Darth Weasel on the Bible

An appeal for more benedictions

2011-01-06T21:35:00.001-08:00

As reported in the New Testament, the Old Testament is there or our instruction and edification.

One thing that I think all too often goes unremarked is an event such as when Aaron and his sons were advised to bless the children of Israel thusly:

The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:
The Lord make His face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
Numbers 6:22-27, excerpted

Of course, that was directed to the priests of God's Chosen people of the Old Testament. In the New Testament, those who truly follow His Word instead of some twisted version of it have become the Chosen People of the Christian Age (I. Peter 2:9-10) and priests ourselves.

As such, it seems Christians would be well served to find sayings such as the above and bless one another with them rather than sayings like "catch you later" or "good luck".

Of course, this is a habit hard to form, but well worth doing so.

In that frame of mind I would say, Thank you for reading and until we come together in person or spirit once more, may the peace of God be in your heart and may His presence overshadow your for good.

God versus Evolution

2011-01-03T20:15:00.000-08:00

Genesis is generally referred to as being defined as "beginning", "beginnings" or more rarely "coming into being".

And right in the first verse of the first book, both chronologically and in location within the collection of books known collectively as "the Bible" it makes an explicit, controversial claim.

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."

The first couple of chapters present the Creation twice; first a broad overview, then a retelling highlighting the key event.

These chapters are at the heart of why the debate over phrases such as "evolution", "intelligent design", "theistic evolution" exists, should exist, and must exist.

I would reference II Timothy 3:16 for one reason; when it says "ALL Scripture is inspired by God" it comes from the Greek word Theopneustos" which literally means God-breathed.

Genesis being part of Holy Scripture*, if the account of how the world was created is false, then all of Scripture can safely be discarded and, indeed, per its own claims, SHOULD be discarded. (I Corinthians 15:19)

Thus the truth or falsehood of the claim that God created the heavens and the earth, and did so in the manner prescribed, is fundamental to accepting or rejecting the other words found within the Holy Writ.

Of course, there is a major problem with the issue. Specifically, if the Bible is accurate, then there were three beings present at creation; God, the Spirit of God (verses 1-3) and the one who would later be known as Jesus (John 1:1).

The nature of these three as three separate yet one is an issue unresolved by man for centuries and unlikely to be resolved prior to judgment when God may choose to reveal this mystery.

Be that as it may, there were no human witnesses until Adam and subsequently Eve were created.

The same, of course, holds true for the other major hypothesis of how the earth came into being, that is evolution. The idea that life started 'somehow" and through a variety of mutations became other sorts of life eventually resulting in humans is a brief description that hardly gets into the depths of the hypothesis...

Then again, it is all but impossible to describe accurately what evolutionary hypothesis is since it is in a constant state of flux. Earth age fluctuates wildly, with 4.55 billion years or so being one common number, another being a few hundred million years either way from about 13.7 billion years.

This is an important distinction since the widely differing quantities of time result in very different ideas of when, how, and through what steps the process was accomplished.

It is not out of a desire to be unfair to one point of view that I cannot formulate the latest idea; it is because there is no general consensus on how it happened, simply an oft-cited "widely held view" that it did.

So what we have are two different ideas of where the world came from which result in two very different views of the meaning of life.

Of course, saying two views is a broad oversimplification of the situation. Even within those who claim to believe in God there are shades of grey in how they interpret Genesis.

Theistic evolutionists, terrified of appearing the fool, hedge their bets by calling the very book they claim to believe a liar, positing millions of years between each "day" of Creation.

One reason for this is the very idea that the earth is several billions of years old.

There is indeed one passage in Genesis that presents the possibility of a great deal of time passing, depending on your reading of verses one and two.

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light; and there was light."
And by the end of verse 5, it explicitly states, "And the evening and the morning were the first day."

It can certainly be one possible understanding of this that time did not begin for a period of...well, for lack of a better word, time for years, centuries, millenniums, or even epochs before God created light.

Chapter 2, verse one thru three seem to indicate otherwise, seeming to quite clearly state the work was accomplished within 7 days.

This is troubling for people who take at face value the idea that the earth is billions of years old.

I find it troubling that people are troubled by this.

If indeed there is a God of such power, vision, and will that could and did create the heavens, earth, and everything living within the earth, then certainly He has the power to create it with all the attributes of an earth of great age; mineral deposits for the use of people could be created, for example.

At the same time, whether there was a period of time between verse 2 and 3 of chapter one or not, the Bible unequivocally makes a claim that tears apart the root of evolution.

"...And the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind...", "...And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind..." (verses 11-12), "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and God saw that it was good." (25)

So a couple of very important points here.

1) Each thing listed produced "after his kind". Change between species...a fish becoming a bird, a monkey becoming a man, a tree becoming a fish...these controvert the "God-breathed" scripture. One or the other can be true...but not both.

2) If God created imperfect, unfinished beings, he would not have then declared it to be good, nor rested from the"work which He had made" since it was unfinished.

There is one other very important point to make from the Scriptural account of the beginning of life. It is a very unpopular point with people, but if there is a God, His statement supersedes the desires of "enlightened" people.

Animals were created after their kind. Plants were created after their kind.

Man is created in the image of God (vs. 26-27).

Man is created in a different manner. He is explicitly given dominion over animals. This is not to advocate animal cruelty, but it is an indictment of the "animal rights" movement which puts animals on the level of humanity.

They are not. They are not designed to be equal, to have equal importance or equal roles.

There is one further dispute Genesis has with evolution. Skip ahead a few chapters to chapter 7, when the flood occurs. Inside the ark are 2 of unclean and 7 of clean animals, Noah and his family. Outside the ark is complete, utter destruction. "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died."

Polystrate fossils, inverted strata, the results of the Mt. St. Helens eruption, and other evidences certainly point to the probability that a catastrophic event of a worldwide nature took place.

Those of us who accept the Scripture, where it speaks to history, to be accurate, thus believe those evidences most likely stem from the flood related in these passages.

Since there are genealogies from Adam and Eve and then, other genealogies begun stemming from Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth, it rapidly becomes quite clear that evolution and the Bible are quite incompatible.

If one is true then the other is false. And vice versa.

It is an important debate. If the Biblical account is true then the rules God set forth apply whether we like them or not.

Conversely, if the Biblical account is false then we are free from the moral strictures found therein and able to generate morality based on our own thoughts and wishes.

Suddenly Hitler is evil only to people who disagree with him. Manson should be considered a hero.

The person who declares any other person wrong or evil without adding the phrase "in my opinion" has indicted them self with the deepest shrouds of hypocrisy since right and wrong have no foundation, being merely the result of personal opinion, perhaps influenced by the prevailing wisdom of the day.

Clearly I find it of utmost import to research the truth or falsehood both of Creationism and evolution.

I have spent several weeks doing that once again...it is a practice of mine to research the most recent developments.

Oddly, in Creationism, the most recent developments are repeatedly two-fold:
1) people giving up their faith and trying to harmonize their compromised religious views with the latest bright lights of evolutions
2) people realizing the incompatibility of Scripture with monkeys turning into humans and returning to the Scriptural view.

In proponents of evolution, it is a constant moving target as new research proves the last "next great idea" was fatally flawed.

So they replace it with the theme "there are so many proofs of evolution that we do not need to show any, but we will show why the evidence for the opposing side does not mean what it says."

Ultimately, belief in Creation or belief in evolution puts a person clearly, irrefutably on one side or the other; belief in Scripture or lack thereof.

Those who believe in Scripture would be well served to spend more time following it.

Those who don't...well, it already does not affect them, so they should be really, really sure. The cost if wrong is high.

* The books considered part of Holy Scripture is a fascinating and deep study far too involved for the scope of this piece. For clarity, I consider only Genesis to Malachi and Matthew to Revelation to comprise completely and entirely the true Scriptural canon; 66 books gathered into one.

A Quick Comment on the nature of reading

2010-06-23T22:34:00.000-07:00

A couple months ago I started sporadically riding the MAX to work. This provided me a solid hour plus of straight reading.

This has allowed me to rapidly progress through the Bible from Genesis to (as of today) Luke.

It is interesting to note there are several ways to read the Bible.

One of the more popular and, arguably, useful, ways of course is slowly and contemplatively. Take some time to mull over a verse, follow the train of thought, and see connections that way.

But there proves to be some merit, also, to a more cursory pass through. Reading at a rather frenetic pace of 50 - 60 pages per hour with no time allowed for pursuing tangents allows for an overview that draws together a lot of thoughts perhaps more difficult to pull together when it is months between reading say...Exodus and Micah.

This is not to say it is superior. Clearly, the more time you spend considering what you have read, the more depth it will add to your Spiritual comprehension.

At the same time, much like a class in Western Civilization typically bypasses deep looks into cause and effect in favor of a broad overview, a rapid read-through beginning to end gives a different view than more typical reading patterns.

Just something to think about.

David: A reason for Hope

2010-05-22T20:50:00.000-07:00

I like to get to work 20 - 30 minutes early, sit in my car and read the Bible from beginning to end, as a separate thing from my more steady, focused devotional reading. It presents a very different look and from time to time, certain things catch my attention, usually because it somehow eluded me or I just missed in prior readings.

One would be some rather surprising actions by David, the "Man after God's own heart".

Now. do not get me wrong..I think he was exactly as the Bible says, a great man of God who tried to walk in God's ways. It is a foundational belief that must be true for the Bible to be that which it purports to be, God's Word. But that does not mean he was perfect.

