Seven Important Truths Concerning the Bible

Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the July 1984 edition of the Christian Courier. The paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, Californian and was edited by Jackson.

Without question, the Bible is the most influential book in the history of the world. Some of the most brilliant minds of which the human race can boast have been drawn to this ancient volume. In this article, we call attention to several great truths regarding the Bible which are vitally important.

Origin - As to its origin, the Bible is ultimately from God. Mere man could not have written it if he would and he could not have composed it if he could. The Holy Scriptures are the word of God! The psalmist declared, "Thy word have I laid up in my heart, that I might not sin against thee" (Psalm 119:11; cf. 119:89, 105, 130). Our Lord Himself announced that, "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). And Paul had words of praise for the saints at Thessalonica in that they received the gospel message, not as the word of men, "but as it is in truth, the word of God" (I Thessalonians 2:13). It is of course, true that Jehovah employed men in conveying His words to the human family (some 40 persons were used in writing the Scriptures). Nevertheless, the ultimate source of the divine document is Almighty God Himself and the Bible simply cannot be explained upon any other basis.

Inspiration - Suppose it is conceded that the Biblical message is ultimately from the Lord. Can we be sure that the writers who penned the original manuscripts did so infallibly? Yes we can and the process by which Jehovah protected the integrity of His word is called inspiration. Paul reminded Timothy that, "every scriptures is inspired of God" (II Timothy 3:16). The expression "inspired of God", literally in the Greek Testament "God breathed", suggests that the divine Author of the sacred writings breathed into the minds of His select pensmen the exact message He wanted conveyed to mankind. The Biblical writers happily acknowledged this. They did not claim originality for their productions. David for example, affirmed, "The Spirit of Jehovah spoke by me and His word was upon my tongue" (II Samuel 23:2). Jesus declared that David, "in the Spirit" referred to the coming Messiah as "Lord" (Matthew 22:43; cf. Acts 1:16). Paul wrote that the things, "we (apostles) speak (are) not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Spirit teaches" (I Corinthians 2:13). This is what scholars refer to when they speak of the verbal inspiration of the Bible. They mean that the very words of the Scriptures are God-given.

It is true of course, that Jehovah utilized the talents, backgrounds and personalities of the inspired writers to convey His divine message. Nonetheless, it is an indisputable fact that the Lord so guided the sacred writers that they expressed Heaven's will with absolute precision.

Transmission - The original writings which collectively came to be called the Bible have faded into oblivion. Not a single one of those original autographs remains, and doubtless for good reason. Men, had they access to those ancient scrolls, would likely worship them rather than their Author. And so, in the providence of God, they have long since vanished. Does that suggest though that the copies we now possess are not reliable as depositories of the divine truth? Not in the least. Sacred oversight has seen to it that the Scriptures have been remarkably and accurately preserved and the Biblical record bears testimony to this.

For instance, Paul states that Timothy, from his earliest years had known the sacred writings which were able to make the young man wise unto salvation (II Timothy 3:15). The "sacred writings" here referred to are the books of the Old Testament (none of the New Testament writings had been penned as yet when Timothy was a "babe in Christ). Timothy had perhaps been guided by his godly mother and grandmother (II Timothy 1:5) who doubtless took him to synagogue services whenever opportunity presented itself. Though there is no mention of a synagogue in Lystra, Timothy's hometown (Acts 16:1), there was one in Iconium (Acts 14:1), some 20 miles away. In the synagogue, the sacred text would be read. Obviously however, those ancient synagogues possessed only copies of the original Old Testament. The integrity of those narratives was so preserved though, that Paul could affirm that their original design remained intact; that is, making men wise unto salvation.

Translation - The original text of the Bible was in three languages. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew (with some minor portions in Aramaic) and the New Testament was penned in Greek. Since most people do not read their Bibles in the original languages, they are dependent upon a translation. The question is therefore appropriate, can one that he is reading the genuine word of God even though he is employing a translation? Of course he can, and we need only to appeal to the New Testament itself to prove the point.

The most important version of the Old Testament was the Septuagint. In about 250 B.C., in Alexandria, Egypt, the Hebrew Pentateuch was translated into Greek. The remainder of the Old Testament was done in piecemeal fashion, being completed by at least 117 B.C. At the time Christ came to earth, this Greek translation had become the Bible of the Jewish people. This is doubtless why the writers of the New Testament, when appealing to the Old Testament, most often quoted from the Septuagint. In fact, of the three hundred or more quotations in the New Testament, the vast majority agree with the Septuagint. The Lord Jesus Himself frequently quoted from this version. Christ could even quote from the Greek translation and say, "Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God" (Matthew 22:31-32), thus demonstrating that the translation process did not destroy sacred truth. Anytime therefore, a verse is faithfully translated from the original text into another language, the inspiration or the authoritativeness of the initial work of God is preserved.

Comprehension - Here is another question of great importance. What if one grants that the Scriptures have been faithfully transmitted and translated. Is it not a fact that man's mind is so hopelessly corrupt and the Bible is a book so shrouded in mystery, that one cannot understand it without supernatural guidance? No, that is not the truth though it is commonly taught by both Catholic and Protestant theologians. Romanism alleges that the Bible, "is but a dead letter calling for a divine interpreter" (Conway, The Question Box, 76) which is supposed to be the clergy of the Catholic Church. Many sectarian groups contend that man is so depraved by sin that he cannot comprehend the teaching of the Bible. He is thus in, "need of an inward supernatural teaching of the Spirit" (Hodge, Systematic Theology, I, 67). Both of these views are quite erroneous.

In the parable of the sower, Jesus said that the good soil is, "he that hears the word and understands it" (Matthew 13:23). Paul declares that those who read the words he wrote could "perceive" his understanding of the gospel system (Ephesians 3:4) and later in the same letter he challenged, "do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is" (5:17).

It has never ceased to amaze me that a host of denominationalists can all claim to have a supernatural, illuminating guidance of the Holy Spirit and yet teach a hundred contradictory doctrines. What a reflection upon deity! Any person who has an honest heart and strong desire to understand the will of God, if he will but exercise enough discipline to study hard, applying sound principles of interpretation, can comprehend the plain and essential elements of the Scriptures.

Demonstration - A mere theoretical knowledge of the Bible is worthless. Christ declared, "blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it" (Luke 11:28). We must allow the word of God to work in us (I Thessalonians 2:13) or as James has said, "be doers of the word and not hearers only" (James 1:22) for the word is able to build us up and give us the inheritance for which we long (Acts 20:32).

When we extol the Bible as the truth of God and yet we do not allow the word to richly dwell in us (Colossians 3:16), we do a great disservice to the cause of truth. For example, Paul notes that a lack of Christian conduct can cause the word of God to be blasphemed (Titus 2:5). By way of contrast, a faithful Christian life can attract favorable attention to the Scriptures (cf. I Peter 3:1). Our Lord was the perfect example of one who both did and taught the truth (Acts 1:1).

Proclamation - No one today has access to divine truth by means of any personal interview with deity. God does not speak in dreams, visions or by a supernatural illumination of the Holy Spirit. Objective revelation has been made known through the completed Bible and men will only be exposed to the message of the Scriptures as we distribute the sacred volume and proclaim its saving message. The Lord's commission obligates us to preach the gospel to the whole creation (Mark 16:15). "Preach the word" was the burning admonition of Paul to Timothy (II Timothy 4:2). Every single Christian must take seriously his obligation to teach the Bible consistent with his divinely appointed role, ability and opportunity. The church of today desperately needs to rekindle the passion of first century evangelism. The Bible can only be effective when in contact with the human heart. Let us labor to sow the seed of the kingdom of heaven (Luke 8:11).

Unplain Talk

Dan S. Shipley was the author of this piece which appeared in the April 1972 edition of Plain Talk which was published by the Oaks-West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas. Robert F. Turner was the editor.

Man has nothing more valuable than his own soul (Matthew 16:26) and can learn nothing more valuable than how to save his soul. That is why gospel truth is the most important thing any man can learn or be taught. And that is why all who teach the word of God should remember the extreme seriousness of their task as emphasized in James 3:1. "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment." So, teaching God's truth is not something to be taken lightly. In fact, all Bible teaching should be flavored with the realization that, unlike other teaching, it is wrought with eternal consequences for both teacher and student. No math or English teacher ever had that kind of motivation!

But effective Bible teaching involves more than just talking about the Bible. It must be plain talk; teaching that is understandable. Paul stated that principle in connection with speaking in tongues. "So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air" (I Corinthians 14:9). Without plain talk in our Bible teaching there can be no understanding in things that need most to be understood. Worse, there can be misunderstanding and confusion.

Regrettably, unplain talk is dispensed in several hard to understand varieties, one of the most popular being ambiguity. This involves the use of expressions and terms that are susceptible to different interpretations or that might convey more than one possible meaning. The learner must understand words in the sense intended by the teacher. Unwitting ambiguity may result with the use of such common terms as "church," "baptism" and "Christian" depending on the learner's background. Failure to understand such terms in their Bible sense may cause them to appear as nonsense, as with the brother who taught that an elder could not join a labor union because he was to be, "no striker."

