This was written by Paul Jarrett and appeared in the October 15, 1971 edition of The Bible Herald which was published by the Bible Herald Corporation in Parkersburg, West Virginia.
"A new commandment I give unto you. That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another." In the space of two small verses in John 13:34-35, Jesus saw fit to urge thrice that His disciples, "love one another." If repetition alone does not point to the importance of this command, the fact that Jesus indicates this to be the mark of discipleship which we present to the world, should erase all doubt.
Much has been said about the importance of loving one another so I do not propose to add to the wealth of material on the subject since I'm sure that all those reading this publication realize the need. What I do propose to do in this article, is to present you with three modes of behavior which I feel, if adopted, would serve to facilitate obedience to the command, "love one another." Our problem is not a lack of appreciation for the need to "love one another," but rather the problem arises in our carrying out what is not always an easy task. It is in hopes of making our obedience a little easier and surer that I present these three suggestions.
1.Forebear One Another in Love: In Ephesians 4:2 and Colossians 3:13, we find Paul urging Christians to forbear one another. If you were to look up the word "forbear" in your dictionary, you would find it defined as an archaic word meaning to, "endure or tolerate." I believe that this is one archaic word that needs to be given a rebirth in our vocabulary and perhaps you too will come to share my sentiments as you continue reading.
One translation records Ephesians 4:2 in this fashion, "...making allowances for one another because you love one another." How often do you overlook someone's idiosyncrasies because you love them? If I had to list the most predominant sin (fault, if you prefer) among Christians, I feel I would say pettiness. We do not realize that sometimes love MUST be blind, deaf and mute. Lest anyone misconstrue my meaning, let me make clear that I am not urging that we overlook those faults in a brother that might lead to his being lost or leading others astray. We must however, learn when to speak and when to forebear (i.e., endure, tolerate) in love.
Colossians 3:13 furnishes us with guidance on this matter, "you must bear with one another's faults, be generous to each other...the Lord's generosity to you must be the model of yours." If we would consider how much God overlooks in our life in order to claim us as His, we might tend to be less critical of every little fault we see in our brother. Do you not feel that our inability to cope with the large problems that confront us today often lies in our failure to overlook the petty faults? If we insist on making mountains of mole hills, how can we ever hope to cope with a real mountain?
Before leaving this point, let me include one word of caution. Forbearing will not succeed without true forgiving. If we merely postpone comment on our brother's fault and do not also forgive and forget, we merely postpone and eventually make more devastating our eventual confrontation.
2. Outdo One Another in Honor: Our first point was a passive one; the art of learning when to keep silent. The point we now wish to consider calls for an active role on our part. I hope that our discussion up to now has served to impress you with the need to refrain from critical comments of a negative nature except in areas of eternal significance but now, let me urge upon you a positive position as called for by Paul in Romans 12:10 when he writes, "...outdo one another in showing honor." (RSV)
This calls upon us to be active in our praise of one another and I am convinced that by following this course of action we will develop a strong bond of love between us. In order to carry this out however, we must have the attitude that Paul enjoined on the Philippians when he wrote, "...let each of you regard one another as more important than himself" (Philippians 2:3). If we would practice what Paul advises in a conscientious fashion, not only would those whom we come in contact with be lifted up, but we ourselves would experience the joys of love. In order to practice what is advised here, we must be ready to lower ourselves rather than simply waiting for others to rise to meet us.
To summarize and illustrate our second point, let me propose this situation: If a boy who is six feet tall is dating a girl who is five feet tall and he desires to kiss her, does he insist that she grow to his height first or does he lower himself and perhaps lift her a little to accomplish his desired purpose? The answer depends on the boy's real feelings as to how much he wants to kiss the girl. Our ability to, "love one another" is also dependent on how much we want to and whether we are willing to humble ourselves and lift others in order to accomplish it. Keep in mind though that the boy enjoys the kiss as much as the girl and when we give love, we too profit from the giving.
3. A Two-Way Street: No matter how much forbearance and giving of honor we practice, there will be times when we face the real test of our ability to, "love one another." I do not propose to be an authority on dealing with problems among brethren as I too have had my failures in this regard but I would like to call your attention to two passages of Scripture in Matthew which I do feel, if observed, would remove one major obstacle in the settling of differences among brethren.
In Matthew 5:23-24, Jesus speaks concerning a man, who upon coming to worship God, remembers that he has a brother who, "...has some grievance against you." Jesus advises this man to leave his gift on the alter and first make amends with his brother before worshiping God.
In Matthew 18:15, we find Jesus giving instruction as to how to deal with a situation where, "...your brother wrongs you..." and His first advise is that you go to him by yourself and try to patch up your differences.
If you read these two passages together, you will find that Jesus places the responsibility to take the first step in settling the differences among brethren on both the one who has been offended and the one who committed the offense. How many differences go unresolved because both of the involved parties refuse to take the first step? Don't Jesus' instructions remove this obstacle by placing equal responsibility on both the offender and offended?
Consider this, if you have a neighbor who has wronged you, where is the best location for settling your differences: (1) in his house, (2) in your house, or (3) on the sidewalk between your houses where you meet as you are both on the way to see each other? Jesus advised the third location for the children of God.
The command to, "love one another" will never be an easy one to obey but if we will practice forbearance, outdo one another in showing honor and settle our differences on a two-way street, I think we'll be a little more successful in accomplishing this mark of discipleship.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Saturday, September 28, 2013
The Teacher's Toolbox: The Conversion of Saul
Brandon Renfroe wrote this article that appeared in the January 2013 edition of The Gospel Gleaner. That paper is published by Gospel Gleaner Publications in Killen, Alabama. Andrew D. Erwin is the editor.
According to multiple studies, it takes 10,000 hours to become an "expert" in any field; whether in athletics, chess, music or a wide range of other activities. Most of these professionals spend several hours every day honing their skills. In fact, to reach such levels of proficiency is believed to require some five hours of focused practice every day.
How this shames most of us who profess to be Bible students! Many church members neglect the Scriptures altogether, or else do a little "light reading" before bedtime. How unlike the psalmist, who meditated upon the word of God, "during the night watches" (Psalm 63:6).
Before we can reach others with the saving message of the gospel, we must know its content ourselves. There are various modes of study and review that have proven successful over the years; we will highlight one. It is a simple method to be certain, but one that serious students have found beneficial. By the effective use of note cards, a lengthy or complex subject can often be reduced to its key components. This facilitates memorization, as well as providing for conciseness and clarity in our responses. As N.B. Hardeman was fond of saying, "If I couldn't write on a postal card enough to make my position clear on a subject, I'd quit."
The first card we will add to our toolbox is one that deals with a very basic Bible subject; conversion and specifically, that of Saul of Tarsus. Much confusion abounds in the denominational community concerning the salvation of this former persecutor of the church of God. It is commonly believed for example, that Saul was saved immediately on the Damascus road. The popular song, "I Saw the Light" reinforces this misconception.