For example, he is rightly praised for not once but twice having the opportunity to lift his hand against God's anointed, but he refused to do so.

Why, then, was he working with the Philistines? The Philistines were the deadly enemies of the Israelites in the time of Saul, and for a year and four months David not just lived in the land of the Philistines (I Samuel 27:7), but he engaged in genocidal raids (I Samuel 27:8-11...And David saved neither man nor woman alive..."). It is intriguing to note the area he raided was "the south of Judah" (p.10)

This was a benefit to the Philistines in that it allowed them to devote their troops to the war with Israel instead of with the Geshurites, Gezrites, and Amalekites. This is evidenced by the statement that Israel abhorred David.

It got to the point where David and his men were marching against Saul (chapter 29)in the battle that saw Saul die, only to be sent back because the Philistines did not trust him. If David was loyal to God's anointed, as the Scripture is often interpreted due to his sparing of the life of Saul, why would he be willing to march against his own people?

It is also interesting to note the vast number of not just wives but concubines* David had...of course we know of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, Abigail (formerly Nabal's wife), Michal, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah, and then in II Samuel 5:13 he takes yet more.

It is also interesting to note the viciousness often demonstrated in his victories. Take, for example, how he measured the Moabites with the line.

I have read several descriptions of what this means, and the one that makes the most sense has to do with height...anyone over a certain height was executed.

Generally, people either pass over that passage or, as I recently read, say "God certainly didn't condone the butchery".

Really? Where, exactly, does He condemn it? It was a matter of record that nations of evil were to be slain, every living thing...including the animals. So why would this be different? It was done ion the context of God establishing David's kingdom.

David also seemed to be lacking in his parenting attentions. He said nothing to Amnon after Amnon raped his sister. He later allowed his son Adonijah to act in ways that soon led to the death of Adonijah.

He allowed Ziba to profit by half of Meshibosheth's household through deceit and treachery.

He gave seven men guilty only (as far as we know) of being sons of Saul to be executed by the Gibeonites for the actions of Saul.

He issued a census that led to pestilence in the land.

So we have a picture of a man of violence who slew massive populations, who married many women and had others to whom he was not married*, who was questionable in his parenting...and this is the man who was after God's own heart.

It is illuminating that a person whom, in the eyes of the world today would be considered a "warlord", an international criminal for his genocidal attacks, and evil man for his polygamy and relations with women to whom he was not married...is capable not only of salvation but of greatness before God.

It gives hope to those of us of lesser abilities for both good and evil.

*Concubines may have been considered women to whom he was married or may not...there is some debate on the matter. Abishag the Shunamite leaves little to debate, however, though the claim is explicit that they did not have relations, yet lay together.

Do we Underestimate the Violent Capacity of God?

2010-02-14T22:53:00.001-08:00

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...

Genesis 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way,...

Genesis 6: 13 And God said unto Noah, ... vs. 17 ...and, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die...

There are several things to consider from these accounts of the first beginning of life on earth...for of course, Noah and his family would repopulate the earth, along with the animals they saved in the ark, after that destruction God foretold was accomplished.

First off, we are created in the image of God. When that is told to us, have you ever stopped to consider whether it meant physically, mentally, emotionally, or are our echoes of the nature of God a combination of two or even all three of those attributes?

Mankind has developed a well-earned and oft-demonstrated capacity for violence, warfare, and bloodshed. Many would say that is the antithesis of God, yet I find it illuminating that before man ever demonstrated violence...yes, even before Cain slew Abel...God put in place a cherubim carrying a sword.

It seems not unreasonable then to extrapolate that swords were the creation not of man's desire to kill each other but pre-existed his awareness of and capacity for violence.

An interesting thought that bears a great deal of research and consideration. Of course, the research portion is considerably hampered by the fact that all we have to go on is the Bible, and it has little to say about the subject. We must beware of drawing too many conclusions from a matter mentioned in passing.

Yet when the earth grew corrupt, God demonstrated other attributes. First, regret. Second, revulsion for the ways of man. Third, a tremendous capacity for near-total elimination of life.

It was not just man but plants, animals, fish, birds...all would be eliminated in a wave of violence. Indeed, chapters seven and eight of Genesis deal with the devastation of the earth and the few who were saved from it.

We are falsely taught that "God is love" with the implicit understanding that the actual, complete and total comment is "God is love ONLY" when in truth God shows a tremendous capacity to hate that which is evil.

We are told in the New Testament that the Law and, one might suppose, the Old Testament, is a tutor to lead us to Christ.

This is relevant because it would behoove society today to realize that God is, by His own admission, a jealous God. The terror implicit in Hebrews 10:26-31 for those who would reject God has been tempered by a society trained to picture God as meek, simpering, loving without remorse, regret, or reservations when in truth, He is a God who, when disobeyed, stores up mighty vengeance the like of which the world has not seen and can scarce comprehend.

Yes, there is a loving side of God. John 3:16 explicitly states the depth of His love. But it is a love that requires response, not willful and proud disobedience.

It is sad that people would simplify God below the complexity of human beings. Man is capable of hating and loving, of many complex interactions in between. We would do well to realize we are a reflection of God, and take into account that He may carry those emotions with far greater impact.

It is not good for man to be alone

2009-12-30T10:21:00.000-08:00

Companionship is a hot topic in today's world where so much personal interaction is quite impersonal, often done over the Internet or via cell phone, with little to no personal contact.

People complain about this on many levels, believing mankind has lost many social skills due to this.

Interestingly enough, there is Biblical precedent for this mindset.

Genesis 2:18 And then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.

It is, at least in this passage, the companionship aspect of life for which woman was created for man. Despite the social concentration on sexual relations, it was the idea of being alone that was problematic for man, and that is the aspect that was addressed.

Nor, despite an oft-repeated false teaching on the matter, are Christians to refuse friendship with people of the world. I Corinthians 5 explains this clearly.

While Christians are, in fact, ordered not to associate with "Christians" who are immoral, covetous, swindlers, and so forth, they are simultaneously told that not associating with such people who are not believers is specifically not what was intended.

This thought accords well with the actions of Jesus, in fact. He was oft criticized for associating with the sinners of His time, with the tax-gatherers in preference to the "religious leaders' of the day, namely the Sadducees and Pharisees.

Yet over and over the religious world will take passages like II Corinthians 6:14, take them out of context and teach false doctrines that Christians should have no form of contact with the unbelievers.

It was foolishness such as this that led to the ridiculous extremes expressed by many hermit monks in the middle ages.

It is insistence on looking only at what is on the persons mind at the moment instead of putting a passage in context with the rest of the Holy Writings that leads preachers and teachers of the Scripture to speak falsehood in the name of God.

Now, this is not to advocate that Christians should go forth and spend all or most of their time with the liars, cheats, drunks, profane, idolaters, or whatever the sins of the people might be to the exclusion of all else.

Quite the opposite. The reasons Jesus had for His associations were to bring the truth to them and give them an opportunity for repentance.

We who would be like Christ should therefore do likewise.

Do not seek solitude to the exclusion of contact with others, nor yet refuse to use your time as Christ would have you use it.

Have friendship first with God and His people, and make room also for those to whom you might bring the light.

Who speaks?

2009-11-04T23:28:00.000-08:00

God, after he spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature

Hebrews, first chapter, verses 1- first part of verse 3

There was a time when God's truth may have been variable for various people. If so, that time was long past long before the final writers of the Holy Scriptures departed this vale of tears. In the final age, often referred to as the Christian Age as opposed to the Mosaic Age or the Patriarchal Age, there is but one way God speaks to us; through His Son.

Jesus left behind a record of the attitudes and teachings He dispensed while on earth, most of which was passed on to us through the writings that compose the New Testament. To the best of our knowledge, Jesus left no written record of His own, but rather entrusted His message to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the writer of Hebrews, James, Jude and Peter.

There are many people, then and since, who believe they are wiser than Jesus. Oh, they will not say as much and, in fact, would find such an accusation ridiculous at best and highly offensive at worst.

Yet when we try to bind on others teachings which are not to be found in the Word which Jesus left, that is exactly what we are doing. If people would simply read the Word for what it is instead of trying to prove their great wisdom by finding in Scripture things which other Christians have overlooked for lo, these two millenniums, there would be much less confusion and problems within the Christian world.

The phrase, "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent", attributed to Alexander Campbell, bears a great deal of truth. Consider the thought given oin the closing verses of Revelation 22, particularly verse 18.

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

Even the most cursory examination reveals that he is speaking specifically of the book of Revelation, yet the concept is one that runs throughout the whole of the Bible.

Think on what happened when Balaam made a 'slight modification" to the message he had received.

Consider how Saul had his entire line wiped out when he took upon himself the authority and offices he was not qualified to take.

Consider how Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law until all was accomplished (Matthew 5:18).

Galatians 1 is quite clear about the outcome for any who teaches a different Gospel. And one with things added to the teachings of Jesus is equally guilty of this charge as a teaching that takes away.

There is a reason things such as the "Boston Movement" are considered heretical by those who actually read the Scripture. Just as those who take away things such as the need for immersion (I Peter 3:21), those who add responsibilities not found in Scripture stand condemned before God, yet were you to ask anyone in the Boston movement, I suspect they would not think they were acting as if they were wiser than Jesus.

However, adding on to the Word of God is still doing just that. No man has the right or authority to do so. It is Jesus of whom God said He is the exact representation of the nature of God.