Generalization is another kind of unplain talk hindering good teaching. While it is true that men must do the will of God to be saved (Matthew 7:21), His will consists of specifics to be known and obeyed. Sin cannot be effectively dealt with generally, simply because sins are not committed "generally." Speaking out against Speaking out against immodesty is one thing; mini-skirts and swim suits are something else. Being a slave of bad habits generalizes. Being the slave of tobacco is specific. Everybody believes in the autonomy of the church, until you get down to specifics. Over generalizing is like "speaking into the air" for all the good it does. Souls are at stake. Understanding is essential. Be specific!

Unplain talk may be impressive, entertaining and eloquent without being instructive and that's the whole point of teaching. The real measure of effective teaching lies in its being understood and remembered; not in the plaudits it may receive from men. Teachers, what greater service can be rendered to others than helping them to understand and remember God's truth?

Matthew the Apostle - Defender of the Faith

This insightful article is reprinted from the February 1984 edition of the Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Wayne Jackson was the author and editor.

The Old Testament contains numerous prophecies which vividly foretold the Jewish rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Isaiah had prophetically asked, "Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" (53:1) In the New Testament, the apostle John shows this prediction to be fulfilled in the Jews' disbelief in Christ (cf. John 12:37-38). The Lord Himself declared that He was that prophetic stone which was to be rejected by the builders (Psalm 118:22; Matthew 21:42). The Jews crucified their Christ (through the instrumentality of the lawless Romans [Acts 2:23]) and they were vicious persecutors of Christianity until crushed by the Roman forces in 70 A.D. The Jews were thus a powerful force to be reckoned with in the first century.

The Gospel of Matthew, written sometime within the first four decades of the church's existence, was designed to address this problem. First of all, it represents an attempt to evangelize the Jews; to win them over by means of persuasive evidence, to the cause of the Lord. Secondly however, this remarkable gospel record was intended to function as a defense of the historical facts concerning Jesus, and thus, to counter the popular Jewish arguments which were being hurled against the Christian message.

A few of the Jewish slurs (some of which are alter recorded in their writings, e.g., the Talmud) doubtless were, Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary, His miracles were but magical tricks learned in Egypt, His home was in despised Nazareth so He could not be the Messiah from Bethlehem, and He was not raised from the dead but His body was stolen by His disciples.

Because these same ignorant charges are hawked by infidels (including religious modernists) of this century, Matthew's rebuttal of them is as eloquent today as it was nearly two millennia ago.

The Virgin Birth - The early Jews circulated the story that Jesus was the illegitimate child of Mary and a Roman soldier whose name was Ben-Pandira or Ben-Panthera. Joseph Klausner, Professor Emeritus of Hebrew Literature and Jewish History at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, felt that the name, by a simple transposition of letters, could be traced to the Greek word for virgin, parthenos and therefore that the slander is but an echo of the early Christian belief in the virgin birth of Jesus (Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 1925, pp. 23-24). Matthews arguments for the Lord's virgin birth are devastating. Consider them.

1. In chronicling the legal genealogy of Jesus from Abraham to Joseph, Matthew uses the verb "begat" no less than 39 times, yet as a connective between Joseph and Jesus, "begat" is conspicuously absent. This is a subtle but deliberate suggestion of the virgin birth. In addition, he stressed concerning Mary, "...of whom was born Jesus." The pronoun "whom" (hes) is singular number, feminine gender, thus excluding Joseph from any involvement in the Lord's birth.

2. Mary was "found" to be with child, "of the Holy Spirit" before she and Joseph, "came together" and when they were as yet but "betrothed" (1:18). The word "found" indicates a discovery or detection and is evidence of Joseph's lack of complicity. The child was miraculously conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and the angel confirms this. The conception occurred before Joseph and Mary "came together" (sunerchomai), a term euphemistically used for sexual union (cf. I Corinthians 7:5). Too, the word "betrothed" had to do with an engagement period prior to any sexual cohabitation. The very fact that Joseph was, "minded to put her away" reveals that he knew that he was not responsible for the pregnancy and the fact that he did not put her away is a demonstration that he was convinced that Mary's conception was a miracle.

3. Matthew contends that Mary's conception is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, "Behold, the virgin shall be with child..." Isaiah uses the Hebrew almah. Much controversy has surrounded the meaning of this term due to modernism's bias against the doctrine of the virgin birth. Some have suggested that the term does not actually mean a virgin. Rather, it simply denotes a young woman. That assertion will not stand the test of evidence. Edward J. Young has observed that almah, "is never used of a married woman, either in the Bible or elsewhere" (The Banner, April 15, 1955). Robert D. Wilson, an incomparable scholar who mastered some 45 different languages thoroughly researched the word and declared, "Alma, so far as known, never meant young married woman; and secondly since the presumption in common law and usage was and is, that every alma is virgin and virtuous, until she is proven not to be, we have a right to assume that the alma of Isaiah 7:14 and all other almas were virgin, until and unless it shall be proved that they were not. The language itself is not the difficulty. The great and only difficulty lies in disbelief in predictive prophecy and in the almighty power of God; or in the desire to throw discredit upon the divine Sonship of Jesus" (Princeton Theological Review, XXIV, p. 316). Even Jewish scholar Dr. Cyrus H. Gordon, who made some of the archaeological discoveries at Ras Shamra, has conceded that recent evidence confirms that, "the New Testament rendering of almah as virgin is correct" (The Journal of Bible and Religion, XXI, April 1953, p. 106).

In his rendition of Isaiah's prophecy, Matthew used the Greek parthenos. Now parthenos is "virgin" as the consultation of a Greek lexicon will reveal. The fact that parthenos in rare instances may refer to one who is technically a non-virgin is no argument against the normal use of the word. For instance, Dinah is called a parthenos even after she was raped (Genesis 34:3, LXX). However, the Old Testament frequently uses former appellations in a figurative sense to denominate subsequent situations. Abigail is called Nabal's "wife" even after she married David (II Samuel 2:2) and Jerusalem is referred to as, "the faithful city" while playing the "harlot" (Isaiah 1:21). It may be that Dinah is called a parthenos even after her violation to stress her non-consent in the horrible act.

Isaiah makes it very clear that Mary would conceive as a virgin. If a virgin marries (thus losing her virginity) and bears a child, such certainly cannot be called a virgin birth. The prophet must have had exclusive reference to Mary's virginal conception. Thus, the view (becoming increasingly popular) that Isaiah 7:14 involved a double prophecy, i.e., a "young woman" of the prophet's own time in addition to Mary, is forthrightly to be rejected!

4.The child's name was to be Immanuel; which is interpreted, God with us. The use of "God" in a compound name does not in itself of course, demand the deity of the person so named. It is plain however, that Matthew's use of the name does involve the Sonship of Jesus. With the birth of Christ, God (deity) has come to earth!

5. Finally, it is stated that Joseph took Mary as his wife but, "knew her not till she brought for a Son..." The verb "know" translates the Greek ginosko, which is used frequently both in sacred and profane literature for sexual relations (Genesis 4:1, 17; Luke 1:34). Here the exact form is eginosken, in the imperfect tense, suggesting that Joseph kept on refraining from sexual intimacy with his betrothed until after the birth of Jesus. Matthew thus makes an unanswerable case for the Lord's virgin birth.

Jesus' Miracles - Matthew attributes twenty miracles to Christ, three of which are peculiar to his narrative. The charge as later reflected in the Talmud that He learned magical arts in Egypt by which He deceived people, is totally ludicrous. The apostle is careful to note that it was as a, "young child" that Jesus was taken into Egypt and it was as an infant that He returned (2:13, 20-21). He was never in Egypt thereafter! The Talmud thus bears unwitting testimony to the fact that Christ was doing some remarkable deeds that needed in some fashion, to be explained.

Jesus the Nazarene - In reply to the accusation that Jesus could not be the Messiah since He was from Nazareth and not Bethlehem (cf. John 7:41-42), the following rebuttal is offered. Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem, according to Micah's prophecy (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:1). After the flight into Egypt, Joseph had intended to settle in Judea but being warned by God in a dream, he returned to Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that He should be called a Nazarene" (2:23). Nazareth had a scornful stigma (John 1:46) and Jesus' residence therein was a fulfillment of the multiple testimonies of the prophets that the Messiah should be despised and rejected of men (cf. Psalm 22:6-9; Isaiah 53; 2-3). Hence, the true Messiah must not only be born in Bethlehem but be scorned as well. How wonderfully Matthew blends together these two elements.

