those who preach the truth today may face the same pain of watching the world take away the people of God.

lovingly,
phil

Sand Theology

Jesus said in Matthew 7:24-27

24“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25“And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26“Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27“The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”

This pivotal passage at the end of the sermon on the mount demonstrates how Jesus spoke with authority. Jesus always highly prized his words. Note these passagses:

• John 8:31 "abide in my words" truly disciples of mine ( love is not the only thing that determines one to be a disciple)
• John 12:48 "rejects me and receives not my words" has a judge, the word I have spoken
• Luke 9:26 whoever is "ashamed of Me and of My words," I will be ashamed
• Matt. 24:35 my "words" will not pass away
• John 6:63 the "words" I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
• John 8:47 “He who is of God hears the words of God"
• John 10:24 “He who does not love Me does not keep My words"
• John 15:7 “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you."

Jesus made a distinction between a wise man who heard his words and acted upon them and the foolish man who heard his words and did not act upon them. I used to think that the difference was between action and inaction, but both the wise and the foolish did something--they both built houses.

If we were to look at those houses, they would appear similar in many respects. Both were likely comfortable. The one on sand wouldn't last, no matter how lovely or comfortable. It may have hand several conveniences, but it did not please God.

People often fool themselves into thinking that what pleases them also pleases God. Unless one builds on rock, however, by listening to and heeding the words of Jesus, one is destined for a "great fall."

When I have taught a person the gospel of Jesus, that one is to believe, repent, confess Christ, and obey the Lord in baptism, I have taught what Jesus taught. Jesus said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16)

Faith + repentance + confession of Christ + baptism (Immersion in water) --> salvation

Some are taught

repentance + faith alone --> salvation and baptism comes later

Others are taught

sprinkled as infant --> salvation and faith and repentance later

Most of the time people see the difference between the first circumstance and the latter two. They realize that the first is built on rock, and the others are not.

The same might be said for the teaching about music in worship.

I can read in Scripture about the need to sing, about congregations singing from the hearts, giving praise and adoration to God (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 13:15).

I cannot read anywhere in the New Testament where churches used instruments of music to praise God.

Now if the infant sprinkling and faith only doctrines are sand because they are not in the words of Jesus, why isn't adding the instrument also not sand?

think

Phil

Hypothetical Theology

The Lord speaks with clarity in his commandments and instructions. Paul said that he wrote in such a way that when the Ephesians read, they could understand his insight (Eph. 3:4).

But men have the tendency to ask questions where there is no knowledge. “Did Adam have a belly button?” “How many rooms were on the ark?” “What does ‘baptism for the dead’ mean?” Questions are good when they lead us to grow and to test ourselves.

There are, however, questions some use to press the issue of “situational truth.” Situational truth is somewhat like situational ethics. It is truth tied to a situation. While situationists freely admit that the general truth is settled, they use the “situational” question in order to find a theological loophole. In a religiously pluralistic society, situational questions open the door to approve contradictory and unauthorized beliefs and practices.

One asks, “If a tree falls on a man who is on his way to the baptistery, will he still be saved?”

Asking such a hypothetical, situational question is usually designed to take away the force of such passages as Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; and Acts 22:16. The question is inherently divisive, for the question divides men in heart. Some, speaking from the heart, will say the man is saved. Others will recall the words of Jesus in John 3:5 that require baptism for entrance into the kingdom. The love of God is pitted against his righteousness. The heart often creates its own myopia.

The more serious problem arises when people take their preferred answer a step further. Their myopia turns into general truth that conflicts with the clear teaching of Scripture. They reason that if the man upon whom the tree falls is saved, then anyone can be saved apart from baptism. Now it is no longer "situational." The situational, hypothetical, answer becomes the new rule for all.

I am reminded of the conversation Jesus had with Peter on the shores of Galilee after his resurrection. He predicted Peter’s death. In John 21:21-22 So Peter seeing him (the apostle John) said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!”

Sometimes questions about others get in the way of our own obedience. The question for each of us is not so much what Jesus will do with others but whether we ourselves have become obedient to God’s will. Whether a person upon whom a tree falls is saved or lost will not make a difference in whether or not God requires baptism of me. I must answer the requirement for myself.

Now if I put off my own obedience to the gospel, appealing to a “tree falling” situation will hardly excuse me on the last day. If I teach that one is saved at the point of faith prior to baptism, appealing to the “tree falling” situation will not excuse the error of my false teaching. Why? Because rather than listening to what God has instructed, I am appealing to an assumed answer to a “situational” question to justify my behavior. Such a theological approach is suspect. It is sand theology, based on emotional judgments rather than the clear teaching of God. Testing of God’s grace is risky, far removed from “making our calling and election sure.”

The devil knew how to make a situation work for him. He used situational thinking to tempt Jesus.

Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will command His angels concerning You’; and ‘On their hands they will bear You up, So that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’ ” Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Matt. 4:5-7)

If you can compose the situation, you can often manipulate the outcome you desire rather than accept the one God desires. You may think God (and others) don't notice, but this is mistaken. Jesus saw through the strategy of the devil, and so can we.