It would therefore behoove us to take that wisdom under advisement and seek only the purity of following the teachings of the representation of the nature of God, not the interpretations of fallible man, speaking where the Scripture is silent.

We Have Been Granted Everything

2009-11-02T09:58:00.000-08:00

From time to time a person might find themselves encountering a tricky moral dilemma which is not specifically addressed in the Bible. All too often, the answer we might come up with relies greatly on our "intuition" or cleverness.

Should anyone question the decision, it is not unheard of for a Christian to claim it is a matter the Scripture does not cover or address. But is that accurate?

In II Peter 1, versus 2-3, we see a passage which seems to counter-act the idea that we can find ourselves in a situation where the true path to serving God might not be answered in the Bible.

Specifically, the passage says that the divine power of God has granted us everything pertaining to life and Godliness through the true knowledge of Him who called us.

If we therefore claim that God has not left instructions on how to deal with a particular situation, we reveal our own failure, not His. He says we do indeed have the tools we need to discern the correct path.

In fact, if we continue on in the chapter, we see a list of 9 qualities which we can, nay must possess, for if we possess them, verse 10 tells us that if we have these qualities and they are increasing, we are rendered "neither useless nor unfruitful".

It therefore behooves us to study these qualities relentlessly and, more importantly, actively seek to instill them in our lives.

It would seem clear from the passage that faithful study will bring us to knowledge of the principles God would have us live our lives by. If we cannot figure out the path God would have us take in a given situation, it is because we have not studied His word as we ought and have not figured out what moral excellence is, even though the Scriptures have the tools we need.

So study the passage. Study the qualities. Work to instill them in your life. And with the continued study of the Word of God, if you approach it to learn what God would have us do rather than approaching it to prove your own point, you will soon find that answers to what you ought to do are indeed revealed within the Word of God.

Grace and mercy to you all.

The Fruit of the Spirit

2009-10-14T14:09:00.000-07:00

Galatians 5:22-23 is famous for being the Fruit of the Spirit.

If you take a few moments to consider that, you will quickly realize that the attributes listed there are things that belong in the lives of anybody who is a Christian.

Of course, one should take it in context and therefore should read Galatians through, then begin again a few verses prior to get the sense of why he would write that.

When you do, it quickly becomes apparent that this chapter is an excellent test of where you stand in your Christian life. If you have the listed qualities, you clearly have felt the effects of the Holy Spirit in your life. If not, then you will be demonstrating the things seen in verses 19-21.

So if there is such a clear demarcation of what qualities a Christian needs to possess, does it not behoove us to on a daily basis examine the specific actions we took that day and see whether or not they fall into the category of things approved by a person who demonstrates the Fruit of the Spirit?

Take the time to look at your action. Did it show the Biblical love? I do not mean the modern non-sensical version. True love is not an emotion, it is not something that you can "fall into" or, even worse, "fall out of". Love is something you do and there is a Scriptural definition of it.

Do your actions show the joy that comes from living in Christ, living spiritually with the desires and passions of the flesh? Are you showing the joy of your salvation in the things you say and do?

I could go through the entire list this way, but I think the point is obvious. Study these things, study your actions, and see if your life reflects having the Fruit of the Spirit or whether it reflects the sinful nature listed in the prior verses.

This will be a valuable benchmark in your Christian walk.

Is "The Placing of Fellowship" Scriptural? Part 8

2009-10-11T12:58:00.000-07:00

In part 8 we will begin in Colossians. As is his habit, Paul begins with a greeting discussing the source of his authority and to whom he is writing.

Paul was an apostle by the will of God (1:1) and was writing in conjunction with Timotheus. He was writing to the "saints and faithful brethren which are at Colosse" (v.2).

Note that to Paul, who likely had not visited Colossae at this point, the saints in that city were already brethren.

Here is a good point to interject some historical knowledge into the situation with the caveat that this is conjecture, not inspired Scripture, but it is a point worth thinking about.

The population of the region was held to include 11,000 Jewish males based on the work of Cicero. There were numerous other peoples in the region so the population of the town at a time where travel took much longer than it does today. Nowhere is it revealed how many saints were at Colossae. Do you suppose they all gathered together or that they were in 2 or more congregations based on population, travel capabilities, acoustics, and such factors?

This is of course nothing but a thought question that we do not have a Biblical answer to and as a result is at best something we can make educated guesses on.

What we know for sure is that Paul considered these people to be saints and faithful brethren, even though they were about 1200 miles apart.

Furthermore, the people at Colossae are remarked on for their virtue of having love for ALL the saints (v. 4)

Just as we have already seen, there is but one kingdom. This is re-emphasized in verses 1:9-3:11. It is quite a lengthy passage that deals again and again with the same theme.

For example, in verse 12 he discusses the way Paul and Timotheus, along with the Colossians whom he has never met are fellow partakers of the inheritance of the saints.

Together, they have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus (v. 13). There is but one kingdom, not several. In case this has not been made abundantly clear by the dozens of references we have seen in the first 8 parts, he once more states it clearly, indisputably, and unarguably; there is one church. "And he is the head of the body, the church." (v. 18)

Paul, in Rome, and the saints at Colossae, are part of the same body. If someone is of a different body than that of Scripture, they are not a Christian but instead part of a perversion of Christ, a different Gospel and we have already seen that means they are to be accursed.

We should tread lightly when we dispute with the Scriptures which clearly and repeatedly tell us there is one body, one church, one kingdom, a unity of the saints.

He continues the thought, telling us the purpose of Jesus dying on the cross was to keep the saints settled in the faith and hope of the gospel (20-23).

Paul then references the persecutions and tribulations he himself had suffered and points out he has done so for the sake of the body of Christ..."which is the church." (24).

Paul goes on to show us he makes no distinction whom he preaches Christ to (v. 28) which begs the question; who are we to do that which Paul would not?

Paul stresses that he has had conflict for all whom have seen him (2:1) which we know was a vast number of people, for he traveled extensively, staying some times for short periods and other for long lengths of time. He traveled with a variety of companions, and other times sent forth trusted brethren to work in areas he could not. He encountered various people who were also going from place to place and the purpose that all the conflicts he experienced was, "that their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love" (v. 20).

Furthermore, let us briefly consider the nature of Christianity. Is is spiritual or physical? This requires the reader to have familiarity with Scripture and Scriptural concepts. If you do not, then please study the Word with great seriousness and dedication to discover it. Paul wrote that our battle was not against flesh and blood but against the spiritual powers of darkness.

Knowing that Christianity is in many ways far more about spirit than physicality, what meaning does that impart to his statement in verse 5, "for though I be absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in the spirit"? I think it is clear that Paul is stating he has fellowship with those of Colossae...again, people with whom he had limited or no physical contact. yet he was with them in spirit. Was he fellowshipping with them or not? We do know he considered them his brethren(1:2).

He then tells us yet again that we are rooted in and built up in Christ (v. 7), not in the local congregation, not in the teaching of Paul, not in anything but Christ. Everything starts there.

He also warns us not to be spoiled by philosophy, vain deceit, the rudiments of the world, or vain traditions.

Now, I have heard the placing of fellowship defended as tradition and asked what the harm was. The harm is simple; it leads to people applying other "good ideas' of man that are not part of the Scripture. It leads to further false teachings and expectations of other a-or anti-Scriptural behaviors. It contradicts the sacred writings, which ARE inspired, in favor of the ideas of men which are not inspired.

Instead, we are complete in Christ (2;10-12). We are buried with Christ, not with other Christians. The importance is not in meat, drink, or holy days, but is rather the body of Christ (v. 16-17) and all the joints are knit together (v.20), which clearly speaks against the division inherent in saying that different congregations are different bodies. They are unified in the body of Christ and to say otherwise is to contradict the clear, concise, inspired statements of Scripture.

So then in chapter three we see that we are risen with Christ (v. 1) and there is no division; Christ is all and in all (v. 11). You are not a Greek Christian...you are a Christian. You are not a Jewish Christian...you are a Christian. You are not a barbarian Christian...you are a Christian. You are not a Californian Christian...you are a Christian. You are not an American Christian...you are a Christian.

Either you are a Christian or you are not. If you are a Christian, then all the trappings of Christianity are part of you; brotherhood with all who believe, with all the saints, having Christ in you and being in Christ. You are in fellowship with all who are in Christ.

If you are in fellowship with all who are in Christ, and someone is not in fellowship with you because you have not placed fellowship with them, where does that put the person who is not in fellowship with the one who is in Christ?

In case this is not clear, Paul once again points out there are two states; those within and those without (4:5). Either you are within Christ or you are outside of Christ.

He then foes on to send Tychicus to find out in person what is going on with the Colossians (v. 7) and to tell them in person how he is doing (v. 8). Along with Tychicus, he sent Onesimus, " a faithful and beloved brother". Was Onesimus already a faithful and beloved brother to the Colossians?

he then goes on to list a variety of fellow workers and they extend their greetings (10- 18). There are some interesting notes here.

The people at Laodicea are brethren to Paul. We do not know where Nymphas and the church in his house were. We do know that, just as those at Laodicea, they were brethren to Paul and since the admonition is for those at Colossae to greet the brethren, we know they were also brethren together. We have already seen that brotherhood is in Christ.

We are now 8 parts into this study. We have seen extensive examples that brotherhood is in Christ, that He has but one body and all who are Christians are brothers with one another. There is no distinction between location, nationality, origin, status as slave or free, Jew or Gentile, Greek or Barbarian, person of one city or another.