The Resurrection - Another evidence of the apologetic thrust of Matthew's gospel is the attention which he (and he alone) pays to the attempts to prevent and conceal the fact of Christ's resurrection (27:62-66; 28:11-15). On the Saturday Jesus' body was in the tomb, a group of Pharisees visited Pilate warning him that the "deceiver" had promised to rise from the dead after three days. They requested that the tomb, "be made sure" lest His disciples steal the body and fabricate a tale of the resurrection. The governor assigned them a guard and suggested, "make it as sure as you can."

After Christ was raised, some of the Roman guard sent into Jerusalem and reported the dramatic events to the Jewish officials. A hasty meeting was called of the Sanhedrin resulting in a large bribe being paid to the soldiers with the charge, "Say his disciples came by night and stole Him away while we slept." And Matthew, writing two or three decades after the event, reported that the story spread among the Jews even until, "this day." (Note: In fact, the rumor continued many years beyond Matthew's time. Justin Martyr who died in 165, refers to it in his Dialogue with Trypho and it is repeated in a later document known as the Toldeoth Jesu, thus proving that the body was never found.)

From this narrative several interesting matters arise. First, it is noteworthy that the Jewish chief priests were the first to be told by the guards, "all the things that were come to pass." Though these priests initially resisted the impact of the report, one wonders if this could be related to the fact that later, "a great company of priests were obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7). Secondly, had it not been for Matthew's account, we might not see the full picture of how utterly befuddled and panic stricken the Sanhedrin became as evidenced by their anemic suggestion, "Say, His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we slept." The very idea; a sleeping witness! They might as well have instructed them to report, "We dreamed His disciples stole the body!" At any rate, the very fact that the officials sealed the soldiers' mouths with a bribe is proof that the Roman seal had not been violated.

Interestingly, Matthew reports that, "there was a great earthquake" at the time of the resurrection; a foolish claim to make and one easily refuted if it did not occur. In connection with this though, is also the apostle's unique notation that after Christ's resurrection, many bodies of the saints that had died came out of their tombs and entered into Jerusalem and were seen by many. A bribed guard may sway some but it is difficult to argue with a walking corpse!

Read this great book and be thrilled.

New Testament Baptism - Its Form, Subjects and Purpose

Wayne Jackson is the author of this article which appeared in the January 1984 edition of the Christian Courier. It was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Jackson was also the editor.

There are a number of instances in the New Testament where inspired writers warn of an impending apostasy from the faith once delivered unto the saints. It was foretold that the time would come when men would no longer endure sound doctrine and hence, would depart from the faith (II Timothy 4:3; I Timothy 4:1). The fact is, such lawlessness as characterized that movement was beginning to work even at that early age (cf. II Timothy 2:7).

Before Christ ascended into heaven, He instructed His disciples to teach the gospel to all men. Those who believed that "good news" and who accordingly repented of their sins, were commanded to be immersed in water (cf. Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 3:5). The Lord's apostles carried out this sacred commission with precision (cf. Acts 2:38ff).

The Form

The word "baptize" is an anglicized Greek term, literally meaning "immerse." It never means to sprinkle or pour water upon the subject. In fact, the original term is clearly distinguished from those words in a passage found in the Septuagint. Note: "And the priest shall take of the log of oil, and pour (cheo) it into the palm of his own left hand; and the priest shall dip (baptizo) his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle (rantizo) of the oil with his finger seven times before Jehovah" (Leviticus 14:15-16). The difference in the verbs is clearly seen. New Testament baptism is thus a burial in water (cf. Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12).

By the middle of the second century however, conviction was giving way to convenience. The first historical references to sprinkling as a substitute for immersion is in a document known as the Didache (120-160 A.D.). A passage in chapter 7 reads: "Now as regards baptism, thus baptize ye: having first rehearsed all these things, baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if thou hast not running water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then warm. But if thou has neither, pour water upon the head thrice..."

A few years later, Cyprian made the first recorded defense of sprinkling when he wrote, "You have asked also, dearest son what I thought of those who obtain God's grace in sickness and weakness., whether they are to be accounted legitimate Christians, for they are not to be washed but sprinkled with saving water...In the sacrament of salvation, when necessity compels, and God bestows His mercy, the divine methods confer whole benefits on believers; nor ought it to trouble anyone that sick people seemed to be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the Lord's grace" (Epistle, LXXV). It will be readily observed that even at this point, sprinkling is advised only upon cautious grounds; "when necessity compels," and was thus not considered to be the normal practice. And of course, as in the previous quotation, the plea is too late to have the approval of apostolic authority.

The first actual known case of sprinkling involved one Novatian of Rome. Eusebius, the "father of church history," says that he was, "attacked  with an obstinate disease, and being supposed at the point of death, was baptized by aspersion, in the bed on which he lay." But again, this was considered abnormal, for Eusebius shows that restrictions were put upon Novatian because, "...It was not lawful that one baptized in his sick bed by aspersion, as he was, should be promoted to any order of the clergy..." (Ecclesiastical History, p. 266).

Even as late as the 8th century, Pope Stephen III, in France, authorized pouring water on infants' heads only, "in cases of necessity" (John Rowe, History of Reformatory Movements, p. 456). In fact, the Council of Nemours (1284 A.D.) limited, "sprinkling to cases of necessity" (Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia, I, p. 201). Finally though, at the Council of Ravenna in 1311 A.D., it was officially made law (human law) that the candidate for baptism be given his choice between sprinkling and immersion. But what about God's choice?

The Subjects

Since both faith and repentance are conditions leading to Bible baptism, naturally infants are excluded (cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Infants do not have the mental capacity to believe and they cannot repent (nor have they a need to) for they, "have no knowledge of good or evil" (Deuteronomy 1:39). Hence, the practice of infant baptism is unknown to the Word of God.

The first possible allusion to infant baptism is by the writer Irenaeus (140-203 A.D.). "He (Christ) came to save, through means of Himself, all who through Him are born again unto God, infants and children, boys and youths, and old men" (Against Heresies, 2:22:4). But a contemporary, Tertullian (150-222 A.D.) opposed the practice. "Let them come while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are being taught to what it is they are coming; let them become Christians when they are susceptible of the knowledge of Christ. What haste to procure the forgiveness of sins for the age of innocence! Let them first learn to feel their need of salvation; so it may appear that we have given to those that wanted" (On Baptism, XVIII).

Augustus Neander, who was a Lutheran historian comments, "Tertullian appears as a zealous opponent of infant baptism; a proof that the practice had not as yet come to be regarded as an apostolical institution; for otherwise, he hardly would have ventured to express himself so strongly against it" (Church History, Vol. I, p. 425).

Although Tertullian opposed infant baptism, he did lay the groundwork for its ready acceptance by others. He taught that the human spirit, like the body, is transmitted from parent to child. Thus, man inherits a blemished soul, according to this theory. Cyprian (200-258 A.D.) reasoned, "But, if even the chief of sinners, who have been exceedingly guilty before God, receive the forgiveness of sins on coming to the faith, and no one is precluded from baptism and from grace, how less should the child be kept back, which, as it is but just born, cannot have sinned, but has only brought with it, by its descent from Adam, the infection of the old death; and which may the more easily obtain the remission of sins because the sins which are forgiven it are not its own but those of another" (Epistle, LVIII). And Origin (185-254 A.D.), another writer, flatly declares, "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? Or when have they sinned? Or how can any reason of the laver in their case hold good, but according to that sense we mentioned even now, none is free from pollution, though the life be but the length of one day upon the earth. And it is for that reason, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptized" (Homil. in Luc., XIV).

It thus takes error to buttress error. The practice of infant baptism was invented as a corollary to the false concept of "inherited sin." Neither has the remotest sanction of the Bible. The practice of infant baptism did not become common until the 5th century after the writings of Augustine had popularized the notion of original sin. Even Philip Schaff, a vigorous pseudo-baptist, was forced to admit that, "adult baptism was the rule, infant baptism the exception" until the church was fairly established in the Roman Empire. He points out that Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom had "Christian" mothers, yet they were not baptized until they were in early manhood (Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia, I, p. 210).

The Purpose

The divine connection between baptism and the remission of past sins was universally observed by writers of the post-apostolic age. They recognized the divine authority of the Scriptures for this (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Titus 3:5; I Peter 3:21). Professor George Fisher wrote, "Very early, baptism was so far identified with regeneration as to be designated by this term. This rite was considered essential to salvation" (History of the Christian Church, p. 83). Eventually however, a magical aura began to be associated with baptism, resulting finally in the doctrine of, "baptismal regeneration" (power in the water itself). It was but natural that a reaction against this erroneous idea would subsequently develop. 

In 1512, Jacobus Faber, known as the, "father of the French reformation" published his Commentary on the Epistles of Paul in which he set forth his views that justification from sin is obtained through faith without works. A few years later, Martin Luther declared, "I, Doctor Martin Luther, unworthy herald of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, confess this article, that faith alone without works justifies before God" (D'Aubigne, Life and Times of Luther, p. 56). So convinced of this was Luther that he altered the text of Romans 3:28 to read, "a man is justified by faith only." He further rejected the inspiration of the book of James, because of its emphasis on works in addition to faith, calling it a , "right strawy epistle." Though Luther did see a connection between baptism and remission of sins, he nevertheless prepared the way for the modern denominational dogma which asserts that baptism is not essential to salvation.