A careful study of two of the instances wherein Saul's conversion is detailed (Acts 9 and 22) will demonstrate more than "faith alone" was involved and specifically, that baptism was positively enjoined.
Acts 9:6
Observes that the resurrected Lord appeared to Saul. When the persecutor inquired, "What will You have me to do?" the Savior informed him that he was to go into the city, where he would be told what he must do. Note that the instructions given to the Pharisee were not to be optional-it would be a divine imperative.
Acts 9:9
We are not left to wonder what Saul's course of action was. He was, "not disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19) complying explicitly with the Lord's initial command. In the meantime, for three days the now-blind Saul fasted. He certainly was in a sober, reflective and contrite mood.
Acts 9:11
Critical to our study is Acts 9:11. Ananias, the gospel preacher, was informed where he would find Saul. Further, he was even told what Saul was doing: "Behold, he prayeth." If ever there was a candidate for salvation through the so-called "sinner's prayer," surely it was Saul! For three days he abstained from food, giving himself completely over to prayer.
Acts 22:16
In Acts 9, we read of Saul's conversion from Luke's pen, as it occurred in "real time." In Acts 22 and 26, Saul (now Paul) the apostle, recounts it from his own perspective. From the words of Ananias, the preacher, it is obvious that Saul's prayers had not saved him. "Arise, and be baptized," he was told, "and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). This refutes the notion that Saul was saved on the road to Damascus. As Marshall Keeble explained, A man is not saved and then baptized. A woman doesn't wash clothes because they're already clean...she washes the clothes because they're dirty. Man is baptized because he's dirty and needs to be cleaned."
And remember: Jesus informed Saul that he would be told what he "must" do (Acts 9:6). But Saul was told to be baptized. Thus, baptism is not an expedient that might be neglected with impunity. It is absolutely essential for sinful man's salvation.
By committing these four simple references to memory, one can more effectively instruct gospel prospects. In teaching those with, "honest and good hearts" (Luke 8:15) the, "way of the Lord more accurately" (Acts 18:26), a harvest of souls will follow.
According to multiple studies, it takes 10,000 hours to become an "expert" in any field; whether in athletics, chess, music or a wide range of other activities. Most of these professionals spend several hours every day honing their skills. In fact, to reach such levels of proficiency is believed to require some five hours of focused practice every day.
How this shames most of us who profess to be Bible students! Many church members neglect the Scriptures altogether, or else do a little "light reading" before bedtime. How unlike the psalmist, who meditated upon the word of God, "during the night watches" (Psalm 63:6).
Before we can reach others with the saving message of the gospel, we must know its content ourselves. There are various modes of study and review that have proven successful over the years; we will highlight one. It is a simple method to be certain, but one that serious students have found beneficial. By the effective use of note cards, a lengthy or complex subject can often be reduced to its key components. This facilitates memorization, as well as providing for conciseness and clarity in our responses. As N.B. Hardeman was fond of saying, "If I couldn't write on a postal card enough to make my position clear on a subject, I'd quit."
The first card we will add to our toolbox is one that deals with a very basic Bible subject; conversion and specifically, that of Saul of Tarsus. Much confusion abounds in the denominational community concerning the salvation of this former persecutor of the church of God. It is commonly believed for example, that Saul was saved immediately on the Damascus road. The popular song, "I Saw the Light" reinforces this misconception.
A careful study of two of the instances wherein Saul's conversion is detailed (Acts 9 and 22) will demonstrate more than "faith alone" was involved and specifically, that baptism was positively enjoined.
Acts 9:6
Observes that the resurrected Lord appeared to Saul. When the persecutor inquired, "What will You have me to do?" the Savior informed him that he was to go into the city, where he would be told what he must do. Note that the instructions given to the Pharisee were not to be optional-it would be a divine imperative.
Acts 9:9
We are not left to wonder what Saul's course of action was. He was, "not disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19) complying explicitly with the Lord's initial command. In the meantime, for three days the now-blind Saul fasted. He certainly was in a sober, reflective and contrite mood.
Acts 9:11
Critical to our study is Acts 9:11. Ananias, the gospel preacher, was informed where he would find Saul. Further, he was even told what Saul was doing: "Behold, he prayeth." If ever there was a candidate for salvation through the so-called "sinner's prayer," surely it was Saul! For three days he abstained from food, giving himself completely over to prayer.
Acts 22:16
In Acts 9, we read of Saul's conversion from Luke's pen, as it occurred in "real time." In Acts 22 and 26, Saul (now Paul) the apostle, recounts it from his own perspective. From the words of Ananias, the preacher, it is obvious that Saul's prayers had not saved him. "Arise, and be baptized," he was told, "and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). This refutes the notion that Saul was saved on the road to Damascus. As Marshall Keeble explained, A man is not saved and then baptized. A woman doesn't wash clothes because they're already clean...she washes the clothes because they're dirty. Man is baptized because he's dirty and needs to be cleaned."
And remember: Jesus informed Saul that he would be told what he "must" do (Acts 9:6). But Saul was told to be baptized. Thus, baptism is not an expedient that might be neglected with impunity. It is absolutely essential for sinful man's salvation.
By committing these four simple references to memory, one can more effectively instruct gospel prospects. In teaching those with, "honest and good hearts" (Luke 8:15) the, "way of the Lord more accurately" (Acts 18:26), a harvest of souls will follow.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Swine Over Savior
Jim Bill McInteer is the author of this short piece which appeared in the Bible Herald of September 15, 1970. It was published by the Bible Herald Corporation. Clifton Inman was the editor.
In an either/or proposition, which do you choose? If you could have a million dollars or the measles, which would you rather have? If you could have a good night's rest or a tortuous trip to the emergency room of the hospital, which would you choose? If you could select a successful business or one condemned to bankruptcy, which would you choose to operate? Do you feel there is really no choice? Anyone with any degree of intelligence would know which is the better quality. Then add another choice; which had you rather have, swine or a Savior?
Oddly, some folks claimed the pigs! Two thousand swine rushed headlong over a cliff, dashed into the sea and were choked beneath its waves. The swine herders told everyone in the countryside, as well as in the town, about what had occurred. They came rushing out to see the incomparable Christ. Perhaps with some degree of facetiousness Mark adds, "When they saw the swine" (Mark 5:17) they asked Jesus to leave their shores! Can you imagine? They had rather have two thousand pigs than one Savior. They must think they're going to live forever, or they must think they have no sins, or they must think that Jesus could do nothing about their sins, or they must not think, period!