There has not been one command, principle, or example of people placing fellowship. Quite the contrary, we have seen repeatedly that even Christians who had never met WERE ALREADY AND CONTINUOUSLY in fellowship. All who are Christian are part of the body of Christ, and anyone who is part of that body is by definition in fellowship with all Christians everywhere. The one who has not has created an artificial division that contradicts the Word of God.

At some point we might return to this study, but for the time being, we will move on and look at some other matters.

This can be considered a conclusion for the time being.

If you have any questions, comments, or want to add your own thoughts, I encourage you to do so.

Is "The Placing of Fellowship" Scriptural? Part 7

2009-10-05T00:59:00.000-07:00

In the first 6 parts we have seen that divisions among the church are condemned and the unity of the church as one body is emphasized repeatedly.

We also saw in part 6 that the names of the books can lead one to false conclusions. If we simply read what is there instead of the name of the book then we will have a clearer view of what the Word of God says instead of what man has chosen to say about it.

That is far from being a distinction without a difference. The Word of God is inspired. What anyone, myself or anyone else, says about it is not.

When man comes up with ideas that contradict what the Word of God says, we already saw he is to be accursed (Galatians 1:8-9).

So here we see a difference between Ephesians and Philippians. Paul includes the saints and, in a separate line, the overseers and deacons (bishops and deacons in the King James) in a greeting that is from himself and Timotheus as a unit. (1:1)

When he discusses his memory of them, he then admits to being in fellowship to them because they have fellowship in the gospel (v. 5).

It is generally held that this book was written while Paul was imprisoned in Rome. It seems a reasonable assumption since he mentions his bonds, the palace, and the saints of Caesars household. That puts an interesting light on this passage.

Paul considers not only himself to be in fellowship with the Philippians, but also those who preach the gospel (1:14), including interestingly enough those who preach out of envy and strife (vs. 15-19).

So where is the fellowship of which he speaks? We see the answer in 2:1. It is in the Spirit. So our fellowship includes the element of being in the Holy Spirit, just as we earlier saw it includes a shared faith.

He later points out that one way he knows Timotheus seeks Christ is because Timotheus shares Paul's concern for the Philippians (2:18-21).

Epaphroditus was a messenger from the Philippians to Paul, but was Paul's brother. (v. 25). Whether it be Timotheus, Epaphroditus, the Philippians or Paul, they all fall under the same admonition (3:14-17) in the admonition to walk by the same rule.

We know little about Eudodias and Syntyche other than that they were admonished to be of the same mind (4:2). We do see that many people were fellow laborers with Paul, Clement, and other laborers (4:3). All are commended for being in the book of life.

This seems to be one of those fine opportunities to point out their membership in a specific congregation but instead we find them grouped in unity in the book of life.

I suppose we could have pointed to the grouping of all believers under the umbrella of church from 3:6, but we covered that previously.

We do see again that there are definitely congregations located in specific geographic areas (4:15) and we see they are all saints (4:21-22). The only differentiations are "the brethren which are with me" and "chiefly they that are of Caesar's household".

Paul of course was imprisoned. Those of Caesar's household clearly were not.

To which congregation did each belong? The only thing we know is they were all saints and Paul greeted them all equally. There is nothing stating either they did or did not belong to a specific congregation, but there is something specifically stating they were saints.

We as Christians have the responsibility to follow what Scripture says, not what we want it to say. Therefore, it is only what Scripture says that we can require of other Christians and from Philippians, we see that that requirement is to fellowship in the Gospel.

Is "The Placing of Fellowship" Scriptural? Part 6

2009-10-04T22:45:00.001-07:00

When Paul starts Ephesians, he again greets those to whom he is writing;
...to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus," v. 1

So again we see two things; there are certainly local congregations, and they are one with all who are faithful.

It is an interesting question what the nature of these local congregations is. We know, from what was shown back in Acts, that there were elders in every congregation Paul had visited. We know that the elders and apostles from Jerusalem traveled frequently to help other congregations and discuss what they taught. We know regular people such as Priscilla and Aquila, and sometimes companions such as John Mark, Timothy, Titus and so forth also were well known in a variety of conversations.

It also seems reasonable to assume that some people did not travel at all but simply attended the same congregation all the time. But...it is important to note that is an assumption. To this point we certainly have seen no clear example of that. We definitely need to differentiate between what we know and what we think we know. This is a fine example of what we think we know, though things such as knowing some Christians were slaves and probably incapable of travel lends a great deal of weight to that thought.

As Paul continues, he again clearly links the Christians in Ephesus with Christians not in Ephesus, pointing out we were chosen to be holy and blameless (v. 4) and were are adopted as children by Jesus (v. 5).

We are also told where our redemption comes from; the blood of Christ (v.7). It is certainly worth harmonizing this with the rest of Scripture. When, where, how and why do you come in contact with the blood of Christ? Put some time into that study.

Sometimes there are questions to which the answers are known, other times questions to which they are not. So here is a question for you; how did the Christians in Ephesus show their love 'to all the saints" as it states in vs. 15?

This is not an idle question but rather one designed to get the reader thinking. the theme of the chapter and following verses certainly provide some clues to the answer.

We also have yet another important verse that illustrates a basic Christian truth; all saints are part of THE church. When I emphasize the word "the" it is because all true believers are part of the same church. Read verses 22-23 very carefully. This is explicitly stated. The church is the body of Christ.

This is one of those places where the chapter and verse divisions is rather unfortunate. As you probably know, those divisions were established around 1227, although an alternate version popped up between 1244 and 1248. What we know is by the publication of the Wycliffe version in 1382 accepted the divisions generally attributed to Stephen Langton in 1227.

The point is the divisions are not inspired. Sometimes they break up a context as they do between the end of Chapter 1 and chapter 2. The entire second chapter belongs with the verse talking about the church being the body of Christ.

Paul spends the second chapter reinforcing this basic truth. Verse 5 discusses us being quickened together with Christ. We are compared to aliens from the nation of Israel but now bought by the blood of Christ (v. 13) and "made both one" (vs. 16).

We are to be reconciled to God "in one body by the cross" (vs. 16) which we know we participate in by crucifying our old man with Christ at the time of conversion (Romans 6:6). He comes to a thunderous conclusion, pointing out that we are "fellow-citizens" with the saints (vs. 19) and all built into one building which is the temple of God (vs. 20-22).

Thus for at least 28 verses he focuses on this theme, that the saints who believe and are saved are all built on the same foundation, that we have become one body, that we are one temple of God.

But he is not done with this theme. He continues to drive home the point that all saints are part of the same body. It is in the context of Jews and Gentiles, with those to whom he is writing being Gentiles, that in chapter three, verse 6 he states, "that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel;" .

Sometimes throughout his writings Paul refers to the "mystery of the Gospel" or similar phrases and it makes verse 9 make sense in telling us our fellowship is right there; in the mystery.

Clearly, he is not sure that his point has been made as he chooses to repeat it once again in chapter 4.

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (v. 4) One Lord, one faith, one baptism (v. 5), One God and Father of all..." (v. 6).

If the unity of believers is not established by this point then it never will be. It has been his theme from the very greeting where he groups those in Ephesus with the faithful in Christ Jesus. He then clarifies the point of why there is this unity;

We have already seen that apostles, evangelists, prophets and teachers travel between the churches as need or wish arises. In verses 11-16 he tells us what their purpose is; to bring us to the unity of the faith (vs. 13) and knowledge of the Son of God, forming the whole body (v. 16).

At this point verse 25 seems like overkill. He has already emphasized the unity of those who are believers.

We do see some exceptions to the unity, however. Chapter 5, verses 3 - 5 show us some exceptions. This is not the first such list in Scripture, nor is it the last, but it is in the context of showing who is and who is not unified in Christ.

We are not of these people. We who are Christians are children of light (v. 8).

Since the theme of Ephesians is unity, he draws it together once more. Chapter 5:19-32 show us clearly that the church is the figurative wife of Christ. All the church. All who believe. All Christians are to share with one another in a variety of ways (v. 19), to submit to one another (v.21), and as a church to be subject to Christ (v. 23).

The purpose is to present a holy and blameless church (v. 27), of which all Christians are members (v. 30). He compares the church to a marriage repeatedly throughout this passage, interweaving the two. The husband and wife become one flesh just as the church becomes one flesh.

The idea of placing fellowship in an individual congregation certainly seems contrary to this concept, as Christ would then be joined to several bodies rather than to one. It would seem that in a book which speaks so eloquently on how the body of Christ is unified he could take time out to point out that each individual body is unified if that were the case, but instead he eschews that in favor of emphasizing that all believers are part of one body.

It is interesting that in his concluding remarks, he points to Tychicus as first a brother (6:21) and then a minister. It seems to once more emphasize the unity of the saints, as does his last remarks in verse 24: he extends his blessing, written in this letter, to "all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ" (v. 24).

I think this points to one of the flaws with how Christians study the Bible. I myself encountered a similar difficulty when I taught a class. Many Christians know so little about the history of the Bible and the difference between what is inspired and what is not that they for some time refused to accept the idea that not only the verse and chapter divisions were not inspired, they did not believe headings such as "concluding benediction", which is above verse 21 in my edition of the King James, were not inspired.

It also means when they see the title "The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians" they might mistakenly think it was written only to the Ephesians even though the most cursory glance at just the first and last words of the book clearly state that he was intending this to be to the entire body of the saints.