Thus, because men have failed to acknowledge the Bible as the complete and final source of authority in religious matters, there has resulted an apostasy from the faith in the form, subjects and divine purpose in the New Testament command of baptism. 

Every person genuinely interested in pleasing Almighty God should reexamine his baptism and make absolutely sure that it was in harmony with Biblical teaching.  

Paul's Farewell Speech to the Ephesian Elders

Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the Christian Courier of December 1983. The paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.

Having concluded his third missionary journey, the apostle Paul was speedily making his way toward Jerusalem, hoping to arrive in that renowned city before the Jewish Pentecost (doubtless because of the great crowds that would be assembled). Sailing southward in the Aegean Sea, that arm of the Mediterranean between Greece and Asia Minor, the apostle came to Miletus. Miletus was an ancient seaport on the western coast of Asia Minor. It was the birthplace of the Greek philosopher Thales.

Since Paul was to be in Miletus for two or three days (probably while his ship changed cargo), he sent for the elders of the church in Ephesus, some thirty miles away, that he might briefly visit with them. For three years (Acts 20:32; cf. 19:8, 10, 22) he had closely labored with these brethren and now, anticipating that he would see them no more, he desired to communicate with these bishops of the Lord's church.

This presentation (Acts 20:18-35) is the only example in the book of Acts of Paul addressing an exclusively Christian audience. The speech is personal, admonitive and exhortive.Topically, it may be studied under three headings; Paul's claims, his charge and his commendation.

Paul's Claims - The noble apostle was not without his critics wherever he went and this apparently included Ephesus. Some seem to have been attacking Paul in his absence and so he deems it advisable to remind them of his credentials while among them.

First, he affirms that he was a servant of the Lord. The implication is that at the point of his conversion, he had surrendered all his personal rights and had become the property of Jesus Christ. He was totally at the disposal of the Lord.

Further, in this connection he mentions several qualities that were characteristic of his servitude. Note: (a) He was an humble servant, possessing that, "lowliness of mind" that puts the interests of others first. As he later explained the matter, counting the other person better than oneself (Philippians 2:3).

 (b) he had been a sympathetic servant. His heart had gone out to those entrenched in sin. One is reminded of how the apostle had written to the Corinthians, "with many tears" (II Corinthians 2:4) and he informed the Philippian brethren that when he thought on those who were enemies of the cross, he wept (Philippians 3:18) so similarly, had he served his Lord among the Ephesians with tears night and day (Acts 20:19, 31).

 (c) At Ephesus Paul had also been a persecuted servant of Christ. "Trials" had befallen him and the Jews had plotted against his welfare. His life had been greatly in danger when the apostle had dared to tell the idol worshipers of that great city that gods made with hands are in fact no gods at all (Acts 19:26). Paul knew what it was like to be a victim of true religious persecution and daily he laid his life on the line. Read II Corinthians 11:23ff (which was written shortly after the apostle left Ephesus) and observe the abuse to which this brother was heir!

(d) Paul also stresses that he was an independent servant of the Lord. By that we mean that he was never a financial burden to these brethren. Paul was not adverse to receiving monetary support from his brethren. The church in Philippi had generously sustained the tireless preacher (cf. Philippians 1:5; 4:14ff) and he plainly taught that it was the church's duty to assist those who labor in proclaiming the truth (I Corinthians 9:1ff; Galatians 6:6). Occasionally though, Paul had refused support from some brethren and so of his work in Ephesus he could claim, "I coveted no man's silver or gold or apparel. Ye yourselves know that these hands ministered unto my necessities and to them that were with me" (Acts 20:33-34). Making tents by night (Acts 18:3) and proclaiming the Word by day, such was doubtless the routine of the selfless servant of the Lord Jesus.

Second, the peerless apostle declared that he was a proclaimer of the gospel. Again, there are a number of descriptions which detail the type of preacher that Paul was. (a) The substance of his message was spiritual not secular or social. He proclaimed the true God and His Son Jesus Christ. He announced that in repentance men should turn to God and in faith submit to the Messiah (20:21). Paul testified concerning the "good news" of the availability of Heaven's grace (20:24) by means of obedience to the gospel (cf. II Thessalonians 1:8) and he went about, "preaching the kingdom" (vs. 25). One can only wonder how certain modern preachers view this passage in light of their current claims that an understanding of the "kingdom" is nonessential to genuine gospel obedience!

(b) Paul was a thoroughly courageous minister of truth, uncompromising in character. He asserted, "I shrank not from declaring unto you anything that was profitable...I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God" (vs. 20, 26-27). The criterion of the apostle's preaching was, what is profitable, not what is popular. How many preachers of today's church have we who have sold their souls for a mess of popular pottage? When was the last time you heard your preacher condemn social drinking, dancing, adultery, gambling, covetousness, smoking, profanity, etc.? Is a discussion of such matters no longer profitable?

(c) Paul was a versatile minister. He was equally at home publicly preaching the message or in a person setting from house to house (vs. 20).

(d) The apostle was an unprejudiced preacher, testifying to both Jews and Greeks (vs. 21) for he knew the gospel was the power to save both (Romans 1:16-17).

(e) Finally, he was a serenely confident preacher. Though the Spirit had warned that in every city bonds and afflictions waited him (vs. 23), and even now he went, "bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem" he nonetheless recognized that there is more than mere physical existence. He did not hold his earthly life personally so precious as to preserve it at all cost. His aim was to accomplish his course and to fulfill the ministry for which he had been divinely appointed. What a spirit of self-sacrifice. What tranquility of soul. What a man!

Paul's Charge -In addition to a defense of his ministerial integrity, Paul charges these shepherds of God's flock with certain grave responsibilities. Let us consider several valuable admonitions.

First, the elders were to take heed unto themselves (vs. 28). Self-analysis is always a must for the faithful child of God and surely such is to be underscored for the leaders of the Lord's family. The Scriptures are filled with exhortations to, "examine yourselves" (II Corinthians 13:5), teach yourself (Romans 2:21), show yourself approved (II Timothy 2:15), consider yourself lest you be tempted (Galatians 6:1), exercise yourself unto godliness (I Timothy 4:7), keep yourself pure (I Timothy 5:22) and such like. No man can be an effective leader who does not first set the proper example. Our Lord both did and taught the truth (Acts 1:1). One must walk the gospel if he is to talk the gospel!

Second, the bishops were to take heed unto the flock. There is nothing more utterly worthless than a shepherd who is neglectful of the flock entrusted to him. The prophet Isaiah dealt with this principle in a stinging rebuke to the corrupt leaders of ancient Israel."His watchmen are blind, they are all ignorant; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber" (Isaiah 56:10). He goes on to observe that their lack of concern for their duty results from greed, selfishness and worldliness. There are entirely too many men in the Lord's church today who serve under the guise of elders but who do not do the work of elders. They want the position and power that usually attaches to the role but they eschew the appointed spiritual responsibility.

In connection with their responsibility to give heed to the flock, the elders are charged with the duty of feeding the church (vs. 28). This implies of course, that elders must be men who have a respectable knowledge of the Bible and who have the ability to effectively teach the Holy Scriptures (cf. I Timothy 3:2). This means that bishops must personally be sound in the faith. They must allow only faithful saints to occupy the pulpits and classrooms of the local church. They must be cognizant of the literature that is being used in the Bible class program. They must see to it that the church is fed a rich, well-balanced diet of spiritual truth. I am personally afraid that many of our elders in the Lord's church have been selected solely on the basis of their success in business, finance, etc., rather than because of their genuinely spiritual qualifications and the church has greatly suffered the consequences of such a shallow and unscriptural approach.

It is also worthy of our observation that since Paul foretold of an impending corruption of the faith (both from within and without the church [vs. 29-30]) the elders were to "watch" for those "grievous wolves" who would assault the flock and likewise keep on the lookout for false teachers who would arise within the body of Christ (some even from the eldership) to draw disciples away after them. Men who will allow the doctrinal corruption of the churches over which they serve are unworthy of the title "shepherd." Christ said he that is, "But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep" (John 10:12-13). We are convinced that much of the apostasy that now plagues the church of the Lord would have never come if some elders had been doing their jobs.

Finally, Paul emphasizes that taking heed to the flock also involves helping those who are weak. "I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive'" (vs. 35). Those who are weak in the faith must be encouraged. The strong ought to help bear their infirmities and not to please themselves (cf. Romans 14:1; 15:1). Paul's instruction to, "admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be long suffering toward all" is good advice for anyone and especially for elders; and preachers too! And so, Paul's charge to these good men was straight to the point and we also must seriously consider the principles involved.