But lest one deride unduly these folks who made such a pitiful selection, how do you score on the card of choice? Does Saturday night mean so much in carousal that you have neither the strength nor the disposition to think of proper activities on the Lord's Day? Does money mean so much that even dishonest methods are justified to obtain it rather than the honest pursuits of it Jesus demands? For what will a man sell his soul; a new car, a new house, a promotion, social acclaim? If one today puts a value on anything more important than the Christ, then what right or reason does he have to criticize the person who chose swine rather than the Savior?
Make the right choice my brother, all eternity depends on it!
In an either/or proposition, which do you choose? If you could have a million dollars or the measles, which would you rather have? If you could have a good night's rest or a tortuous trip to the emergency room of the hospital, which would you choose? If you could select a successful business or one condemned to bankruptcy, which would you choose to operate? Do you feel there is really no choice? Anyone with any degree of intelligence would know which is the better quality. Then add another choice; which had you rather have, swine or a Savior?
Oddly, some folks claimed the pigs! Two thousand swine rushed headlong over a cliff, dashed into the sea and were choked beneath its waves. The swine herders told everyone in the countryside, as well as in the town, about what had occurred. They came rushing out to see the incomparable Christ. Perhaps with some degree of facetiousness Mark adds, "When they saw the swine" (Mark 5:17) they asked Jesus to leave their shores! Can you imagine? They had rather have two thousand pigs than one Savior. They must think they're going to live forever, or they must think they have no sins, or they must think that Jesus could do nothing about their sins, or they must not think, period!
But lest one deride unduly these folks who made such a pitiful selection, how do you score on the card of choice? Does Saturday night mean so much in carousal that you have neither the strength nor the disposition to think of proper activities on the Lord's Day? Does money mean so much that even dishonest methods are justified to obtain it rather than the honest pursuits of it Jesus demands? For what will a man sell his soul; a new car, a new house, a promotion, social acclaim? If one today puts a value on anything more important than the Christ, then what right or reason does he have to criticize the person who chose swine rather than the Savior?
Make the right choice my brother, all eternity depends on it!
Friday, September 20, 2013
Notes From the Margin of My Bible (Jesus From the Beginning)
This installment of the popular series of articles written by Wayne Jackson is copied here from the Christian Courier of September 1989. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
In Revelation 3:4, Jesus Christ is called, "the beginning of the creation with God." The Jehovah's Witnesses employ this passage as a proof-text that Christ is not an eternal Being. They contend that He was created by the Father, hence, was the "beginning" of Jehovah's creation. This is a totally false view. The Greek term arche (beginning) may denote either the beginning of something or it may mean the active cause, that by which something begins to be. The context, either immediate or remote, must determine the word's definition in a given setting. That the latter meaning must be attached to the term in connection with Christ is demonstrated by the following.
a. The Bible makes it quite clear that the second Person of the Godhead (Christ) possesses eternal existence. His goings forth are from times everlasting (Micah 5:2). The Word always was - so the verbal form (imperfect tense) suggests in John 1:1.
b. Since Christ was the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16), if He Himself was a crated object, the obvious conclusion must be, He created Himself! That is an absurdity.
c. In Revelation 21:6, Jesus is denominated as, "the beginning and the end." If "beginning" suggests His origin, the "end" must imply His termination. Can the "Witnesses" live with that conclusion? Enter these references in the margin of your Bible in conjunction with Revelation 3:14.
In Revelation 3:4, Jesus Christ is called, "the beginning of the creation with God." The Jehovah's Witnesses employ this passage as a proof-text that Christ is not an eternal Being. They contend that He was created by the Father, hence, was the "beginning" of Jehovah's creation. This is a totally false view. The Greek term arche (beginning) may denote either the beginning of something or it may mean the active cause, that by which something begins to be. The context, either immediate or remote, must determine the word's definition in a given setting. That the latter meaning must be attached to the term in connection with Christ is demonstrated by the following.
a. The Bible makes it quite clear that the second Person of the Godhead (Christ) possesses eternal existence. His goings forth are from times everlasting (Micah 5:2). The Word always was - so the verbal form (imperfect tense) suggests in John 1:1.
b. Since Christ was the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16), if He Himself was a crated object, the obvious conclusion must be, He created Himself! That is an absurdity.
c. In Revelation 21:6, Jesus is denominated as, "the beginning and the end." If "beginning" suggests His origin, the "end" must imply His termination. Can the "Witnesses" live with that conclusion? Enter these references in the margin of your Bible in conjunction with Revelation 3:14.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
An Expose of the A.D. 70 Doctrine (Part 2)
This is the second of a two part installment written by Charles J. Aebi. It is reprinted here from the July 1989 edition of the Christian Courier. The monthly paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Wayne Jackson. Both of these articles are rather lengthy but well worth the time spent reading to refute this false doctrine.
A.D. 70 Replaces the Cross As the Central Point in History
Hebrews 9:15 and a host of other passages place the cross at the very center of all history and prophecy. The gospel centers on the cross (I Corinthians 15:1-4) and the cross is the turning point in the conversion process (Romans 6:6; Colossians 3:3). The cross was implicit in the promise to Abraham (Galatians 3:8), as that promise is interpreted by Peter (Acts 3:25-26). The New Testament is replete with references back to the cross of Christ as to the beginning of a new era. The Old Testament looked to the cross of Christ as the event of the future and, though not always clearly understood, at some times very specifically envisioned (Isaiah 53).
E.R. Harper in Living Issues, published several sermons to show how the premillennial theory eliminated the cross and made it a failure. If Christ came to establish a kingdom but failed to do so because of the cross, and the kingdom thus had to be postponed until the second coming, the cross must be understood as a failure. Is the A.D. 70 idea any different? It is contended that the kingdom was not fully established at the cross but that a weak, impotent, inglorious, incomplete embryo of a kingdom limped along under the persecution of the Jews until A.D. 70, when it was raised in glory, power and immortality so that Christ could truly reign. The A.D. 70 doctrine places triumph at A.D. 70 but failure at the cross and failure at Pentecost! The doctrine replaces the cross with A.D. 70 as the very center of all history and prophecy.
This doctrine is one grand adjustment process. A.D. 70 is set as the date around which all else pivots and everything else is readjusted to fit. All New Testament books are required to have been written before that date. The effective date of the gospel, or the New Testament, is adjusted to A.D. 70 in order to make the law of Moses effective until that time. The cross of Christ can hardly be moved to A.D. 70 but what happened at the cross is transferred to that date. The real significance of Pentecost, which is so clearly connected with the cross in point of time, is removed 40 years. The gospel of the cross becomes the gospel of A.D. 70! Instead of the few prophetic references which refer to the fall of Jerusalem, the entire New Testament is adjusted to be full of references to that date. If that requires manipulation, arbitrary definition, "spiritualizing," or other juggling, no matter!