Little things like this are not little as they can lead us to false conclusions. This book is nothing short of a powerhouse tour de force of explanation that Christians are unified in one body and need to be working together.

There is but one Lord in whom we believe.

There is but one faith we can hold.

There is but one baptism we participate in.

There is but one body to which we belong.

To say otherwise is to contradict the introductory greeting, to contradict the theme of the book, to contradict verse after verse, thought after thought. It is to contradict the concluding blessing. But can it harmonize with other Scriptures? We will keep looking.

An example in action

2009-10-04T21:29:00.000-07:00

This morning in the announcements, his words were, "and to our visitors we extend the right hand of fellowship".

Such a simple sentence, but such deep meaning. I talked to him for a few minutes after about what constitutes fellowship and what doesn't. Here is a guy who is not an evangelist, elder or deacon but understands the very basic tenement of Christianity; all who are faithful to God are already in fellowship.

If I have time I will go into a brief discussion of Brother Hollingsworth's Communion talk as well as it was one of the three or four I remember best, right up there with Dan nelson's "benchmarks". Very, very good stuff but at the moment, just thought I should write about Ron so I do not forget.

Is "The Placing of Fellowship" Scriptural? Part 5

2009-10-01T12:50:00.000-07:00

In Galatians 1-2 Paul gives his customary greeting. He and those with him are brethren to the place he is writing. In verses 3 and 4 he points out again our unity through redemption from sin via the sacrifice of Christ.

There is only one gospel. This is a vital point to Paul which he will emphasize in verse 6-10. Servants of Christ preach the accurate Gospel, not one which is their own idea or consists of things not found in Scripture. The gospel already presented is the only one acceptable and any who preaches a different gospel is accursed.

But keep reading the chapter. Paul uses the term "church of God" interchangeably with "the churches of Judea" (vs. 13 and 22). Paul persecuted the church of God yet we know he traveled to do so (as Saul).

Who did Paul consult with in Damascus before going to see Peter? It is interesting to note he ended up preaching the same gospel (4:1-2). And reassuring. And as you study chapter 2, you see that they discussed the gospel that had been preached by Paul, and when that is completed they admit that yes, they believe the same thing and are therefore in fellowship already (v. 9). It is interesting to note the hand of fellowship was extended as they were leaving after determining they taught the same gospel.

Yet even in fellowship, when Peter acts wrong, Paul stands up to him (v. 11) and goes back to emphasize that unity is not with false teaching but in Christ (vs. 20).

In chapter three he begins comparing the church to the seed of Abraham, leading up to this explosive verse, verse 16: Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ"

Even the most cursory study of the Old Testament shows us there were 12 or 13 tribes depending on how you consider the half-tribe of Benjamin. Yet they were considered one seed. The church is then called the children of Abraham (vs. 7) which then clearly shows the church is one seed no matter how many tribes it may consist of. A man of Gad was a child of Abraham. A man of Dan was a child of Abraham. A Christian of Rio de Janeiro is a child of Abraham.

Lest this should be unclear we are provided verses 22-29. See particularly verse 26-27; For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. (27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

He is in a sense returning to the theme that ran through I Corinthians; there are two states. You have put on Christ or you have not. as we saw in Galatians 2, if you have put on Christ then you are in fellowship with all others who have done the same.

Galatians 4:5-6 again says we are unified as sons of God.

Those who are not unified are not of God. Galatians 4:22-23. If you are not in fellowship with other Christians then you are of the flesh. That is a bad place to be.

If you question that, see verses 28-30.

Paul will twice more emphasize the unity of all Christians; verse 10 where we shall do good to "the household of faith" and vs 16 where "as many as walk according to this rule" are grouped together.

Again we see there is no distinction based on location or elders or deacons or apostles; the only division is those who believe contrasted with those who do not.

Things to consider deeply.

Is "The Placing of Fellowship" Scriptural? Part 4

2009-10-01T11:48:00.000-07:00

In part 4 we will begin in the next book in sequence which is of course II Corinthians.

Beginning in the first verse of the first chapter, Paul again clarifies that when he writes to one he writes to many. "...unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia..."

First we note there is an established assembly at Corinth and that there is a larger pool of saints in Achaia.

And they all fall under the same umbrella in the eyes of Paul. They are clearly all united as saints.

We have already in the previous three portions well-established that Paul and a variety of companions associate freely with a wide variety of congregations and are in fellowship with each of them so I will for the most part by-pass mentions of further travels such as we see in verses 14-16.

W3e will, however, take a look at I Corinthians 1:21-22.
It is God who establishes us together in Christ. It is God who defines our fellowship.
Paul is speaking here of Timotheus*, Silvanus, Paul, and those to whom he is writing; all the saints which are in all Achaia.
Regardless of the fact they were not meeting together, all these people are established together in Christ by God. This is a pretty clear indication that people who are in Christ are in fellowship with one another even when separated by a distance...or at least, people in the same geographic area in this instance. (Note that this map is a modern map but shows the area of Achaia.)

This is a theme of II Corinthians, as we see the thought reiterated in chapter 5, verses 17-20. We who are converted are in Christ. That is our "home church", the root of our fellowship. Wherever we go, whatever we do, we are in Christ. When Christians go grocery shopping, they do so in Christ, reconciled to God through Christ.

When Christians go to work, the do so in Christ, reconciled to God through Christ.

When Christians go to enjoy some recreation, perhaps golfing or having a picnic or watching a sporting event or having family and friends over for dinner, they do so in Christ, reconciled to God through Christ.

When is this not true? It is a rhetorical question asked to clearly demonstrate that Christians, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, for the remainder of their faithful life, are doing everything they do in Christ, reconciled to Christ through God.

They are not "in a specific church" but rather in Christ's church, His body. That is the source and totality of their reconciliation to God according to Scripture.

The thought continues. Read chapter 6, verse 1. Paul and those working with him are working with Him...the second Him of course being Christ.

In I Corinthians we already saw that the nation of Israel was one body. In II Corinthians 6:16-18 we see the church is God's people and the church as a whole is the temple of God and the Christians are the sons and daughters of God. The passage emphasizes the unity of Christians.

There is no separation by location or by who their leader is. The Christians are unified as a temple of God and as the children of God.

In chapter 8:1-9:5 the point is a principle rather than a specific example. The various churches in Macedonia were sharing their means with the Corinthians who were in need. The King James refers to it as "the fellowship of ministering to the saints" (v. 4) and when we reach verses 13-14 we see that an abundance in one geographic location is to be used to make up a lack in another geographic location. This closely follows his telling us we are all the temple of God and shows clearly that the church is a unified whole even if the children of God are in many geographic locations.

The use of Titus to transfer the things needed from one location to another unifies this thought; spiritual abundance went one direction to fulfill those needs while monetary abundance went the other direction to fill those needs and the entire transaction was a sharing of burdens.

Geography did not separate the state of brotherhood but reinforced it. A need in one place is to be filled by the Christians who have the capability to do so and the mobility of saints and their assets is key to this function.

Titus apparently made the decision to carry things from one to the other on his own (v. 17). Paul sent with him "the brother" (v. 18) who was also sent by the churches (v. 19). Thus we see there are a variety of motivations for traveling between congregations; personal desire, helping the one we are assisting, or being sent by church leadership. All three are Scriptural according to this passage. We have examples of all three in these verses.

This is a clear indication there was a great deal of communication between the various assemblies as individuals and overall church leadership (we know the churches all had elders from where it said in Acts 14:23) were aware of needs and the need to help others was seen and acted upon.

It is not a new thought then in II Corinthians 9:7-15 when he says the giving of money in one direction and prayer in the other direction is subjection to the gospel of Christ (v. 13). The gospel of Christ then includes fellowship and sharing with the saints of God. We have already seen repeatedly and in this case specifically that the saints of God are spread throughout a wide geographic area which then means that all saints are in fellowship.

The unity of saints all belonging to Christ is again stated in II Corinthians 10:7. Yes, all who are saints belong to Christ.

II Corinthians 10:8-11:10 Read this passage, then ask yourself the question; to which church did Paul belong? He traveled extensively, stayed sometimes for short periods and sometimes for long periods in a variety of places. He reported his deeds to several places and had a special affinity for Jerusalem and Antioch. He emphasizes repeatedly that believers are part of the body of Christ, has used the symbolism of Christians being the bride of Christ.

Yet we see that even when not in Corinth he had authority in Corinth (10:8). This is his authority as an apostle and helps explain the wonderful practice wherein traveling evangelists are frequently requested to speak when they visit other congregations. Their authority as ministers of the gospel does not end at the door of the place they normally preach but extends throughout all of the church. How could this be if the church was not unified?

Is there any reason the same would not be true of elders, deacons, teachers, and Christians in general?

Just to remind us of the picture he used in the prior letter, Paul again says the church is espoused to one husband (11:2) and if the various churches were various brides, Christ would be a polygamist which would be a clear contradiction of New Testament teaching.

So clearly, the fellowship of believers extends beyond wherever you are. If you are an evangelist in Newark, New Jersey then you are an evangelist when you go to Athens, Greece and vice versa. The same holds true for whatever position you hold within the church, whether it is something that is a Scriptural office or if "merely" a believer. And being a believer is not a "merely" in the eyes of God but truly a gift He has given us.

He restates this in 11:28, telling us it is his duty to care for 'all the churches".

In his conclusion, II Corinthians 13:5 tells us yet again how we know whether we are part of the body of Christ, whether we are a son or daughter of God, whether we are part of the body of Christ; "...examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith..."

