Archive for August, 2021

The Difference Between The New Testament Church And Most Modern Day Churches

August 26, 2021

The main difference between the church in the Bible and almost all churches today is the emphasis in God’s word that obedience is necessary to salvation. Almost all current day churches compromise that truth. Many times this results in teaching that baptism is not necessary to salvation, and that once saved always saved is true. If obedience is not necessary to salvation, those false doctrines would be true, but …

· Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.

· Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven

· I Pet 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth

· James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

· II Thess 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

· Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.

· II Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. (NKJV)

Nobody Will Be Lost Based Upon Doctrinal Issues Good Brethren Disagree On?

August 19, 2021

One thing that is so appalling in the religious world today is that denominational churches are not just compromising their stand on what the Bible teaches, but they are openly admitting they are not following the Bible anymore. When the Episcopal Church ordained their first gay bishop Gene Robinson, one thing Robinson said to justify such was “Just simply saying it departs from … Scripture does not necessarily make it wrong” (The Birmingham News, Aug 6, 2003). See how the Episcopal Church is admitting Scripture does not define right and wrong for them anymore? (if it ever did) About the Presbyterian Church USA, we read in Time Magazine (5-6-91) “The church should ‘re-evaluate its definition of sin to reflect the changing mores of society.’” So churches have redefined sin. Instead of sin being a transgression of God’s law (I John 3:4); sin becomes a violation of the norms of our society. True Christians are shocked by such statements.

But aren’t some Christians saying the same thing in effect? A gospel preacher in Madison, Alabama told a number of us young people in 1987 that nobody would be lost based upon what they practiced on the covering issue (I Cor 11:2-16) because “good brethren disagree on that question.” Isn’t that saying the same thing in principle as the previous quotes? Just substitute “the brotherhood” for “society” in the Time Magazine quote above. Don’t a lot of our brethren really believe the same thing, that “sin is the transgression of what our NI brotherhood as a whole believes” instead of a transgression of God’s law? Isn’t that in effect what the Madison gospel preacher was saying in 1987?

Is it okay to teach the commandments of men (Matt 15:9) as long as our society disagrees on the issue?  If not, then why would be okay to teach the commandments of men as long as our brethren disagree on the issue?  If we say it is okay with God for us to disagree on issues that brethren disagree on but not okay to disagree on issues that separate brethren from the denominations, then aren’t we showing favoritism? – James 2:9, Acts 10:34-35, I Cor 1:10.

Tongues – Human Languages Or Just Gibberish?

August 12, 2021

Were the tongues in the Bible just gibberish like what we see in so called “Pentecostal” churches today? I’ve been to a number of services where people were claiming to speak in tongues, but it sure sounded like a bunch of gibberish to me. Is that what we see in the New Testament? Let’s answer that question from the Bible.

Acts 2 would be a good place to start as that is the first place we see Christians speaking in tongues in the New Testament. Verse 4 in the NKJV says the apostles spoke with “other tongues.” I am currently studying via phone with a lady who has spent her entire adult life in New York, but she was brought up in the country of Columbia. She speaks English very well, but if I were to ask you “What is her native or mother tongue?,” how would you answer? “Spanish,” right? You see how we use the word “tongue” to refer to a human language?

And the same thing is going on in Acts 2. As we said, verse 4 says the apostles spoke with “other tongues.” That would mean languages other than what the apostles were used to speaking in. We know that from verse 6 because it says their audience (from “every nation under heaven” – verse 5) heard the apostles speak in the listener’s “language.” So the apostles spoke in tongues but “every man heard them speak in his own language.” See how “tongue” means human “language” here, not just gibberish?

Continuing on, the audience says in verse 8 they were hearing the preaching in their own “language” while the same audience says in verse 11 they were hearing the preaching in their own “tongues.” Again, do you see how the words “tongue” and language” (referring to an actual human language) are used interchangeably?

The point of speaking in tongues was so a person who had never studied a particular foreign language could be miraculously enabled to speak in such foreign language so he could immediately communicate the gospel to an audience that didn’t speak his language. The people claiming to do that today never speak in an actual foreign (human) language; instead it is just a bunch of non sensical syllables strung together randomly. Plain and simple – it is gibberish. It is not even a second cousin to the miraculous tongues we read about in the Bible that ceased when the New Testament was completely revealed and put together according to I Cor 13:8-13.

Baptism For The Dead In I Cor 15:29

August 5, 2021

I Corinthians 15:29 reads “Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?” The Mormons take that to mean a live person can be baptized for a never baptized dead person, and that will count for the dead person’s baptism. I could see how one might come to that conclusion from just a surface reading of the text, but the Mormon’s understanding of I Cor 15:29 and “baptism for the dead” is contradicted by many passages such as II Cor 5:10 which tells us each person is going to be judged based solely upon “things done in his body” (his own life), not someone else’s. Our eternal fate is sealed at our physical death – Rev 14:13.

But what exactly does I Cor 15:29 teach then? If you think about it, Paul is not really giving credence to the teaching that people were baptizing for the dead at that time; instead he is just using their (false) practice to make an argument for the resurrection. I like the point Jim Stauffer makes on this – “Paul uses the pronouns we, I and you to identify himself and the Corinthians until he gets to verse 29. Then he uses “they” to address those who are practicing this kind of baptism. Following that logic it seems he is referring to some folks who believe and practice this who may or may not be members of the church.”

Paul’s argument is essentially this – why would people be baptized for the dead if the dead will never be raised to live again? This would be similar to Jesus’ use of the dishonest action of the unjust steward to make a point in Luke 16:1-9, and God’s use of Rahab in James 2:25 to make a point without specifically condemning her unchaste sexual behaviour. Paul is not condoning the practice he is referring to in I Cor 15:29; instead he is just using the existence of the practice to make his overall point in I Corinthians 15 – that the dead will be raised.