E.R. Harper in Living Issues, published several sermons to show how the premillennial theory eliminated the cross and made it a failure. If Christ came to establish a kingdom but failed to do so because of the cross, and the kingdom thus had to be postponed until the second coming, the cross must be understood as a failure. Is the A.D. 70 idea any different? It is contended that the kingdom was not fully established at the cross but that a weak, impotent, inglorious, incomplete embryo of a kingdom limped along under the persecution of the Jews until A.D. 70, when it was raised in glory, power and immortality so that Christ could truly reign. The A.D. 70 doctrine places triumph at A.D. 70 but failure at the cross and failure at Pentecost! The doctrine replaces the cross with A.D. 70 as the very center of all history and prophecy.
This doctrine is one grand adjustment process. A.D. 70 is set as the date around which all else pivots and everything else is readjusted to fit. All New Testament books are required to have been written before that date. The effective date of the gospel, or the New Testament, is adjusted to A.D. 70 in order to make the law of Moses effective until that time. The cross of Christ can hardly be moved to A.D. 70 but what happened at the cross is transferred to that date. The real significance of Pentecost, which is so clearly connected with the cross in point of time, is removed 40 years. The gospel of the cross becomes the gospel of A.D. 70! Instead of the few prophetic references which refer to the fall of Jerusalem, the entire New Testament is adjusted to be full of references to that date. If that requires manipulation, arbitrary definition, "spiritualizing," or other juggling, no matter!
Overthrowing The Faith of Some
When I first heard the A.D. 70 doctrine, I charged that it would overthrow the faith of some today as a similar doctrine did in A.D. 67 or earlier (cf. 2 Timothy 2:17-18). King objected strongly to that comparison and said that his doctrine does not affect the Christian's hope today because, "the believer in death may now enter immediately into his eternal reward" (Spirit of Prophecy, p. 224).
Note however, that King says all prophecy has been fulfilled. He stated publicly in my hearing that there is no New Testament eschatology remaining for us; nothing left unfulfilled. Then when asked upon what he bases his hope of eternal reward, he spent 30 minutes trying to show how the promise to Abraham assures him of a reward hereafter.
I charge that this shows that King has a doctrinal hangover; he previously believed in heaven when he understood the many New Testament promises of the resurrection and eternal life hereafter and now that he has changed his mind about the resurrection and eternal life, he still has his anachronistic belief troubling him. He has rejected all New Testament promises as already fulfilled and in desperation he goes back to an Old Testament promise, a part of which he seemingly believes to be yet unfulfilled and in which he can look for personal blessing when he dies.
How that weakens the Christian hope which we have in such glorious promises as 1 Corinthians 15; 1 Thessalonians 4:2; 2 Corinthians 4-5; Philippians 3:11, 20-21; Colossians 3:4. King says, "The hope, and the redemption of New Testament saints was deliverance from (out of) the Jewish age" (p. 80). That is not what the above and many other like passages affirm. They promise immortality and glory when Christ returns and they say nothing of A.D. 70 or of the Jewish age. It was Paul's understanding that the Jewish law was already dead and the Jewish age already past. Christians today have the same needs, the same Christ, the same gospel, the same forgiveness and the same hope as did the saints of the early New Testament church. We have neither more nor less than they, except that their gospel was often oral and ours is written. We still have to fight Judaizers and Jews today persecute Christians whenever they have opportunity and power to do so; only some (not all) of their power was eliminated in A. D. 70.
Removes Motivation For Good
The A.D. 70 doctrine removes the motivation for good when it wipes out the promises of Christ's second coming, the resurrection, the judgment, heaven and hell. Any faith that the A.D. 70 advocates may have in accountability is as anachronistic as their hope of eternal reward, for they have nullified the passages which promise (prophecy) both.
Note that the great promises of 1 Corinthians 15 are concluded with the admonition of verse 58. Because we have the promise of the resurrection, we should be steadfast. Not that the promises of 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:8 are capped with the accountability principle of verses 9-10 (we aim to please God because we are all to be judges according to our earthly deeds, whether good or evil). Note that the destruction of the universe at Christ's second coming (2 Peter 3) is accompanied by the exhortation of verses 11-14 to the effect that since destruction is coming upon the physical order of things, we ought to live godly lives. Note the same motivation for good attached to the promise of glorification in 1 John 3:1-3. If the promises are all fulfilled, where is the motivation these promises once offered when they were yet to be fulfilled? And if they do not offer motivation any longer, what passage does? must we go to the promise of Abraham for this too? How ridiculous!
Note that the great promises of 1 Corinthians 15 are concluded with the admonition of verse 58. Because we have the promise of the resurrection, we should be steadfast. Not that the promises of 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:8 are capped with the accountability principle of verses 9-10 (we aim to please God because we are all to be judges according to our earthly deeds, whether good or evil). Note that the destruction of the universe at Christ's second coming (2 Peter 3) is accompanied by the exhortation of verses 11-14 to the effect that since destruction is coming upon the physical order of things, we ought to live godly lives. Note the same motivation for good attached to the promise of glorification in 1 John 3:1-3. If the promises are all fulfilled, where is the motivation these promises once offered when they were yet to be fulfilled? And if they do not offer motivation any longer, what passage does? must we go to the promise of Abraham for this too? How ridiculous!
Destroys Fellowship in Work and Worship
Not only is motivation to work destroyed but also fellowship in that work is destroyed. How can we work with those whose gross distortions make the Scriptures meaningless? How can we trust the exegesis of one who is afflicted with a "spiritulaizing" craze? When a teacher says that Matthew 22:30 and Galatians 3:28 mean the same thing, we have to question his honesty.
But this is a two-sided street. We have no alternative but to refuse to bid Godspeed to one who does not abide in the doctrine of Christ. But how do the A.D. 70 people feel about us? I have observed their leaders refuse to sing a large number of songs in worship, and indeed they must if they do not believe in the promises of the gospel. "When Jesus Comes to Reward His Servants," "When the Trumpet of the Lord Shall Sound" and many other songs must not be sung, hence, fellowship in worship is destroyed.
Not only singing, but the motivation to partake of the Lord's supper is also affected. We partake of the Lord's supper to, "proclaim the Lord's death till He come" (1 Corinthians 11:26). Why should we still do it if we believe he has already come?
Fellowship is also destroyed because we have learned by experience that the spiritualizing away of any plain passage that is found to set forth a disagreeable statement (such as hell, judgment, etc.) is a characteristic common to liberals. Is not the logical conclusion of the A.D. 70 doctrine liberalism? If Jesus' second coming was "spiritual" (i.e., figurative, not literal), then His going into heaven also must have been figurative, since Acts 1:11 says that they will both be the same. If the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15:35-57 is figurative and bodily, then the resurrection of Christ was not either, since 1 Corinthians 15:16, 20-23 says they are the same type of resurrection (the first fruits are the same kind as the later fruits!). Thus the A.D. 70 doctrine's logical conclusion would whisk away the resurrection and ascension of Christ into a spiritulized nothingness; just as the liberals have done.