Again, it is not specified to a location but simply whether a person is in the faith.

In the studies so far we have seen numerous examples of unity in God of churches in a variety of geographical locations. We have seen that authority held in one location transfers to another. We have seen we exist in one of two states; disciple or not disciple. We have seen examples of conversions. We have seen examples of sharing. We have garnered principles of unity.

But we have yet to see a single command, example, or principle that shows a person belongs to an individual congregation and not to the entirety of them. We shall keep looking for that.

* When putting together this study I primarily worked from the King James and so use the spellings found therein for Timothy and so forth.

Is "The Placing of Fellowship" Scriptural? Part 3

2009-09-30T02:31:00.001-07:00

Due to the lengthy nature, I have divided this into several parts. Part 1 is here and part two can be found here.

As you go through these, I again encourage you to do so with Bible in hand and prayer in your heart. God's Word should not be taken lightly nor played around with.

I Corinthians 1:2 tells us who the letter is written to.
1) The church of God which is at Corinth
2) to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints
and
3) with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.

So clearly there were assemblies which regularly met in specific towns. The instruction was to all Christians. they all have the same Lord.

Why would he emphasize that? After calling Jesus Christ "our Lord", Paul repeats it while pointing out it is the same Lord as that of those who in every place call upon the name of Jesus.

It is clearly a preface to the serious matter he is about to address, namely the factions and divisions that had arisen in the early church.

The gist begins in verse 10 and continues for several chapters, though he specifically addresses these divisions the first time only through verse 16.

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. (12)
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (13)

I have in the past assumed the connection is clear but apparently was wrong. Paul is emphasizing the unity of the church throughout the world. In context, you can easily replace the names of people for the names of locations.

"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Moscow; and I of London; and I of Boston; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?" would be the paraphrase. Since all that in every place call upon the name of the Lord have the same Lord, there can be no division between locations and anything which seeks to set up dividing lines between those congregations or between different leaders is a direct contradiction of Scripture.

In chapter 3 Paul returns to the example, this time using solely himself and Apollos. We know they were not really the ones being referenced because he explicitly states that in 4:6. But before doing so, he points out that regardless of who taught or baptized the saint, all saints belong to Christ (3:22-23)

I encourage you to go back and read chapter 3 again. Seeking to identify with anything other than Christ means you are carnal-minded (v.4) and contradicting God's plan for the church (vs. 9, 16)

Paul then sends Timotheus to continue what Paul had taught "every where in every church" (v. 17) which indicates they had worked together for quite some time if Timotheus knew the thought processes of Paul.

In chapter 6 we find some things that Christians had escaped from after which Paul returns to the figure of the body of Christ. Every Christian is part of the body of Christ (v. 15).

How many spirits are there in this sense?

He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. (v. 17)

If you are joined to the Lord in that one spirit, your physical location matters not, you are joined with the entirety of the body of believers. That is the clear teaching of this passage.

Chapter 8, specifically verses 5-6, have some application but since it is a bit more abstract, I shall leave it to the reader to determine if they wish to pursue that line and we shall keep on with the clear statements regarding the matter at hand.

Chapter 10 is a lengthy dissertation that demonstrates the entire nation of Israel was one body (v. 1,2,3,4, 18) and so too is the church (v. 16-17). All who partake of the communion are one body. You cannot partake of the communion body of Christ and not be part of the Spiritual body of Christ (v. 21).

When discussing the communion further, Paul discusses divisions that are of a different nature than those he discussed earlier (v. 18). Clearly, these divisions are related to how the local congregation partook of the Lord's Supper.

He then goes into a discussion of Spiritual gifts. Beginning in 12:11 and continuing through vs. 27 he applies again the picture of the church as one body with many members.

Verse 12-once again clearly and succinctly makes a very vital statement: For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ (12).
For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

As usual, the Bible says exactly what it means and what we need to follow. All who are baptized, and this has been consistent through Acts, Romans, and now I Corinthians, all who are baptized are baptized not into a congregation, not into following a particular preacher or sect or apostle, but are baptized into one body, the body of Christ.

In fact, verse 25 seems to specifically reject the idea that different congregations are to be considered separately; "that there should be no schism in the body. Any division, whether "natural" or artificial, is to be rejected. All who belong to Christ are part of the same body and not to be divided.

Now we come to what might be considered a puzzling passage if we ignore the remainder of Scripture. I Corinthians 14: 23-34. "if therefore the whole church come together" (v. 23) is followed by "let your women keep silence in the churches" (v. 34).

Is this an indication that there were multiple gatherings of people in Corinth that sometimes gathered in smaller groups and at other times came together in a relatively massive assembly? That is admittedly how I read it, though I have heard other explanations.

So which church did an individual belong to; the
sub-group", the "whole church' of Corinth that encompassed the various sub-gatherings...or the body of Christ?

This is one of the few places in Scripture where the order of service is in any way, shape or form discussed (and in an interesting side note , very seldom followed in the churches of today). If those discussed belonged solely to the Corinth church or one of the sub-groups, then all the material heretofore contradicts this passage as Paul always previously has discussed the unity of the entire body of Christ.

Conversely, if he is discussing the order of service in their specific congregation, as seems to be indicated by his comparison to "all the churches of the saints" in verse 33, then it harmonizes with the remainder of Scripture.

Quick question; who are the "saints" referenced in I Corinthians 16:1?We can see they are not the people of Galatia (vs. 1) or Corinth (vs. 2).

(Somewhat of a trick question, though not much of one if you read through I Corinthians before beginning this portion of the study as the answer is given in verse 3).

Paul then closes with his itinerary, his hopes for Timotheus, Apollos, and the travels of various people (v. 17). He discusses the greetings of various congregations and again mentions that "all the brethren" greet those in Corinth (v. 20)

So just as we saw in part 2, we note that there are individual congregations in Corinth, in households (see the verse on Priscilla and Aquila), and that they have regular interaction (chapter 14).

This time we see there are divisions creeping in revolving around who the saints followed for which they are roundly chastised and admonished to repent.

Just as a common thread running through Romans was the two possible states, the common thread running through I Corinthians has to do with the unity of the body, there being but one body. Any claim to follow anyone other than Christ is anathema to Paul. This is a lesson we would do well to learn.

Is the "Placing of Fellowship" Scriptural? Part 2

2009-09-29T13:57:00.001-07:00

In part 1 we saw that in the early church there was no example of people placing fellowship or belonging specifically to an individual congregation exclusively but rather that people moved freely and frequently among the various faithful churches, fellowshipping with all who were disciples.

In part 2 we will begin in Romans and see what examples, commands and principles there are regarding to which individual congregation a person should belong.

Romans 1:1-8 Obedience to the faith was among all nations. There was no distinction. Rome had many saints. It is unclear if all gathered in one location or if there were multiple congregations within the city. All we know for sure is all in Rome called saints were the recipients of this greeting.

We can extrapolate that there was interaction between the saints at Rome and the saints elsewhere from verse 8, as we clearly see their reputation had spread. As we shall see later, this may partially have been through the written word as letter-writing was obviously quite extensive in the early church, but as we saw in part one, so was travel both of apostles, prophets and teachers, but also of those who were companions (Timothy being a fine example) or just traveling on their own (Priscilla and Aquila).

Romans 3 takes up a line of thought that when it comes to salvation, it does not matter if a person is Jew or Gentile. In the end, "it is one God, which shall justify..." (v. 30). If there is one God who justifies and it matters not if those justified are Jew or Gentile, then their location would seem on the surface to be of little import. There are two states: justified or not justified.

Romans 4:7 reinforces this point; either iniquities are forgiven or they are not.

To clarify, either you have been saved or you have not.

This concept of 2 states, either saved or condemned, is an ongoing theme. I encourage you to read the entire book of course, and read each chapter again as you come across these points. Chapter 5, particularly v6, continues the theme, telling us Christ died for the ungodly.

The context is He died for both Jew and Gentile, that at this point it matters only if a person is forgiven or not, if they are still in their sins or have had those sins removed.

Verse 12- 19 show that all have sin and therefore all need to come to repentance.

Pay close attention to verse 18; we are dealing with all men everywhere.

And now we must pause as we come to Romans 6. For the first time in his written work, Paul will tell us how we can receive forgiveness of sin. Here we have specific instruction on the plan of salvation.

Romans 6: 3-10 When you are baptized, it is into the death of Jesus. Your old man, the man of sin, is symbolically crucified with Christ. He is dead and gone, to trouble you no more.

We are raised to live a new life, a life of purity and holiness, a life dedicated to serving Christ.

Verse 10 explicitly states that the new life we live, we "liveth unto God".

The relationship we bear is between God and ourselves. The life we lead is to God, for God, and about God.

So if baptism is the moment when our old man is crucified, when we enter into a new life with our Savior, when our sins are forgiven, when our new responsibilities to show the new man and take on his rights and responsibilities, would this not be a great location for Scripture to tell us we now belong to the local church?

But it does not; instead, it tells us we belong to God. We are "servants of righteousness" (v. 18), and"servants to God (v. 22).

In chapter 7 we begin looking at the believers as belonging to the body of Christ. Verse 4 pictures us as married to the body of Christ.

This is a very important concept. When you are baptized, you become part of the body of Christ, married to Christ in a figurative sense. Again, looking back at the theme of two states of being, we are presented two possible states:

Either you ARE part of the body of Christ.

Or you are not.