"Do you really think a godly person will be lost if he uses the instrument?"

David meant well when he sent the ox-cart for the ark of the covenant, but meaning well doesn't change error into obedience.
Nadab and Abihu meant well when they sought to offer incense, but meaning well doesn't change strange fire into authorized fire.
The Pharisees meant well when they scrupulously washed their hands according to the ritual, but meaning well doesn't turn a human tradition into a godly instruction.

Jesus did not argue against his Father with situational truth; nor did the Holy Spirit; and neither should we.

Hypothetical Theology is loophole religion, sand theology, designed to excuse rebellion and human religion.

Let's stay away from it.

kindly,
Phil

Nadab and Abihu

Before you read any further, I would like to suggest that you stop now, friend, and read Leviticus chapters 8 and 9--yes both chapters.

Okay, now that you have read these chapters. I want you to key in on the phrase:
"just as the LORD had commanded Moses." In various forms, you'll find the phrase found ten times in the two chapters, wherein God was dedicating the tabernacle.

Doing things right mattered. After offering sacrifices and preparing the tabernacle, Lev. 9:23-24 says:

Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting. When they came out and blessed the people, the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people. Then fire came out from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the portions of fat on the altar; and when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.

This is the setting for Nadab and Abihu, who had worn the linen and offered the sacrifices "just as the Lord had commanded" for several days.

Their offering of "strange" fire (unauthorized fire in ESV and NIV), was something the Lord had not commanded. They thought that one up on their own and acted on their own initiative.

God's response was to consume them with fire--fire that came from the presence of the Lord.

The Lord said through Moses, ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified (treated as holy, NASB), and before all the people I will be glorified.’

God took personal offense at the unauthorized offering. Offering something strange was treating Him as common, not holy. Their acting on of their own initative did not glorify God. They may have had good intentions; but God was not glorified by their doing their own thing.

Some folks who think telling this story amounts to legalism and who have made grace appear to allow presumption (which David calls great transgression in Psalm 19) point to Eleazar and Ithamar, who had lost their brothers.

In their grief, they did not eat the sin offering that day. Should they have? Yes. Did they? No, it burned uneaten. The blood was not brought into the holy place.

When Aaron explained, "When things like these happened to me, if I had eaten a sin offering today, would it have been good in the sight of the LORD?” Aaron realized that his heavy heart would not allow him to eat this offering with a proper heart. He felt it better not to eat than to render to God an inappropriate heart in his eating. This explanation seemed good in Moses' sight. No more was said about it.

God is certainly a God of compassion, mercy and grace; Moses aceepted the explanation. To find God's understanding in a time of great loss is understandable. To knowingly, willfully act without authority is quite another.

Does one example of grace open the door for presumption and disregard? Some make the mistake here of thinking that it is easier to get forgiveness than it is to obey; but such a view may be presumptuous. It is one thing to explain under some extreme circumstances why one cannot fulfill his duty; it is another to presume upon the grace of God.

Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, Saul, Ahaz, and Uzziah all learned that one has no right to act without authorization.

Jeremiah spoke of some prophets who in their hearts were sure they were speaking for the Lord. "Thus saith the Lord..." was part of their prophecies. The only problem is that the Lord did not say those things. It never entered into God's mind to say those things. They dreamed them up--spoke from their own imagination. "They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD." “I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied." “Then as for the prophet or the priest or the people who say, ‘The oracle of the LORD,’ I will bring punishment upon that man and his household." (see Jer. 23:16-40) Acting without authority is dishonoring to God and exceedingly sinful.

Paul noted how some ate the Lord Supper unworthily (1 Cor. 11:23-32), not discerning the Lord's body and thus incurring judgment. Their hearts and minds did not focus on the Lord but on the fusses brewing over the behavior of their brothers. Some were weak and sick, many were spiritually asleep. God wanted right hearts with right action. I would think that it would be better not to partake at all than to partake unworthily--not honoring God and treating Christ as holy. This is more parallel to Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar than Nadab and Abihu. While Moses accepted Aaron's explanation, neither Moses nor Aaron expected this to be the case the next time they had a sin offering to sacrifice. It is one thing to forgive a diversion over extreme circumstances; it is another to act like God didn't care whether he was obeyed or not. The counsel of presuming on the grace of God couldn't be more destestable.

This is a different thing than presumptuously acting on one's own initiative. The difference is that in Nadab and Abihu's case, they acted without authority and innovated their own offering. They acted without a command at all. In the second situation, the brothers acted out of soorow, respecting the commandment so much that they would not eat with an improper heart.

Loophole religion, presuming we can continue to act where we have no authority, is sand theology. Those who counsel sand theology will see their house stand for a time; but the wind will blow and the rain will come. Their counsel will be so regretted. Sand theology is thinking I can do whatever I please and face no consequences. Sad, sad.

Grace ought to lead us to listen and build on a rock, to love enough to heed. Grace builds faith and careful desire to please--not presumptuous innovation. We must not presume upon grace and try the Lord.

brotherly,
Phil