For these and other reasons, we must reject the A.D. 70 doctrine as heresy. Its dangers are only gradually being realized but they are as great or greater than the threat posed by premillennialsim.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Notes From the Margin of My Bible (Baptism)
This is another installment of the popular series by Wayne Jackson. This comes from the July 1989 edition of the Christian Courier which was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Jackson was also the editor.
In one of his famous defenses of the Christian religion, Paul discusses the details of his conversion to the Lord. In relating that matter, he mentions that he was confronted by the devout preacher Ananias, who addressed him as "brother Saul" (Acts 22:13). Subsequent to this, Ananias commanded Saul to, "arise, and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name" (22:16).
Denominational preachers who deny the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins, occasionally appeal to these passages in an attempt to prove that immersion is not a condition for salvation. Their reasoning goes like this. Ananias referred to Saul as a "brother" prior to his baptism, hence the Jewish zealot was a child of god before and without the rite of baptism. In response, we note the following points.
a. If such was the case, then Saul became a child of god without having his sins washed away, for Acts 22:16 is quite clear that baptism was preliminary to the cleansing of sin.
b. The term "brother" is not employed by Ananias in the Christian sense. Rather, it is used in a nationalistic sense. They were Jewish brethren. Note Peter's similar usage of the term in Acts 2. Addressing those who had murdered the Lord and who, accordingly, needed to repent of that evil deed, the apostle declared, "Brethren, I may say unto you..." (2:29). Thus, if the use of "brother" in Acts 22:13 proves that baptism is nonessential to salvation, the use of "brethren" in Acts 2:29 demonstrates that repentance is unnecessary as well, for these Jews had not yet repented of their sins (cf. 2:38).
Hence, underline "brother" in Acts 22:13 and in the margin of your Bible write, "See Acts 2:29,38). There are several conditions requisite for the reception of salvation and baptism is one of them (Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27; I Peter 3:21).
In one of his famous defenses of the Christian religion, Paul discusses the details of his conversion to the Lord. In relating that matter, he mentions that he was confronted by the devout preacher Ananias, who addressed him as "brother Saul" (Acts 22:13). Subsequent to this, Ananias commanded Saul to, "arise, and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name" (22:16).
Denominational preachers who deny the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins, occasionally appeal to these passages in an attempt to prove that immersion is not a condition for salvation. Their reasoning goes like this. Ananias referred to Saul as a "brother" prior to his baptism, hence the Jewish zealot was a child of god before and without the rite of baptism. In response, we note the following points.
a. If such was the case, then Saul became a child of god without having his sins washed away, for Acts 22:16 is quite clear that baptism was preliminary to the cleansing of sin.
b. The term "brother" is not employed by Ananias in the Christian sense. Rather, it is used in a nationalistic sense. They were Jewish brethren. Note Peter's similar usage of the term in Acts 2. Addressing those who had murdered the Lord and who, accordingly, needed to repent of that evil deed, the apostle declared, "Brethren, I may say unto you..." (2:29). Thus, if the use of "brother" in Acts 22:13 proves that baptism is nonessential to salvation, the use of "brethren" in Acts 2:29 demonstrates that repentance is unnecessary as well, for these Jews had not yet repented of their sins (cf. 2:38).
Hence, underline "brother" in Acts 22:13 and in the margin of your Bible write, "See Acts 2:29,38). There are several conditions requisite for the reception of salvation and baptism is one of them (Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27; I Peter 3:21).
An Expose of the A.D. 70 Doctrine (Part 1)
This is a lengthy article but one that I feel is important in refuting false teaching. It is reprinted from the Christian Courier of June 1989. It was written by Charles Aebi, a professor of Bible and religion at what is now Ohio Valley University in Parkersburg, West Virginia.
It is truly difficult to know where to start in an expose of the A.D. 70 doctrine. Its errors are legion, though most of them are interrelated and these errors are not easily grasped because they are couched in language we are accustomed to using to mean other things. In this way the A.D. 70 doctrine resemble Neo-Orthodoxy and other brands of liberalism. It assigns strange meanings to familiar words and passages and thus requires a very tedious examination to even understand exactly what is being said in the first place. Some new terms are invented but mostly it is an arbitrary assignment of esoteric ideas to commonly used words and a consequent forced reinterpretation of many well-known passages, to yield totally unexpected meanings.
It is truly difficult to know where to start in an expose of the A.D. 70 doctrine. Its errors are legion, though most of them are interrelated and these errors are not easily grasped because they are couched in language we are accustomed to using to mean other things. In this way the A.D. 70 doctrine resemble Neo-Orthodoxy and other brands of liberalism. It assigns strange meanings to familiar words and passages and thus requires a very tedious examination to even understand exactly what is being said in the first place. Some new terms are invented but mostly it is an arbitrary assignment of esoteric ideas to commonly used words and a consequent forced reinterpretation of many well-known passages, to yield totally unexpected meanings.
The Arrogance of Date-Setters
Sometime in the middle A.D. 60's, two fellows named Hymenaeus and Philetus set the date for Christ's second coming (i.e., of the resurrection) as past already, or as having been sometime before A.D. 67 or thereabouts. Some eighteen centuries later, William Miller set the date for Christ's second coming for 1843 and when it did not occur, Miller's associates set the date again for October 22, 1844. Nothing happened then either.
A half-century later, Charles T. Russell set the date for 1914 and when Christ did not appear that time, "Judge" Rutherford set the date for 1920. Later, the "Judge" rendered the "decision" that Jesus had appeared but it had occurred secretly and was not generally known, so the "Judge" and his followers were commissioned to announce it to the unsuspecting world.
Another half-century later, Max. R. King (The Spirit of Prophecy, 1971) declared that all the others were wrong and that Christ actually had come in A.D. 70 and unbeknown to anyone, had effected the end of the world, the judgment, the resurrection of the dead and the establishment of the eternal kingdom. King later affirmed this in debates (The Nichols-King Debate, 1973; The McGuggan-King Debate, 1975).
Each of the above date-setters was certain of his position, yet Jesus Christ, the divine King whose coming is the point of the issue, said that neither He nor the angels of heaven knew when the date of His second coming would be (Matthew 24:36). We therefore charge the A.D. 70 advocates with the error of colossal arrogance! If Jesus did not know when it would be, how can uninspired men know?
The A.D. 70 people will doubtless reply that Jesus was speaking of no one knowing the future but that they know the past and are merely stating what has already occurred; that their knowledge is not prophetic but historic. To this we respond that Hymenaes and Philetus were in the same position and were wrong and that if it is history, we should all have known it. Indeed, every eye would have already seen it and the mourning of all nations would have come to our ears (Revelation 1:7). But such is not the case. Instead, as with the Jehovah's Witnesses, they insist that they are the enlightened ones who have found the truth camouflaged in plain language which does not at all mean what it says.