Paul's Commendation - The apostle's commendation for these brethren has a two-fold thrust. It stresses Jehovah's part and man's part in bringing the Christian to ultimate spiritual maturity. First he says, "I commend you to God" (vs. 32). That means he commends them to the care and keeping of their heavenly Father. Paul believed in the providential activity of God for His people! God is not a remote deity uninterested in His children! Second, Paul commends the brethren to, "the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you the inheritance among all them that are sanctified." But that, "word of His grace" will never avail on the shelf. It must be taken into the heart and translated into daily action. Let us thus receive with meekness the implanted word which is able to save our souls (James 1:21).

Paul's farewell address to the elders of Ephesus is a remarkable one indeed and the precious principles it contains are as valuable for this generation as for that of antiquity.

The Genesis Flood - Five Viewpoints

This is reprinted from the August 1983 edition of the Christian Courier, published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Wayne Jackson was both the author of the piece and the editor of the paper.

One of the most epochal events of human history was the great flood of Noah's day as recorded in Genesis 6-8. This monumental act of divine judgment upon the ancient world may be studied advantageously from several different viewpoints. Consider the following.

The Flood and Archaeology - Critics of the Bible have scoffed at the Genesis record of the flood, claiming that it is mere folklore, a vestige of ancient mythology. A non-biased consideration of the evidence though, demands that the flood narrative be viewed as real history and not legend. Dr. Howard Vos has noted that, "on all continents and among almost all peoples of the earth flood accounts have been found. These accounts all refer to a destructive flood occurring early in the respective tribal histories. In each case one or a few individuals were saved and were charged with repopulating the earth. To date, anthropologists have collected between 250 and 300 such flood stories" (Genesis and Archaeology, Moody, 1963, p. 32).

One of the most interesting of these records is the Gilgamesh Epic from the library of the Babylonian king, Ashurbanipal (669-626 B.C.). Though unlike the Biblical account in many respects (it is both polytheistic and pantheistic for instance), nevertheless there are some remarkable similarities between the Epic and the Bible which obviously are more than mere coincidence. For example: (a) Both records suggest that a great flood was divinely sent as a punishment for moral defection. (b) Both accounts speak of a hero who was divinely instructed to build a boat in which a limited number of people and animals were to be preserved. (c) Both narratives tell of the physical causes and duration of the flood, as well as its landing place. (d) Both records mention the sending out of birds to gauge the subsiding waters. (e) Both accounts state that after the inmates disembarked the boat, sacrifices were offered and assurance was given that a similar catastrophe would not again be visited upon mankind. The Genesis version of course, is the inspired, accurate account.

The Flood and Geology - The sedimentary (water-laid) strata of the earth's crust contain a wide variety of fossils (preserved remains or impressions of plants and animals in rock). As a general rule, though many exceptions exist, fossils found in the lower strata are simpler while those at higher levels are more complex. Evolutionists will contend that the earth's sedimentary layers were deposited slowly throughout many millions of years. They lustily argue that the fossil sequence is "proof" that all living creatures have evolved from a common source.

The evolutionary theory however, which we reject for numerous Biblical and scientific reasons, fails to to take into account the role of the flood in fossil deposition. The general ascending fossil order from the simple to the complex can be explained as easily in terms of a universal deluge as upon evolutionary suppositions. Note: (a) There is a tendency for organisms to live in certain ecological zones. So, living together, they would die together and thus have a tendency to be buried near one another. For example, sea creatures would normally be buried together and deeper than other animals. (b) The hydrodynamic selectivity of water forces also partially explain fossil groupings. For instance, organisms that are dense and more streamlined like certain shellfish, would sink faster and hence, be buried deeper than many other creatures. (c) Some creatures are more mobile than others. They have greater movement versatility and speed than other animals. Accordingly, they would have had greater ability in escaping the gradually rising flood waters longer and so would have been buried at higher levels. Our point is this, when viewed in light of the great flood, the fossil record is no longer restricted to an evolutionary interpretation.

The Flood and Theodicy - The term "theodicy" (from theos, God and justice) is a theological expression denoting that area of study devoted to justifying Jehovah's activity in the world, particularly that activity which entails human suffering. We know from everyday experiences that much of our anguish is obviously the result of our own evil (cf. I Peter 4:15). Too, we are aware of the fact that we are suffering (in disease and death) the consequences of humanity's original rebellion (see Romans 5:12; 8:20ff). But how does one explain the suffering in connection with such phenomena s hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.? Are not these purely "acts of God" (as our insurance policies suggest)? Is not man completely free from the implication of responsibility in connection with such events? Perhaps not! We must ask the question, what produces the violent features of this planet? The answer is, the drastically different geo-physical features of the earth (mountain ranges, deserts, varying pressure areas, etc.). But what created these divergent conditions which precipitate the disasters to which we fall victim? Many scholars believe that the universal flood left behind these conditions which facilitate the occurrence of storms, earthquakes and the like. Now here is a vital point; had it not been for man's evil, the flood would never have come and the earth's features would not have been so altered; and man would not be suffering the results thereof! Shall we blame God for man's past mistakes?

The Flood and Salvation - One of the exciting areas of Bible study (and one often abused) is that of typology. A "type" is sort of an Old Testament hint or preview, that finds its ultimate fulfillment in New Testament revelation. For example, the Old Testament passover lamb was a symbolic picture of Christ and His sacrificial death (cf. John 1:29; I Corinthians 5:7). Now in I Peter 3:20-21, our present salvation through baptism is said to be the "like figure" of Noah's salvation. And Noah and his family were said to be, "saved through water" (vs. 20). In what sense was the patriarch saved through water? Actually, the emphasis of this passage is not Noah's salvation from the destruction of the flood, for it was by means of the ark that he was delivered from that (cf. Hebrews 11:7). Rather, by means of "water" he was conveyed from the antediluvian world of sin and corruption into a new, cleansed environment. And this typifies our salvation by means of gospel obedience, culminated at the point of baptism. Through immersion, which has been preceded by faith and repentance, we leave the kingdom of darkness and we are born into the kingdom of Jesus Christ (cf. John 3:5; Colossians 1:13). In view of I Peter 3:21 and related passages (cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27) how can anyone reasonably deny the connection between water and forgiveness of sins? The flood of Noah's day teaches a valuable lesson here.

The Flood and the End of the World - There are several vital connecting truths between the destruction of the ancient antediluvian world and the final destruction of the material universe. First, just as the Lord warned Noah's generation that He would not tolerate their impenitent evil ways (Genesis 6:3), even so He has warned all subsequent generations of the final judgment to come (Ecclesiastes 12:14; II Corinthians 5:10). Second, the same powerful word that caused the ancient world to perish by an overflowing of water, has reserved the (material) heavens and earth for a destruction by fire at the day of judgment (II Peter 3:5-7). Third, just as the people of Noah's time ignored his righteous preaching (cf. II Peter 2:5) and so went about their daily affairs with reckless abandon, hence the flood took them all by complete surprise (Luke 17:27). So, in like manner many will be caught unawares by the sudden return of Christ (Matthew 24:39; Luke 17:30). Further, they will be totally unprepared for the bridegroom's arrival and so will be shut out from the fellowship with Him (cf. Matthew 25:1-13). Again, can we learn some lessons from the flood?!

Prayer and Fasting

This is copied from the October 1972 edition of Plain Talk, published by the Oaks-West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas. Robert F. Turner was the editor.

When Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church, they, "prayed with fasting" (Acts 14:23). In II Corinthians 6:4 and following, Paul wrote of those who were approved as ministers of God in, "patience...labours...fastings..." The King James Version has "fasting" in I Corinthians 7:5, saying husband and wife should not stay apart, "except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

Fasting literally means abstinence from food, not eating. But it also has a religious significance, as seen above. There is no evidence that the ceremonial fasting of Judaism is bound upon the church but we can see that fasting was practiced by early New Testament Christians. It seems the reference is to time set apart for the spiritual matters, probably including the abstinence from food in this context, so that undivided attention might be focused upon eternal rather than upon temporal things.

The repeated association of fasting with prayer, both in the Old and New Testaments is not without significane. When one takes time out to think of God and eternity, what could be more natural than this quiet intimate communication? Conversely, as sincere personal prayer is neglected, fasting would be abandoned.

Some religions have made a mockery of fasting by their "Mardi Gras" (fat Tuesday); a day of uninhibited debauchery in preparation for the fast of "Lent." We suppose there will always be those who, "fast to be seen of men." We can only pity such and pray that our avoidance of such extremes will not be considered valid excuse for doing nothing whatsoever.

Do we fear to be alone with God? Or is it our conscience we dare not face in quiet meditation? Is this world so important to us that we can not shut it out, even for an hour of Bible reading and introspection?

Public worship, valid and proper, can not take the place of private communion with God. "Enter thy closet" (Matthew 6:6), "and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

What is Baptism?

This is copied for the August 1972 edition of Plain Talk, a publication of the Oaks-West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas. Robert F. Turner was the editor.