There is no state of "I am part of the body of Christ in Timbuktu but not in Moscow".

There is only this; part or not part.

Chapter 8 again points out the two states which are possible; under condemnation or not under condemnation (verse 1). Seeking after the flesh or seeking after the spirit (v. 4-9)

Are we in the flesh or the Spirit? (v. 9) If in the Spirit, then the Spirit of God dwells in us. Verse 10 is so important I will quote the King James version: "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of unrighteousness."

Either you have the spirit of death or the Spirit of righteousness. There is no other possibility.

As important as that is, perhaps even more important in the context of this study would be verse 14: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Either you are led by the Spirit or you are lost. You are the son of God or you are not.

All who are led by the Spirit, wherever they are, are sons of God. If you are a son of God, you are brother to the person who is the son of God living in the Andes Mountains of South America, to the Kenyan tribesman who is the son of God, and to the next door neighbor who is the son of God.

2 states. You are or you are not.

Do not believe me? Read Romans 8:14-17. We are the children of God and joint-heirs.

Keep reading. All creation groans together and waits together (v. 22-23).

In chapter 9 Paul laments the state of Israel and compares the church to the nation of Israel. Verse 24-26 tell us we who serve God have the status once imputed to Israel; "there shall they be called the children of the living God."

Again and again we see that either you are or are not the child of God. It matters not where you live or which congregation of believers you are with at any given moment; either you are the child of God or you are not.

Romans 10:8-13 often get glossed over in the various churches of our association for they specifically state that "and shalt believe in thine heart that god hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (v.9). They should not be glossed over but celebrated for we know that all Scripture fits together. The person who believes will follow the entire Gospel. All Scripture must fit together and any Scripture which can be taken two ways, one of which fits with the rest of Scripture and the other which would contradict it, must by definition follow the first.

In chapter 12 we get a specific command on how to serve God. We are to present ourselves to God as a "living sacrifice" (v. 1-2).

We are then told there are many members of one body (v.4) and then comes yet another key verse.

So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. (v5)

He goes on to talk about the different functions various people have. Prophecy, ministering to others, teaching, exhorting, giving, ruling, showing mercy. All these things are between the saints.

We have already seen the entire book showing there are exactly 2 possible states; saved or not. If you are saved, you are part of one body. If you are not, then you are not.

Just to emphasize this, check out Romans 14:7-8.

When Paul is making his plans, he shows there is still a lot of interaction between the saints in the various locations (15:16-26).

Romans 16 will list several people;

Phebe is specifically a "servant of the church which is at Cenchrea" (v. 1) who is apparently traveling as she needs to be received by those to whom Paul is writing (v2).

this is the first time in the New Testament that someone is spoken of specifically being a servant of one particular congregation and that is important to note.
Next up are Priscilla and Aquila who we have already seen in several places as they journey about the known world making tents and working for God. Yet at this point in time they have a church in their house (v.5) and are owed a debt by "all the churches of the Gentiles" (v.4).
Right on down through verse 16 we receive name after name. It is uncertain where these individuals are at, though we can certainly extrapolate they are somewhere in Rome (Romans 1:7) since that is who Paul is writing to. We can also extrapolate that Rome has several churches as there is one in the household of Priscilla and Aquila (16:5), there are more than one churches of the Gentiles (16:4), and there is another congregation revolving around the people named in verse 14.

So clearly, there were people who associated primarily, though not exclusively, with individual congregations.

And all through the book we have seen they existed in one of 2 states; part of the body of Christ or not part of the body.

So despite copious opportunities in Acts to show conversion as including belonging to a specific congregation, there is no recorded instance of so doing. In Romans we have a great deal of teaching showing that all who believe are part of one body and are either in or out of grace. The various assemblies had a great deal of interaction and knew each other well which indicates a large deal of mingling from some source.

So to this point we can neither confirm nor deny that placing fellowship or having a home church is either Scriptural or anti-Scriptural, though to this point the evidence is clear that a person belongs to the body of Christ, not to an individual location.

Is the "Placing of Fellowship" Scriptural? Part 1

2009-09-27T23:05:00.000-07:00

Part 1 of a multi-part series

One of the vivid memories of my youth growing up in church revolved around a family starting to attend church regularly in St. Helens instead of in Longview.

They were a family I knew well. The Grandfather had long been a preacher and was known for his strict adherence to Scripture. His sermons often consisted of little but a string of Scriptures that he felt no need to add to. He was an excellent evangelist but had passed away by this point, a loss for all who knew him or felt his influence.

Anyway, after they had been coming for a few weeks, one Sunday evening the patriarch of the family stood at the invitation to make an announcement.

"We have decided to place our fellowship here." One by one the wife, son and daughter did the same.

I found this very, very confusing. Nobody had ever done this before. Not KJ when he became interested in a young lady from the church and began attending. Not the Allens when they moved up from Coos Bay. Not the Richardsons when they came to help with the preaching. Not the various new converts or Jim Moss when he returned from Colorado (though that actually happened AFTER the event I am referencing.) Nobody.

I was not even sure what it meant.

So I asked. And the off-hand response was, "it is a habit acquired from denominations that is drifting into the churches of Christ."

It was the last time I could recall it ever occurring, which is not to say it did not happen again, simply that it would not be such a shock again as it would not again be a new experience.

The teaching is popping up again as both locally and in California it has been encountered in recent weeks. Had a quite ironic (because of the timing) text exchange with a sister who lives in California who had just been asked her intentions regarding doing so.

Her response and mine were pretty much the same. We pointed to the complete lack of any reference to "placing fellowship" anywhere in Scripture and the passages showing there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, among others.

We got two very different responses.

Be that as it may, what if the nearly 39 years of teaching I have had on the subject is wrong? After all, it is not what any person says about a teaching that matters; it is God and God's Word that determine truth. Anyone who teaches contrary to it is in great danger. Consider Galatians 1:6-9

It is so important that Paul quotes himself from the very previous sentence. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

The Gospel is generally considered to be short-hand for the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Romans 6:3-6 clearly shows that entry into the Church that belongs to Jesus is through sharing in his death, burial and resurrection in a figurative sense so if I get wrong what they grants me entry into , then clearly I stand in danger of preaching a gospel contrary to that which the Corinthians had received. As such, it would behoove me to study the Scriptures carefully to see what they say i need to do to enter into fellowship with Christians.

I considered several ways of approaching this. Needless to say, I read the new Testament through several times to ensure I had a grasp of the verses and concepts involved. And I think it is perhaps easiest to just go through book by book to see what is said.

Since the Gospels reveal the life of Christ and the church was not yet in existence, we can start with Acts where the church as we know it started. There are similarities to the chosen nation of Israel but there are key differences as well.

However, before we do that we will take one vital Scripture that tells us how many churches Jesus intended to found.

Matthew 16:12-28

Key in on verse 18 where He says, "I will build My churches"...or, rather, "My church". As he continues on to speak about it, it is always singular. One church.

And now let us look at how the church or churches developed.

ACTS

In Acts 2 Peter is preaching to the Jews gathered in Jerusalem. At the conclusion of his sermon many people were converted. We pick up the thread in verse 38, though I would strongly encourage you to begin in the first verse of Acts 1 to completely make sure you comprehend the context.

Acts 2:38-47

Those who were saved and were added met in the temple and in a variety of houses. They started with 3000 people and an undefined number were added daily.

There is no distinction between those who met in the temple and those who met in the various houses. There is no clarification that all the people met together nor that they met separately...but we can certainly intuit that more than 3000 people were not meeting in individual houses.

It could be read in verse 46 that all met together in the temple on a daily basis as well as meeting in a variety of houses.

Unquestionably, whether they met in the temple or in the various homes, they were one church (v.47). Thus we see that when the church was founded, anyone converted by the first sermon or those following shortly, regardless of where they were from (Acts 2:9-11) were part of the same church.

Acts 3:1-4:35 In his sermon Peter emphasizes the unity of Israel under God (3:13, 20-26). He then shows that salvation is solely through Jesus (4:10-12). Thus any salvation which originates from any person, place or thing that is not Jesus is not a Scriptural salvation.

Shortly, they return to tell of what happened (4:23) in what appears to have been a testimonial of the power of God to work in their lives as illustrated by the response.

We then see that all those in Jerusalem had all things in common (verse 32-36). We have already seen that they met in a variety of places yet were one church back in chapter 2.

Acts 5:42 tells us again that daily in the temple and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus. At least at this point in time, the church in Jerusalem was in a variety of places.

We also see the church appears to sometimes have met all together (Acts 6:1-2) for meals and other times from house to house. Their numbers continue to grow (vs. 7).

The first recorded dispersion of the Gospel from Jerusalem occurs after Stephen is stoned to death.

Acts 8:1 tells us they scattered all through Judaea and Samaria except the apostles, possibly because of the command the apostles received in Acts 1:4?

We see Philip converting people in Samaria in 8:5. This causes apostles from Jerusalem to travel to Samaria (8:14) and later return, preaching in a variety of villages on the way (vs. 25).

This causes several questions to arise. Since the people dispersed due to persecution by those who refused to believe, it seems that is one reason people move. Were apostles a special case in their travels? They visited a number of places to preach and lay hands on people.

Philip also traveled, and apparently quite extensively as we shall see. So far, all the people we have a record of traveling are fleeing persecution or preaching...though those are also the only people doing things out of the ordinary and as a result would be the only people we have a record of their doings.