The New A.D. 70
"Spiritualizing" Hermeneutic
The basic error of the A.D. 70 doctrine is its new hermeneutic that is described as "spiritual" and that "spiritualizes" the Bible in general and prophecy in particular. Each one who has set the date for Christ's second coming has erred similarly in thinking that he possessed some secret, heretofore unknown key to the interpretation of certain prophecies and/or to the Bible in general. One such date-setter, Herbert W. Armstrong, claimed that eighteen and half centuries after the key to Biblical interpretation was lost in the destruction of Jerusalem, it was revealed to him through his wife. With this magical key, Armstrong manipulated each passage of scripture to read into it what he wanted to find (i.e., that "Israel" means Anglo-Saxons) and then, to extract some amazing "truth" from it (e.g., that all Anglo-Saxons will be spared - Romans 11:26).
Starting with the assumption that A.D. 70 was the end of the world and the second coming of Christ, King employs a "new hermeneutic" key to "spritualize" eschatological and other passages in such a way so that they fit his theory. By this spiritualizing tactic he treats virtually all prophecy as figurative, never literal, in its meaning and fulfillment. The first and primary meaning he says, is figurative (he uses the term "spiritual" rather than "figurative," thus prejudicing his case), and any literal meaning or fulfillment is secondary if at all.
The result of the "spiritualizing" hermeneutic is to reverse the accepted use of language, which is to take words and sentences at face value (literally) unless there is good reason to understand them figuratively; i.e., unless a literal understanding does not make sense or else forces a contradiction with another passage or known truth.
Subjective Chaotic Exegesis
The spiritualizing hermeneutic makes for chaotic exegesis, since any "spiritual" or figurative meaning given as the first or primary interpretation would of necessity depend on the subjective prejudices of the interpreter. Thus we would have as much confusion in the exegesis of clear, plain passages of Scripture as now exists in the interpretation of the book of Revelation! Imagine the sea of doctrinal confusion in which we would be floundering if baptism were "spiritualized" to mean whatever the Pentecostal, Calvinist or Catholic wanted it to mean.
What if "water" in John 3:5 is to be understood "spiritually" and does not really mean water? If it is not water, then what is it? The answer is that it becomes whatever we want it to be - whatever we think it needs to be to make John 3:5 correspond to our preconceived notions. Is this far-fetched? Do no the Calvinists do just that with "water" in John 3:4; spiritualize it out of existence?
A few specific examples of A.D. 70 exegesis should suffice to show the confusion that results from their forced manipulations. King, in The Spirit of Prophecy (pp. 199-204), argues that the natural, weak, corruptible body that Paul refers to as dying and being buried in I Corinthians 15:35-49 is, "the fleshly or carnal system of Judaism" and that, "the primary application of the resurrection is applied to the death of Judaism, and to the rise of Christianity." He says that the resurrection of I Corinthians 15, like the cross, is "a past reality...and because it is past, Christians now have a greater hope...Truly death has been destroyed 'in Christ' (I Corinthians 15:22)." I suggest that a very careful reading of I Corinthians 15 from beginning to end will not give even the slightest hint of such a meaning; to get that meaning out of it, one must first put into the passage a set of arbitrary definitions which the context will not support in any way.
All resurrection passages receive a similar treatment. In 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10, the "inward man" and the "house from heaven" are (according to King) Christianity. The "earthly house" of 2 Corinthians 5:1 is said to be the "ministration of death" of 2 Corinthians 3:7, and the "house from heaven" of 2 Corinthians 5:1-2 is supposed to be the "ministration of righteousness" of 2 Corinthians 3:9. Never mind that Paul, in the intervening chapter, turned to the topic of the many persecutions of himself and other faithful preachers because they taught the truth and opposed the Judaizers and that Paul concludes that this persecution is easier to bear because of the hope that he and all Christians have of a resurrection to immortality after this life of affliction is over! What is one intervening chapter when you have an axe to grind by slipping two dissimilar passages together? Again I ask, can you find anything inherent in 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10 that even remotely suggests the destruction of Jerusalem and the rise of Christianity from its ruins?
What if "water" in John 3:5 is to be understood "spiritually" and does not really mean water? If it is not water, then what is it? The answer is that it becomes whatever we want it to be - whatever we think it needs to be to make John 3:5 correspond to our preconceived notions. Is this far-fetched? Do no the Calvinists do just that with "water" in John 3:4; spiritualize it out of existence?
A few specific examples of A.D. 70 exegesis should suffice to show the confusion that results from their forced manipulations. King, in The Spirit of Prophecy (pp. 199-204), argues that the natural, weak, corruptible body that Paul refers to as dying and being buried in I Corinthians 15:35-49 is, "the fleshly or carnal system of Judaism" and that, "the primary application of the resurrection is applied to the death of Judaism, and to the rise of Christianity." He says that the resurrection of I Corinthians 15, like the cross, is "a past reality...and because it is past, Christians now have a greater hope...Truly death has been destroyed 'in Christ' (I Corinthians 15:22)." I suggest that a very careful reading of I Corinthians 15 from beginning to end will not give even the slightest hint of such a meaning; to get that meaning out of it, one must first put into the passage a set of arbitrary definitions which the context will not support in any way.
All resurrection passages receive a similar treatment. In 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10, the "inward man" and the "house from heaven" are (according to King) Christianity. The "earthly house" of 2 Corinthians 5:1 is said to be the "ministration of death" of 2 Corinthians 3:7, and the "house from heaven" of 2 Corinthians 5:1-2 is supposed to be the "ministration of righteousness" of 2 Corinthians 3:9. Never mind that Paul, in the intervening chapter, turned to the topic of the many persecutions of himself and other faithful preachers because they taught the truth and opposed the Judaizers and that Paul concludes that this persecution is easier to bear because of the hope that he and all Christians have of a resurrection to immortality after this life of affliction is over! What is one intervening chapter when you have an axe to grind by slipping two dissimilar passages together? Again I ask, can you find anything inherent in 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10 that even remotely suggests the destruction of Jerusalem and the rise of Christianity from its ruins?
A Reinterpretation of the New Testament
One might expect the A.D. 70 advocates to apply their chaotic exegesis to prophetic passages referring to the resurrection, the second coming, the judgment and the end of the world but what is not suspected is that they demand a reinterpretation of much, if not all of the New Testament because of the arbitrary definitions they have assigned to words which are used in contexts other than the prophetic ones.