Some years back a cartoon made the round of bulletins; a drawing of a Bible immersing a dictionary with the caption, "Now, that's baptism!" Of course the dictionary gives the meaning of words according to current usage and must be changed from time to time but even the dictionary will show the original idea of "dip" or "immerse." The Bible gives ample evidence of God's teaching concerning the subject, element, action and the purpose of baptism.

Sinners are to be baptized, "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38), to, "wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16), to make the transition from the old, sinful life into the new life in Christ (Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:1-7, 17). This does not concern infants but responsible adults who are taught, hear, learn and come unto Christ (John 6:44-45). The "cleansing" is not a physical washing only, to which an unaccountable infant would be limited but necessitates believing (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16) the Word (Ephesians 5:26) and is a response of the conscience toward God (I Peter 3:21).

The element of baptism is water; just plain water (Matthew 3:11-17; John 3:22-23). Although Jesus baptized certain ones in the Holy Spirit, the baptism of the great commission was an act which men could perform; a command and not a promise. Jesus said, "Go," "teach," "baptize" (Matthew 28:19). Men could go, teach and baptize with water but men cannot baptize with the Holy Spirit. Peter, "commanded them to be baptized" (Acts 10:48), a foolish and impossible order to obey if reference was to Holy Spirit baptism which God alone could give.

As Philip rode in the chariot with the Ethiopian eunuch, "they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, 'See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?'" Upon confession of his faith in Christ they both, "went down into the water" and the eunuch was baptized (Acts 8:36-38). This is the "one" universal baptism of the Christian dispensation (Ephesians 4:5).

The Greek bapto or baptidzo means dip, plunge, immerse as any good lexicon will show. But one does not have to know Greek to understand the action of baptism. Paul says, "We are buried with Him by baptism into death;" later calling this "planted" (Romans 6:4-5). Sprinkle and pour are from distinct and separate words altogether and have nothing but human traditions and apostate church doctrine to back their claims of baptism. The only way either could qualify is for water to be poured until the subject was completely immersed and then there would have to be a resurrection. The spirit that causes people to quibble about such plain teachings of the Scriptures and seek to get around them, is certainly not of God. It is of the devil.

One can read this article and run all Bible references at a sungle reasonable study period. In the quiet of one's home, with nothing more than a Bible and the willingness to give the matter serious thought, mature men and women can understand the truth and desire to obey. If we can assist, please call or write.

All On the Same Team

This appeared in the August 1972 edition of Plain Talk, a publication of the Oaks-West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas. Robert F. Turner was the editor.

Much of our failure to reach others with the gospel is due to the "great gulf" between us. The unconverted senses an aloofness on our part, and we on his. His problems (we are convinced) are foreign to us and our solution (he is convinced) is for the birds. We widen this gap by housing our solution in a "plant" in which, should we drag him there with a bulldozer, he would feel totally out of place. Sometimes we seem to think our "citizenship" is strengthened because he is an "alien."

And yet, success in reaching our fellow man depends largely upon establishing rapport; a sympathetic relationship that encourages communication. We must convince him that we sincerely desire for him the blessings we both sorely need. In a very real sense, we are on the same team; sinful creatures in a great survival drama.

I know there is no fellowship between darkness and light. We can enter no sharing fellowship with the world's sin. But the desire for a "one family" relationship should strongly motivate our reaching out for every living soul. Can we be less interested in sinking neighbors because we have managed to find some sold footing? If in our smugness, we refuse to extend a helping hand, we need to restudy Luke 15.

And if there is a sense in which we are on the same team with aliens, how much more is this true with respect to erring brethren? What attitude "would we" that they should show toward us, should we be found in like position? (Matthew 7:12; II Thessalonians 3:14-15)

I know of no single attitude that could save more souls or do more for the cause of Christ today than the proper development of love for all sinners. It would not keep us from preaching truth or fighting error. It would not cause us to "share" evil but it would increase compassion and concern for the sin-enslaved. Our efforts would proceed from an open heart rather than from a clenched fist. For we have known sin and but for God's grace would yet perish. And we would long to make our brother in Adam, our faithful brother in Christ.

Why Do Men Reject Christ?

Here's another great article written by Wayne Jackson. This appeared in the July, 1983 Christian Courier. It was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Jackson was the editor.

Jesus was in Jerusalem attending one of the annual Jewish feasts (probably the Passover). On this occasion He encountered an invalid man who had been in his affliction some 38 years. The Lord asked the poor gentleman if he would like to be made whole. After a brief exchange, Christ instructed the man to, "Arise, take up thy bed and walk." Immediately the man was made whole and he took up his bed and walked (John 5:1-9). Since this remarkable incident occured on the Sabbath day, the Jewish leaders attempted to implicated the Lord in having violated the Sabbath. John, who recorded this matter, informs us that the Jews persecuted Jesus and intensified their efforts to kill Him (cf. John 5:10-18).

After an extended discourse during which He affirmed His divine relationship with the Father, Christ charged the Jews thusly. "Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of Me; and ye will not come to Me that ye may have life" (5:39-40). There are several important truths in this statement that warrant further reflection.

First, there is the shocking truth that one can be a diligent student of the scriptures and yet not know Christ! Many of the Jewish leaders, particularly the scribes, prided themselves on their rich knowledge of the sacred writings. Why then, were they unable to recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah, since the Old Testament narratives were filled with prophecies that centered on Him? Remember how the Lord had said, "...all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms concerning Me" (Luke 24:44). Well, the reason they failed to see the Christ of the Old Testament was as Paul explains the matter, that whenever, "Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart" (II Corinthians 3:15). Their preconceived notions of what the "Messiah" ought to be and do blinded them to an objective evaluation of the character, works and words of the Lord. When I think of the many religious scholars of today's religious scene who have spent a lifetime mastering the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, who have studied Biblical lands and cultures, who have become experts in exegesis and yet, who do not know the Son of God in the genuine sense of the term "know," I am deeply saddened. Knowledge that is not set to action only brings a more severe condemnation.

Secondly, there is the fact here affirmed that there can be no bestowal of eternal life apart from Jesus. In this age when the spirit of pseudo-ecumenism has invaded the hearts of many, this truth needs to be vigorously pressed. The Son of God made no apology for His declaration: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6). There is simply none other in which salvation is to be found. There is no other name under heaven that is gven among men, wherein we must be saved (Acts 4:12). If that sounds narrow, so be it! The question is not one of bigotry but one of truth. Are the claims of Christ true? Will the evidence support such? That is what it all boils down to and that is why it is our job to bring men to the Savior!

Third, the Master here teaches that it is possible to exercise that personal will-power by which men make the decision as to whether or not they will be counted with Christ or against Him. Of course some religions have suggested otherwise. Calvinism asserts that men are so enslaved in that inherited depravity that they are wholly helpless to respond to the Savior's message until assisted by some miraculous impulse of the Spirit (which puts the responsibility for their conversion soley with God and hence, implicates the Lord in wrongdoing if they are not saved!). Man is a volitional creature. He is capable of making choices (cf. Genesis 2:16-17; Joshua 24:15; Isaiah 7:15; John 7:17; Revelation 22:17). Accordingly, when exposed to the gospel call, men assume the responsibility for either accepting or rejecting the divine message. If they are thus lost, God certainly is not to blame.

But there is another thought that engages the attention when contemplating John 5:40. Jesus said to those Jews, "Ye will not come to Me that ye man have life." Since the message of the gift of Christ is so beautiful, since the facts of His death and resurrection are so dynamic and as the blessings offered are so impelling, one wonders how it is that rational people can neglect coming to the Redeemer. How is such foolishness to be explained? Let us consider several possibilities.

1. Some are unaware of being lost. The Bible teaches that Christ came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10). Unless a person is aware of being lost, he will see no need whatever for Christ as a Savior. For many decades society has been told by rationalistic philosophers and humanistic psychologists, that "sin" does not exist in reality. It is alleged to be the mere imaginative concoction of insecure, religious fanatics. Oh, man may occasionally be involved in "unacceptable societal behavior" but these are simply impulses hammered out by his "evolutionary, jungleistic past" and for such slips of conduct, humanity should actually feel no guilt. "Guilt" is really a dirty word in the vocabulary of many. Until therefore, the message of sin, rebellion and guilt can be burned into the consciences of our contemporaries, many will continue to see absolutely no need for what Jesus Christ has to offer.

2. Some will not come to Christ because they are not convinced of His uniqueness. The time was, in days gone by, when most of our neighbors revered the name of Jesus. But that day is rapidly vanishing. We are living in an increasingly unbelieving world. Many of our fellows no longer even believe in the existence of God. They have been taught from elementary school onward and via the news media that the universe is eternal and self-sustained. Man has evolved from an animalistic ancestry. The Bible is not the Word of God but is merely a collection of ancient fables. And Jesus Christ, though He may have been an remarkable teacher and a benevolent influence of antiquity, nonetheless is not the unique Son of God and the Savior of the world. Without an accurate knowledge of who Christ is, men are just not going to be drawn to Him. I will tell you my brethren, that a study of Christian evidences is one of the crying needs of our time. Is the Bible true? Is Christ divine? These are questions which Christians answer affirmatively but which precious few are prepared to deal with when confronting those who have not been raised in the environment of Christian influence.