Philip now teaches the Ethiopian eunuch who is converted (Acts 8:26-39). Was the eunuch then a church of one? It seems he returned to work under Candace in Ethiopia.

Philip, on the other hand, continued to travel and preach (vs. 40) until he came to Caesarea at which time he departs the inspired record.

In chapter 9 we come upon Ananias. He was a disciple in Damascus and part of a body of believers who were there (v. 19) and learned enough in the Scripture to be the one selected to tell Saul what he had missed.

After his conversion, he was a disciple...it just took some longer to believe it than others as evidenced by the need for Barnabas to show those in Jerusalem that Paul had, indeed, become a disciple (v. 26-28).

It is interesting to note that if the idea of placing of fellowship was Scriptural, Saul would have done so. Instead, the apostles acknowledged that his status as a disciple meant they were already in fellowship.

Later in chapter 9 the thread moves to Peter as he travels to Lydda and then Joppa (32-43). At the very least, Peter moved frequently among the churches as can be seen from his reputation preceding him to Joppa.

Soon thereafter, Peter will be called to Caesarea to speak to Cornelius. Acts 10:23 tells us that when he went, brethren from Joppa accompanied him to Casarea. Acts 10:34-35 tells us who is accepted into the Church which belongs to God; "he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him..."

Acts 11:1-2 lets us know there was certainly interaction between the various congregations as before Peter could return to Jerusalem the news that Gentiles were part of God's kingdom was made it back.

Acts 11:19-30 tells us of a great deal more interaction between churches as the believers fleeing the persecution obeyed the so-called "Great Commission" and were preaching as they went with the result that many were being saved. Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch had visitors from Cyprus and Cyrene. This led to more experienced Barnabas being sent forth from Jerusalem.

He later brings Saul along and for a year they remain in Antioch. While they were there, they were visited by prophets from Jerusalem. Thus we clearly see that a great deal of travel between the various congregations was happening in the years following the persecution-inspired dispersion.

When the prophets were there, they foretold of a coming time of famine (vs. 28) and as a result, Saul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem with "relief" for the brethren in Judea. After completing their mission, or "ministry", they returned to Antioch. (Acts 12: 25).

Acts 13 tells us of 7 locations Saul, Barnabas, and John worked in before John returned to Jerusalem (v. 13). They then proceed to Antioch in Pisidia.

Soon persecution moves them on to Iconium. (v. 51) where they stayed for a significant amount of time (Acts 14:3). So far there are two places they have spent significant amounts of time and far more where the time is not recorded.

They then flee the persecution to Lystra and Derbe and that region to speak the Gospel (v. 6-7). After being stoned, Paul then returns to Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, Pisidia, Pamphylia, Perga, and Antioch where they gave testimony of their journeys (v. 20-28) and for a third time are recorded as spending a significant amount of time in one place.

While they are there some travelers arrive from Judea and begin spreading a false gospel which leads to several people from Antioch heading off to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders. (Acts 15:1-4)

After the conference, they send chosen men of their own company to the brethren in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (v. 22-27)

After dispensing the news of their decision to the brethren, Silas chooses to stay in Antioch (v. 34) as did Paul, Barnabas and "many others also" (v. 35).

Paul, ever ready to travel, then wants to go again to every city where they had preached the word to see how they were doing (v. 36)). Both men then go to a variety of cities (v. 38-41)

the case of Timothy now arises. Paul encounters him in Derbe (Acts 16:1) and Timothy is well known in Lystra and Iconium as well (v. 2). This indicates that Timothy, who we later see being admonished to "let no man look down on your youthfulness", has been traveling in his region or else others in the region have traveled to where he was.

Together with Paul he then goes on a journey to a great many more cities (v. 4-12).

Acts 17:1 tells of more traveling. Persecution keeps Paul moving while Silas and Timothy stay in Berea (v. 13-15).

In Acts 18:1-3 he meets Priscilla and Aquila who had just traveled to Corinth from Italy.

In verse 7 he stays at the house of Justus, a believer. For 18 months he stays there (v. 11)

When Paul decides to head back to Jerusalem, he takes Priscilla and Aquila with him ((v. 18-23) and visits a great number of churches.

Apollos was also a touring preacher (v. 24) who received instruction from Priscilla and Aquila (v. 26) and finds acceptance from the brethren in a variety of places (v. 27-19:1) where Paul comes by.

3 months and 2 years Paul then spends in a couple of places (Acts 19:8-10)/.

Acts 19:21-22 show more travel for Paul, Timothy and Erastus.

Back to Macedonia (Acts 20:1-3) and this time he has 7 companions recorded (v. 4). Troas is their home for 7 days (v. 6). V. 13 shows more travel, as do v. 14-17.

Here he calls to him the elders and gives them directions for how church affairs should be handled (v. 18-38).

A great deal more travel on their way to Jerusalem in chapter 21, including finding some disciples (v. 4) with whom to stay for a week.

Verse 7, they encounter and salute more brethren.

Philip re-enters the record in verse 8.

Agabus returns from Judea in verse 10.

When Paul finally returns to Jerusalem it is with "certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyrus..." (v.16.)

The remainder of Acts deals with Paul's' travels from Jerusalem to Rome.

So we see that in Acts many people traveled often from church to church. Sometimes they stayed for a short time, other times at great length. There is a great deal of instruction in the ways of God. There are many brethren encountered.

Nowhere to this point is there any mention whatsoever of anyone placing fellowship or belonging to a specific congregation. The closest we can come to that is the apostles remaining in Jerusalem most of the time, but even there we have extensive travel.

Conversely, we have acknowledgment time and again that if someone is a disciple, they are brethren with the disciples in other communities wherever they encounter one another.

Thus we see that in the book of history when the church is starting out, there is no record of "placing fellowship" or belonging to an individual congregation instead of the body of Christ. It was not for lack of opportunity.

With all the places Paul and his companions visited, with all the places Peter visited, with all the places Agabus pops up, it would have been quite easy to drop in a matter of fact comment such as, "and when we came to Joppa we placed our fellowship there" but there isn't. No such comment or intimation is ever made.

Instead we have regular, clear, and easy recognition of an existing state of brotherhood as disciples are encountered.

In part two we will look at the writings beginning in Romans to see what teaching there is on whether Christians belong to individual congregations or to one body and where the idea of placing fellowship or having a home church might originate.

A real truth

2009-09-27T23:02:00.000-07:00

"God has laid out the plan for the church. It is up to us to find it."
Clarence Eason, 9/27/09

Sadly, so myuch of the church world today loses sight of this fact. The church becomes a place to make social connections, a glee club, a place to put forth personal ideas.

Come Christmas time, some wag will again break out the tired slogan, "Jesus is the reason for the season."

No, Jesus is the reason for earth and our purpose had best be to find His will.

A Mission Statement

2009-09-26T01:59:00.000-07:00

This site will have studies on various Bible-related issues from time to time. However, they come with a caveat.

The Bible is quite clear on who bears responsibility for the salvation of any given individual: that individual. It does not matter who the evangelist is or how smart they are or how well they speak. What matters is how you respond to the Scripture and as such it behooves you to delve deeply into all matters spiritual for yourselves.

Consider these passages which you can look up at several great sites:

http://www.e-sword.net/ I greatly admire the concept of this site: do not charge for access to the Bible.

http://www.biblegateway.com/ A handy online passage search in a variety of translations.

And best of all, a hard copy at your side that you can easily search out not just the individual verse, but that which comes before and after it.

Philippians 2:12 tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. It does NOT tell us to have others work out our salvation.

Note this does not mean we are not to listen and listen closely: Romans 10: 14 speaks clearly to that.

But it does mean your salvation rests on your shoulders. Men are fallible. All of us. Me. You. The apostle Peter.

Thus it behooves us to follow the lead of the Bereans who worked and worked hard to verify for themselves the words of Paul. (Acts 17:11).

Now, if you are paying attention you will note a large problem with the preceding paragraphs. Not once, not twice, but thrice I have put forth individual verses. A single verse in a vacuum is an invitation to twisting and mis-interpreting.

Verses should be considered in the context of the passage, in the context of the book, and in the context of THE BOOK. They must fit with the whole of Scripture.

Failure to study the verses in the contexts they must be considered in leads to doubt, confusion, and false beliefs.

That does not mean efforts should not be made to persuade people of the truth. Indeed, Peter stood ready to remind people of things they knew well. (II Peter 1:12-15)

So we stand at an interesting crossroads. On the one hand, I encourage you to study the Word for yourself and not to trust to commentaries and publications of the current religious world.

Indeed, wolves in sheep's clothing such as James Dobson do far more damage to God's truth than Madalyn Murray O'Haire could have ever dreamed of doing simply by luring in once-faithful believers and infusing them with some of the falsehoods he teaches.

Imagine how much damage can be done if you go to a commentary, trust it, and find yourself directly opposing the precepts of God?

On the other hand, I in tend to put forth studies that will, in many senses, BE commentaries.

So do not simply read and accept. Read, consider, study, ask questions. Pray about the things you read and hear, wherever those sources may be.

If passages confuse you, go back and make them more basic. There is perhaps a truth we can pull forth from I Corinthians 14:33/ While the context is how spiritual gifts were to be used in the assembly, the plain statement should apply throughout our Christian walk; God is not a God of confusion and it seems it might be a fair assessment to say He would not give us a path to walk we could not understand.

Thus we have the mission statement for this particular blog. I shall endeavor to present Scriptural studies which might shine the light of God's truth for any and all who seek.

May the peace of God be with you,

Drew