For example, it came out in a certain lectureship that they believe Ephesians 6:10-20 is not really referring to our Christian warfare against the world in which we live but to the battle the pre-A.D. 70 Christians had to fight against the Jewish leaders ("rulers of the darkness of this world") up until and during "the evil day" (vv. 12-13). How this conflict can be made to refer to the fall of Jerusalem or Judaism is a sleight-of-tongue operation which leaves the common Christian aghast and wondering fearfully where they will strike next, and whether any Scripture will remain understandable to any bu the "spiritualizing" elite, if the A.D. 70 doctrine be accepted.
Why is this the case? Simply because the A.D. 70 doctrine is so opposed to the plain statements of Scripture everywhere that a reinterpretation must be done to create the impression of harmony between it and many opposing passages. This is done by building a new vocabulary or, what is worse, using the common vocabulary but giving the words new and arbitrary meanings without regard to context.
Thus "world" (kosmos) is redefined to mean "Jewish age" in spite of textual and lexicographical evidence against it. "Body" is redefined to mean "Judaism" - if it is physical, or before death; it supposed to mean "Christianity" - if it is spiritual or after the resurrection. Both are arbitrary definitions applied to contexts which no reader would ever guess that such could possibly be the meaning. "This world" becomes the old covenant, Judaism, or the Jewish system, but "the world to come" is the Christian system or the eternal covenant. The "new covenant" is said to be the promise to Abraham. The "day of the Lord," "that day," "the day of Christ" and similar expressions are all interpreted to mean A.D. 70, the fall of Jerusalem.
Thus "world" (kosmos) is redefined to mean "Jewish age" in spite of textual and lexicographical evidence against it. "Body" is redefined to mean "Judaism" - if it is physical, or before death; it supposed to mean "Christianity" - if it is spiritual or after the resurrection. Both are arbitrary definitions applied to contexts which no reader would ever guess that such could possibly be the meaning. "This world" becomes the old covenant, Judaism, or the Jewish system, but "the world to come" is the Christian system or the eternal covenant. The "new covenant" is said to be the promise to Abraham. The "day of the Lord," "that day," "the day of Christ" and similar expressions are all interpreted to mean A.D. 70, the fall of Jerusalem.
Coexistence of Judaism and Christianity
Some passages are pressed for esoteric meanings reminiscent of the allegorical school of Alexandria and similar allegorical interpretations, such as that of the Jewish view which held that because god created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, the earth would stand for six thousand years in turmoil, and the seven thousand would be the millennium of the Messiah. Such an allegorical interpretation is applied to Paul's own allegory in Galatians 4:21-31 with amazing results.
In a chapter entitled, "Abraham Had Two Sons," King (The Spirit of Prophecy, pp. 27-44) says that because Abraham's two sons, Isaac and Ishmael lived together in Abraham's house for a time, Christianity and Judaism were both in effect from about A.D. 30 to 70. This means that both Jews and Christians were God's people during a 40 year transition period.
We have all understood, on the basis of Colossians 2:14-18, Hebrews 9:15-17, Acts 2 and many other passages, that there was a short period of some 50 days (between the cross and Pentecost) when the new law had been legislated and thus was "on the books" but during which the old law was still valid unto the effective date of the new law, which was on Pentecost. But we have never understood and we do not now understand that the transitional period was 40 years. If the New Testament as a will was to be valid after its testator (Christ) died, as Hebrews 9:15-17 affirms, it was as wills are, put in force when it was probated and read on Pentecost when the gospel of the risen Savior was first preached. Who ever heard of a will not becoming valid until 40 years after its testator died, unless such a clause was plainly contained in the will itself? Where is there such a limiting clause in the New Testament?
The plain fact is if the New Testament did not replace the Old until A.D. 70, then Paul must have been a madman to have fought against Judaizing teachers all that time! Paul had no such understanding, for he plainly said that the cross eliminated the law of Moses (Colossians 2:14) and that anyone who justified his practice by the law of Moses had fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4).
King's contradictory statements on this allegory have Christianity beginning in A.D. 70 but being, "born on Pentecost"' (Ibid., p. 37); have, "the offspring of the free woman" (p. 30) being addressed by Paul in A.D. 58 when the apostle wrote Galatians but the, "manifestation of the sons of God" occurring along with redemption, the adoption, the marriage, the inheritance and the second coming in A.D. 70 (p. 195). How could Christianity begin 40 years before it was born? How can you have offspring 12 years before marriage, except by illegitimacy? This is what happens when you press analogy too far.
The plain fact is if the New Testament did not replace the Old until A.D. 70, then Paul must have been a madman to have fought against Judaizing teachers all that time! Paul had no such understanding, for he plainly said that the cross eliminated the law of Moses (Colossians 2:14) and that anyone who justified his practice by the law of Moses had fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4).
King's contradictory statements on this allegory have Christianity beginning in A.D. 70 but being, "born on Pentecost"' (Ibid., p. 37); have, "the offspring of the free woman" (p. 30) being addressed by Paul in A.D. 58 when the apostle wrote Galatians but the, "manifestation of the sons of God" occurring along with redemption, the adoption, the marriage, the inheritance and the second coming in A.D. 70 (p. 195). How could Christianity begin 40 years before it was born? How can you have offspring 12 years before marriage, except by illegitimacy? This is what happens when you press analogy too far.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Five Sobering Warnings
This was written by Clarence DeLoach. It is reprinted here from the September 1, 2003 edition of The Gospel Proclaimer, a weekly publication of the Church of Christ in Washington Court House, Ohio.
The book of Hebrews stresses the superiority of Christ. The Jewish Christians had been brought the messages of Christ by the apostles and prophets (Hebrews 2:3-4). They had not matured in the faith and consequently, they lacked confidence. They were on the fringes, in danger of returning to the patterns of Judaism. They were tempted to hang on to the old temple ritual and its worship.
God wanted them to understand that they no longer needed the old temple. They system was shaking and was about to be destroyed. They were a part of the new, unshakable kingdom. They didn't need the old priesthood or sacrifices. They had a better covenant, a better priesthood and a better sacrifice.
Whenever a Christian departs from Christ, he always goes to the inferior. It does not get better than Christ. In view of that truth, the writer of Hebrews gives sobering warnings that Christians of all ages need to heed.
The book of Hebrews stresses the superiority of Christ. The Jewish Christians had been brought the messages of Christ by the apostles and prophets (Hebrews 2:3-4). They had not matured in the faith and consequently, they lacked confidence. They were on the fringes, in danger of returning to the patterns of Judaism. They were tempted to hang on to the old temple ritual and its worship.
God wanted them to understand that they no longer needed the old temple. They system was shaking and was about to be destroyed. They were a part of the new, unshakable kingdom. They didn't need the old priesthood or sacrifices. They had a better covenant, a better priesthood and a better sacrifice.
Whenever a Christian departs from Christ, he always goes to the inferior. It does not get better than Christ. In view of that truth, the writer of Hebrews gives sobering warnings that Christians of all ages need to heed.