3. Some do not come to the Lord because, as a result of false teaching, they have concluded that they are already associated with Him. In Acts 19:13 and following, one reads of certain Jews who feigned the ability in connection with the name of Christ, to cast out evil spirits and their fakery was dramatically exposed. There is something we can learn from this case. Not everyone who claims connection with Jesus Christ actually enjoys such a union. I think there is a Biblical truth that some of us need to be reminded of and it is this: correct teaching and an accurate understanding of the message must precede obedience to the gospel. Under the Mosaic system, a person was physically born into a covenant relationship with Jehovah. As the Hebrew grew toward maturity, he was instructed in the principles of the divine system. Under the New Testament economy however, it is different. This is one of the very points of emphasis in the great prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31ff. The prophet declares, "...they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother saying, 'Know Jehovah' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them..." (vs. 34). Christianity is a taught religion. Jesus announced, "And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father and hath learned, cometh unto Me" (John 6:45). One does not accidentally obey the truth and stumble into the kingdom of God. Denominational clergymen have taught a perverted gospel (cf. Galatians 1:6-8) and many have sincerely, though erroneously been led to believe that an acceptation of their doctrines is genuine Christianity. It is the sacred responsibility of every child of God to show the distinction between truth and error, to draw the line between primitive Christianity and modern sectarianism and so, to call men back to the Bible. Some of our preachers have ceased to proclaim this distinctive message and are assuming postures that will lead our people into a destructive apostasy.

4. Some will not come to Jesus because they are unwilling to pay the price He requires. If you would follow Christ, you must be willing to forsake all that is in conflict with Heaven's requirements. A man must be willing to deny himself, take up the cross daily and follow his Lord (Luke 9:23). The Savior urged men to count the cost before assuming the role of discipleship and he who is not willing to renounce any obstacle to the faith cannot be a follower of Christ (cf. Luke 14:25-35). A tragic example is that of the rich, young ruler. He was consumed with materialism. When the Lord demanded that he sell his possessions and then follow Him, the young man sorrowfully departed from Christ (Matthew 19:16-22). He was unwilling to pay the price. For some, forsaking worldliness is too great of a demand (cf. II Timothy 4:10) for discipleship. Others cannot afford the time (and so they trade the few moments of time for eternity). The excuses are many, the result is the same. Other priorities crowd out God.

5. Some will not come to the Lord because they fear failure. We have heard the excuse many times. "I would become a Christian but I know I could not hold out." Do you not realize that when you turn to Christ, God is aware of the fact that you are but a babe in the faith? Don't we understand that Heaven is cognizant of human frailty? Hasn't Jesus promised to be with us, "all the day" (Matthew 28:20)? Yes, we will make mistakes, and frequently. But we will repent of those things and learn to grow in spite of our blunders. What if one reasoned, I will not marry because so many marriages end in divorce? Surely that would be unsound thinking. What if the farmer argued, I'll not plant for there was a crop failure? He would go hungry! One need not fear failure if he will do his best to serve his God and if he will pledge himself to progressively learn and respond to the truth.

6. Some do not come to the Christ because of what they see in professed Christians. No one will be excused for his own disobedience in the day of judgment because he was influenced by someone else's sorry example. Each person is responsible for his own activity (II Corinthians 5:10). Be that as it may, it is a fact that cannot be denied, some of the Lord's own people are His worst enemies. By their coarse and wretched lives, they drive many away from exposure to the truth even before they have opportunity to know of the gospel. In some places, the morals of members of the church are far inferior to those of false religionists. And in most areas, corrective discipline is a totally unknown practice. Surely Jehovah will not hold us unaccountable for such downright neglect.

Yes, there are many excuses why men reject Christ. There are no reasons!

The Coming Day of Judgment

There are so many misconceptions and false doctrines concerning the Lord's return, I feel any article or lesson concerning this subject is worth studying. This one was written by Wayne Jackson. It appeared in the March 1983 Christian Courier. Jackson was also the editor of the paper and it was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California.

In these days of modern, scientific sophistication, the idea of a coming judgment day is about as fashionable as button shoes. Many religious movements have long since outgrown the notion of a final judgment. Several years ago, a dust jacket on one of the editions of Charles Darwin's Descent of Man announced that the naturalist's writings had made a "joke" of the concept of coming judgment. If it is a joke, God intends to have the last laugh as indeed the Psalmist noted: "Why do the nations rage, and the peoples meditate a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together, against Jehovah and against His annointed, saying, 'Let us break their bonds asunder and cast away their cords from us.' He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision." (Psalm 2:1-4) The point is, no one is able to frustrate the purposes of Almighty God. It is a laughable matter to suggest otherwise and this includes the idea of final judgment.

If the righteous God of the Bible exists (and the evidence for such is absolutely overwhelming) then the concept of judgment is both reasonable and certain for it is clear that there are numerous inequities in this present life which, if representative of man's final state of affairs, would certainly appear to reflect upon the benevolence of our Maker.

From time immemorial, men have struggled with the seeming injustices of earth life and thus have been forced to conclude that there must be vindication in the future. For example, the suffering patriarch Job cried out in anguish because of what he felt was a lack of justice in earthly circumstances (cf. Job 19:7-12) yet subsequently, in a blinding burst of confident faith, Job believes that even after his flesh is destroyed, he will see God, "and not as a stranger" (i.e., they will be on friendly terms). The patriarch will be vindicated! (cf. 19:25-27) Similarly, the Psalmist once despaired when he observed the apparent injustice of the, "prosperity of the wicked." Such a matter was, "too painful" for him until he, "went into the sanctuary of God" (the place of revealed truth) and, "considered their latter end." (Psalm 73) He was forced to conclude that there is a judgment bar where seeming injustices are finally made right.

The fuller revelation of the New Testament record makes it quite clear that there will be judgment in response to human conduct. Man is not on this earth to aimlessly wander through life doing as he pleases. He was created to serve God (Isaiah 43:7) and obeying the Creator is the sum of man's duty (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

Though the doctrine of judgment is pre-figured in the Old Testament (cf. Ecclesiastes 12:14; Daniel 12:2-3), it comes into full bloom in the New Testament. In several of His parables, Christ underscored the reality of eventual judgment (cf. Matthew 13:30, 39ff; 13:47-49; 22:1-14; 25:1-12; Luke 18:7; 19:11-27) and He plainly declared that He would return, in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then shall He render unto every man according to his deeds" (Matthew 16:27). The Savior graphically paints a portrait of the coming judgment in Matthew 25:31-46. Moreover, the balance of the New Testament is filled with allusions to God's day of judgment (cf. Romans 14:10; II Thessalonians 1:7-10; II Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 6:2; II Peter 2:4, 9; I John 4:17; Jude 6, 15; Revelation 20:10ff).

In his magnificent address on Mars hill, the inspired Paul argues for the absolute certainty of the coming judgment on the grounds of the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ! He affirms that God, "has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordanined. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead" (Acts 17:31). The judgment of the future is as certain to occur as the fact that the Lord's resurrection occurred in the past; the two stand or fall together. And in this connection, may we observe that the evidence for Christ's resurrection is, as Professor Thomas Arnold (1795-1842) of Oxford declared, the, "best attested fact in human history."

In light of the foregoing, let us direct our attention to some of the Biblical facts regarding the judgment.

1. The Judge - Though the Bible teaches that god is the judge of all (Hebrews 12:23), it also affirms that we are to be made manifest before the, "judgment seat of Christ" (II Corinthians 5:10). There is no contradiction, for the Father judges by means of the Son (cf. John 5:22, 27). The former judges indirectly, the latter directly.

2. The Scope of the Judgment - The Bible teaches that there will be a single, final judgment that is universal in scope. (Note: Scripture knows nothing of two judgments separated by an earthly thousand year reign of Christ as alleged by millennialists.) Consider these facts. (a) The judgment will assemble men of all ages of history. For example, the citizens of ancient Nineveh will be judged along side that generation contemporary with the Lord (Matthew 12:41-42). The past and present will be brought together. (b) Similarly, those who are alive at the time of the Savior's return will be judged with those who have preceded them in death (cf. Acts 10:42; II Timothy 4:1). (c) The judgment will involve men of all stations in life; the great and the small (Revelation 20:12). (d) The judgment will include people of all shades of character, generally divided into the "good" and the "evil" (cf. John 5:28-29. II Corinthians 5:10). (e) Finally, angels as well as men will be included in the judgment (II Peter 2:4; Jude 6).