The Word of God
1. Don't DRIFT from the Word (Hebrews 2:1-4). It is easy to just drift! Drifting is gradual. Drifting is dangerous. Drifting is caused by neglect. The cure to drifting is to pay close attention. Be spiritually alert.
2. Don't DOUBT the Word (Hebrews 3:12-13). A doubting, questioning heart turns from the living God. Doubting leads to hardness of the heart and finally to outright unbelief.
3. Don't be DULL toward the Word (Hebrews 5:11-14). The Hebrews were, "slow to learn." They could not bear solid food. Their dullness had resulted in spiritual sluggishness.
4. Don't DESPISE the Word of God (Hebrews 10:26:39). A deliberate, presumptuous attitude reflects a willful despite toward God.
5. Don't DEFY the Word of God (Hebrews 12:14-25). One may get to the point where he actually refuses him who speaks. Hebrews opens with the declaration that, "God has spoken" and ends with a warning to, "see that you do not refuse him who speaks" (Hebrews 1:1; 12:25).
There is a progression involved in these warnings. If you don't hear the Word, you will drift from it. When you drift from it, you will doubt it for faith comes by hearing (Romans 10:17). When hearts are hardened, sluggishness results. Sluggishness produces dullness toward the Word. When we become dull, a spiteful spirit results.
Why is it so vital that we store up God's Word, reverentially, in our hearts? Because, as He Himself said in Hebrews 1:1-2, "God who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds." If it is our desire to hear God, then we must hear Him through the words of His son as revealed in the New Testament.
In Hebrews we are warned of grave dangers. Let us not allow these possibilities to happen to us. Keep an open, tender, receptive and believing heart toward the Word of God.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Who Can Forgive Sins?
Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the May 1989 edition of the Christian Courier. He was also the editor of the paper. It was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California.
Shortly before His ascension, Jesus said to His apostles, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ was actually granting to the apostles the authority to forgive sins and that the apostles passed on to their successors (the Roman priesthood) the same license to pardon sin. For a defense of the Catholic position on this point see B.L. Conway, The Question Box, p. 287 and James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 343ff. The Roman assertion is utterly false. Consider the following facts.
1. No interpretation is to be placed upon a difficult and obscure passage, e.g., John 20:23, which would place it in direct conflict with numerous other clear texts. Now the fact of the matter is, though all Christians are to forgive one another, to have a forgiving disposition (Ephesians 4:32), ultimately only God can bestow absolute pardon (cf. Psalm 130:4; Isaiah 43:25; Daniel 9:9; Micah 7:18; Acts 8:22; etc.). He did not grant that right to the apostles nor anyone else.
2. There is a Biblical idiom whereby one is sometimes said to actually do what he is merely authorized to declare. Note: (a) Pharaoh's butler said regarding Joseph, "...me he (Joseph) restored unto my office, and him (the baker) he hanged" (Genesis 41:13). Joseph did not actually restore the butler to his office, nor did he personally hang the baker. Here merely announced by prophetic insight, what the fate of these men would be. (b) Did God appoint Jeremiah to literally destroy and overthrow kingdoms (Jeremiah 1:10) or merely to declare their destiny? The answer should be obvious. See also Ezekiel 43:3.
3. The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles could only announce terms of forgiveness upon the basis of God's previous appointment. Literally, it is: "Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive have not already been forgiven." The first verbs in the two clauses are in the aorist tense, while the second verbs are in the perfect tense. The perfect tense verbs imply an abiding state which started before the action of the aorist. In other words, the apostles (and others since that time) were only authorized to declare forgiveness consistent with what the Lord had already determined. In an exhaustive treatment of this passage, J.R. Mantley noted that the Greek fathers never quoted this passage in support of the concept of absolution (see J.R. Mantley, Journal of Biblical Literature, 58 (1939), pp. 243-249).
4. Finally, this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the apostles, on the day of Pentecost, in harmony with the Spirit's guidance, did not personally forgive the sins of anyone. Rather, they merely announced the conditions of pardon to which men were amenable. To believers who sincerely inquired, "...what shall we do," Peter responded, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." (Acts 2:37-38). Subsequently we are told that, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized..." (v. 41). Hence, we conclude upon the basis of this testimony, that by means of that word, they received the forgiveness of their sins.
The New Testament does not support the Roman Catholic view of priestly absolution of sins.
Shortly before His ascension, Jesus said to His apostles, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ was actually granting to the apostles the authority to forgive sins and that the apostles passed on to their successors (the Roman priesthood) the same license to pardon sin. For a defense of the Catholic position on this point see B.L. Conway, The Question Box, p. 287 and James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 343ff. The Roman assertion is utterly false. Consider the following facts.
1. No interpretation is to be placed upon a difficult and obscure passage, e.g., John 20:23, which would place it in direct conflict with numerous other clear texts. Now the fact of the matter is, though all Christians are to forgive one another, to have a forgiving disposition (Ephesians 4:32), ultimately only God can bestow absolute pardon (cf. Psalm 130:4; Isaiah 43:25; Daniel 9:9; Micah 7:18; Acts 8:22; etc.). He did not grant that right to the apostles nor anyone else.
2. There is a Biblical idiom whereby one is sometimes said to actually do what he is merely authorized to declare. Note: (a) Pharaoh's butler said regarding Joseph, "...me he (Joseph) restored unto my office, and him (the baker) he hanged" (Genesis 41:13). Joseph did not actually restore the butler to his office, nor did he personally hang the baker. Here merely announced by prophetic insight, what the fate of these men would be. (b) Did God appoint Jeremiah to literally destroy and overthrow kingdoms (Jeremiah 1:10) or merely to declare their destiny? The answer should be obvious. See also Ezekiel 43:3.
3. The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles could only announce terms of forgiveness upon the basis of God's previous appointment. Literally, it is: "Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive have not already been forgiven." The first verbs in the two clauses are in the aorist tense, while the second verbs are in the perfect tense. The perfect tense verbs imply an abiding state which started before the action of the aorist. In other words, the apostles (and others since that time) were only authorized to declare forgiveness consistent with what the Lord had already determined. In an exhaustive treatment of this passage, J.R. Mantley noted that the Greek fathers never quoted this passage in support of the concept of absolution (see J.R. Mantley, Journal of Biblical Literature, 58 (1939), pp. 243-249).
4. Finally, this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the apostles, on the day of Pentecost, in harmony with the Spirit's guidance, did not personally forgive the sins of anyone. Rather, they merely announced the conditions of pardon to which men were amenable. To believers who sincerely inquired, "...what shall we do," Peter responded, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." (Acts 2:37-38). Subsequently we are told that, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized..." (v. 41). Hence, we conclude upon the basis of this testimony, that by means of that word, they received the forgiveness of their sins.
The New Testament does not support the Roman Catholic view of priestly absolution of sins.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)