3. The Time of the Judgment - The Lord made it clear that the judgment would occur at the time of His second coming (Matthew 25:31ff). In fact, the judgment day is frequently called the, "day of the Lord" (cf. I Corinthians 1:8; Philippians 1:6, 10; 2:16; I Thessalonians 5:2; II Thessalonians 2:2; II Peter 3:10). Now since it is obvious that no man on earth knows when the Lord will return (cf. Matthew 24:36), it is equally clear that no one knows when the judgment will occur! Yet amazingly, the history of "Christendom" has been repeatedly disgraced by notorious date setters who fancied they had deciphered the divine calendar! We are constantly warned in the holy writings to always be prepared, for we simply do not know when the judgment will be upon us!

4. The Purpose of the Judgment - Many are confused as to what the actual design of the judgment will be. Here is an important truth that we need to learn. The purpose of the judgment will not be determinative (i.e., to decide anyone's fate), for one's destiny is determined by the way he dies (or meets the Lord). At the time of death, man enters a state of either comfort or torment depending upon his spiritual condition at the time of his demise (cf. Luke 16:22-25; II Peter 2:9). No one will need to wait until the judgment day to know what their eternal assignment will be. Rather, the purpose of the judgment day will be revelatory, i.e., it will be designed to universally make known some important truths. Consider these points:

First, the real character of all men will be illuminated. Every hidded work, whether evil or good will be revealed (Eccelesiastes 12:14). There is nothing hidden that shall not be made manifest (Luke 8:17).

Secondly, God's righteous activity in the world will be vindicated. Significantly, the judgment is called, "the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God" (Romans 2:5). Much of Jehovah's providential operation has been veiled to humanity. Those who have walked by sight and not by faith have thus frequently criticized the Lord but those critics will be silenced! At the judgment, God will assemble all His rational creatures and so vindicate His operations.

Finally, at the judgment the glory and sovereignty of God and His Son Jesus, will be powerfully demonstrated so that every knee shall bow to them and every tongue shall confess to them (Romans 14:11). Note the "shall" of this passage in contrast with the "should" of Philippians 2:10-11. No one will be skeptical in hell!

The day of judgment will be awesome. May we each so live as to glory in it.

Are We Really Faithful?

Paul C. Keller wrote this piece which appeared in the September 5, 1971 edition of Reminders. The paper was published by the Moundsville Church of Christ in Moundsville, West Virginia and was edited by Keller.

As Christians, one of our greatest dangers is that of allowing our religion to become a mere formality; only a profession. Living as a Christian ought to live involves more than attending the services of the church, making some financial contribution to the work and showing a little enthusiasm during the few days a series of gospel meetings is in progress. These things will of course, be done by the person who is devout and consecrated. But these things may also be done by a person who is not devout and consecrated. The pitiable part of it is that such a person along with many others, does not discern the difference. Many go merrily along their way trusting that a few outward observances make them pleasing to God, while their real affections are set upon other things.

To people of His day who, in a formal way were very religious, Jesus applied the words of Isaiah. "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips but their heart is far from Me" (Matthew 15:8). Each of us will do well to search his own heart to see if this statement may truthfully describe us.

Formality is not to be substituted for spirituality. Mere profession can not take the place of genuine devotion to the Lord. Public avowal of Christianity does not always guarantee purity and piety. Nor does praying guarantee the absense of pretense. (Matthew 23:14)

While all of this may be true of the conscious hypocrite, the deliberate deceiver, it may likewise be true of those who do not intend it to be so. Self-deception is easily possible or the the part of each of us. As a matter of fact, one is more apt to deceived himself than anyone else. Against such, we need to guard.

Christianity must really affect our entire lives. There is no endeavor of the Christian's life but that the principles of Jesus Christ are to control. The teaching of the Lord will restrain the Christian from wrong conduct in the home, dishonesty in business, sinful pleasures, lying speech, harboring envy and malice in the heart, uncharitableness toward others and irreverence toward God. In short, the teaching of Christ restrains us from wrong thoughts, words and deeds.

Nor is the religion of Christ merely negative in its nature. It does not simply prohibit the doing of that which is wrong. Christianity calls upon one for the employment of his intellect, time and abilities in the doing of that which is good. The, "author and finisher of our faith" set an example for us and, "went about doing good." (Hebrews 12:2; Acts 10:38) His word plainly tells us that our failure to do the good we know, is sin. (James 4:17) Furthermore, by His word we are, "completely furnished unto all good works." (II Timothy 3:16-17)

Let each of us heed the words of Paul. "Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you...Now I pray to God that you do no evil, not that we should appear approved, but that you should do what is honorable, though we may seem disqualified. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth." (II Corinthians 13:5-8)

The Growth of the Kingdom of Christ (Part 2)

This is the second part of an article which appeared in the Christian Courier of May 1982. It was written by Wayne Jackson who also edited the paper. It was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California.

The Kingdom Explosion - As one examines the record of the founding and growth of the first century church, he cannot but be stunned by the explosive nature of those events. Note the following.

On the day of Pentecost some three thousand souls were ushered into the kingdom of God (Acts 2:41) and subsequently, day by day others were added to that number (2:47). Soon the number of men was five thousand (4:4) and, "believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women" (5:14). The apostles were presently charged with having, "filled Jerusalem" with the gospel (5:28). So the, "number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly" with even a great company of priests obeying the faith (6:7). Before long, persecution came and the disciples were scattered abroad but they went about preaching the word and so the gospel went into Samaria where great multitudes gave heed to its precepts (8:4-5). In Acts 8 the saving word was dispatched to Ethiopia in Africa by means of the conversion of the eunuch and in Acts 9, in connection with Saul's conversion, we discover that Christianity had already been planted in Damascus, Syria (cf. 9:10). In Acts 9:31 there is evidence that the church had spread throughout, "all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria."

The Gentiles are introduced to the Christian message in Acts 10 and in the latter part of chapter eleven, the word goes into Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch (Syria) with a, "great number" turning to the Lord (11:21). Again, in Acts 12:24, "the word of God grew and multiplied."

The missionary endeavors of Paul commence in Acts 13. He and Barnabas take the gospel to Cyprus and then on to Asia Minor where many coverts were made (cf. 14:21). On the second missionary campaign (15:40ff) Paul again forged westward, along with Silas (and later Luke and Timothy), where in Asia Minor, "churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily" (16:5). In Acts 16 the kingdom spreads into Europe and the Christian system burns like a fire out of control; great multitudes are led to the truth (cf. 17:4) and presently the disciples are accused of having, "turned the world upside down" (17:6). On and on they went. As Paul says, "Their sound went out into all the earth and their words unto the ends of the world" (Romans 10:18).

The Dinvine Explanation - How does one explain this remarkable expansion of primitive Christianity? Any attempt to view it in the light of strictly natural basis is doomed to failure. The growth of the kingdom of Jesus Christ can only be explained on the basis of its divine origin! Let us consider several aspects of this matter.

1. Doubtless multitudes were converted to the Christ because of the love that was manifest at the cross. In a world that is enslaved by sin and weighed with guilt, the message of forgivness through the death of Jesus Christ just has to be the most thrilling message of history. The gospel has thus found a happy home in millions of honest hearts.

2. Christianity would never have gotten off the ground had it not been for the demonstration of the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The church of God stands or falls on whether or not Christ was raised from the dead. If He was not, our faith and preaching are in vain. We are yet in our sins and of all men, we are most pitiable (I Corinthians 15:14ff). But the truth is, Jesus was resurrected and so, by the resurrection, declared to be the Son of God with power (Romans 1:4). The great classical scholar Thomas Arnold (1795-1842), who served as Professor of Modern History at Oxford, once characterized the Lord's resurrection as the, "best attested fact in human history" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, IV, p. 2569).

3. Many were won to the cause of Christ because of the loving benevolence of the early saints. When the need arose, they generously cared for one another (cf. Acts 2:44-45; 11:29). Jesus had said that their love for each other would identify them as His disciples (John 13:35) and the power of that love was infectious.

4. The unity of doctrine was certainly an attractive element of Christianity. The Lord has fervently prayed that all of His disciples might be "one." The effect of this would be, "that the world may believe that thou didst send Me" (John 17:21). It is not without significance that the church experienced its greatest period of growth when, "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul" (Acts 4:32). Religious division, contrary to the doctrine (Romans 16:17) has been a woeful curse upon the Lord's cause. Those who applaud it, promote it and support it are worse than those who initially crucified the Son of God.

5. Purity of morals was a unique feature of the Lord's church as it stood in stark contrast to the sordid filth of the ancient pagan religions. Thousands were revolted by the lasciviousness of the heathen systems and so sought relief in the refreshing spiritual climate of the Savior's people.

6. The serenity of spirit characteristic of the early Christians must have been a source of wonder to many. How were they able to sweetly endure persecution? How could they bless even their enemies? What source of strength did they have? Surely this must have aroused the interest of many.

Yes, the kingdom of Jesus Christ, from a seemingly insignificant beginning became a great and powerful force to be reckoned with in this world. May each of us do our part to see that it continues so!